It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice

page: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

I won't pretend it was a smart thing to tweet, because of course the media wouldn't bother to check what the context was they'll just report "this is what he meant" and get embarrassed later. They seem to enjoy it.

Asking the White House for comment, a lost art.


The media just reported what Trump said in his tweet. This is on Trump. If there was more context to what he said, it is his responsibility to be specific, or the media will report exactly what he said.


I'd agree if all the media did was say "Trump said this" and quote him exactly and left it at that. They didn't. They interpreted it themselves and ran a whole bunch of commentary on it, which turned out to be incorrect. If they want to do additional reporting, research would be prudent. The first step in that research would've been to ask the White House if he was confirming he's under investigation.

a reply to: introvert

It's possible he was referring to the story as the witch hunt, and not the investigation. The media intentionally or unintentionally often winds up convicting people in the court of public opinion long before we know all the facts. That was probably why Trump kept bugging Comey to announce he wasn't under investigation. The longer the false story is out there, the more it metastasizes in people's minds. He knows the correction way down the line won't get through to everyone. There's still idiots that think Mike Brown had his hands up in Ferguson.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: Combined replies




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

A whole lot of things are possible when you have a person you cannot trust enough to say what they mean, and have to go back and ask for context time after time.

Trump can say anything he likes and then his people come in after the fact and have to clarify and twist it so that it looks like he meant something else. His tweet looks like he's calling the investigation a witch hunt, not the media story.

That's exactly what they did here.

Trump makes a tweet, we take him for his word, but then someone comes in to say "well, that's not what he meant. He meant something entirely different".

At this point, he has no credibility.
edit on 16-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

If true that he was referring to WaPo story, Trump is a bigger idiot than I thought. Why would he tweet that without more context if that is what he truly meant?


Of course he was referring to the WaPo story. The other option is that the SC have told him about their investigation and what it is about. Extremely unlikely.

I suspect that Rosenstein's statement was to calm people down - take his advice (as should the President) and don't believe newspaper articles citing unnamed sources.


If he was referring to the WaPo story and it is not true, why did he call it a witch hunt?

He did not say, "WaPo fake news on me being under investigation. Media witch hunt".

He said: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

Sounds to me like the unnamed source familiar with issue, who said Trump was referring to the WaPo story, came out to play damage control after Trump got pissed and exposed himself on twitter.

Also, why are you believing an unnamed source that this was in reference to the WaPo story?

So much hypocrisy lately.


The basic fact remains, there is no word that Trump is being investigated by the SC.
A WaPo story about interviews and a guess about the reason is nothing more than speculation, something you seem very eager to participate in. Perhaps you should reread Rosenstein's caution about news stories, as you've been burned so many times relying on the MSM to push propaganda.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



The basic fact remains, there is no word that Trump is being investigated by the SC.


Yes, there is. We have Trump's word, unless you are going to believe an unnamed source as to the WaPo bit and not Trump.



A WaPo story about interviews and a guess about the reason is nothing more than speculation, something you seem very eager to participate in. Perhaps you should reread Rosenstein's caution about news stories, as you've been burned so many times relying on the MSM to push propaganda.


Nice try.

Again, why are you believing unnamed sourced and why are you so eager to run with their narrative that Trump meant something else?

Apparently you can't take Rosesntein's advice yourself. Hypocrisy again.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

a reply to: introvert

And, yes, he is under investigation.



Proof please.

So far you have articulated:
1) an incorrect assumption that documents passed to the SC mean they are investigating Trump
2) a story from unnamed sources that some interviews are being set up that you believe means Trump is under investigation (at WaPo's direction)
3) Trump complaining about a witch hunt and an investigation - whilst at the same time dismissing unnamed sources that say he wasn't confirming he is under investigation

I hope you have more...

My position is simply that we don't know and the last verifiable information we have is that Trump is not and never has been under investigation. Some of us more reasonable and measured people prefer to wait for facts.
edit on 16/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.


The media has nothing to do with Trump's own words and actions. He is responsible for that.

The unnamed source's comment about it referring to the WaPo story does not make sense, given the context of what Trump tweeted.

He specifically referred to who was in charge of the investigation and called it a witch hunt.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.


The media has nothing to do with Trump's own words and actions. He is responsible for that.

The unnamed source's comment about it referring to the WaPo story does not make sense, given the context of what Trump tweeted.

He specifically referred to who was in charge of the investigation and called it a witch hunt.


What makes no sense is why you would believe that Trump has been told that he is under investigation... a point you have dodged.. conveniently.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Show me the official statement that the FBI under Mueller is investigating now Trump for obstruction of justice.

I can not find it.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Proof please.


You know very well that he is under investigation by the Judiciary committee.



My position is simply that we don't know and the last verifiable information we have is that Trump is not and never has been under investigation.


Yes, we do know. You admitted that he was under investigation yesterday by congress.

Are you now denying that?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

Show me the official statement that the FBI under Mueller is investigating now Trump for obstruction of justice.

I can not find it.



There is none - just speculation taken as fact by those that can't help being dishonest and those that are invested in helping drive propaganda. They are usually the ones who claim they always wait for facts - whilst never actually waiting for facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

Show me the official statement that the FBI under Mueller is investigating now Trump for obstruction of justice.

I can not find it.



Look at Trump's tweet. He said he was under investigation.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.


The media has nothing to do with Trump's own words and actions. He is responsible for that.

The unnamed source's comment about it referring to the WaPo story does not make sense, given the context of what Trump tweeted.

He specifically referred to who was in charge of the investigation and called it a witch hunt.


What makes no sense is why you would believe that Trump has been told that he is under investigation... a point you have dodged.. conveniently.


Why does that matter whatsoever? He can simply ask if he is under investigation.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Lol people still deny Trump is under investigation...

Imagine if Al Capone said "I'm not under investigation... but son-in-law is and my lawyer, and all the people close to me, and all my advisors-- but not me! " lol

And yet... Trump himself IS under investigation too.

Ahhh sad denial.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Proof please.


You know very well that he is under investigation by the Judiciary committee.



My position is simply that we don't know and the last verifiable information we have is that Trump is not and never has been under investigation.


Yes, we do know. You admitted that he was under investigation yesterday by congress.

Are you now denying that?


This thread is about the SC.

The Judiciary is not investigating any crime and like I said many times - the only avenue open is impeachment. We'll see where Grassley goes with that.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.


The media has nothing to do with Trump's own words and actions. He is responsible for that.

The unnamed source's comment about it referring to the WaPo story does not make sense, given the context of what Trump tweeted.

He specifically referred to who was in charge of the investigation and called it a witch hunt.


What makes no sense is why you would believe that Trump has been told that he is under investigation... a point you have dodged.. conveniently.


Why does that matter whatsoever? He can simply ask if he is under investigation.


...and he will not be told. There is not a chance that the SC would tell him - ESPECIALLY if he was.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Proof please.


You know very well that he is under investigation by the Judiciary committee.



My position is simply that we don't know and the last verifiable information we have is that Trump is not and never has been under investigation.


Yes, we do know. You admitted that he was under investigation yesterday by congress.

Are you now denying that?


This thread is about the SC.

The Judiciary is not investigating any crime and like I said many times - the only avenue open is impeachment. We'll see where Grassley goes with that.


The poster I replied to did not specify SC or JC. Fact is, he's under investigation.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: introvert

Show me the official statement that the FBI under Mueller is investigating now Trump for obstruction of justice.

I can not find it.



Look at Trump's tweet. He said he was under investigation.


Please provide the official statement that Trump is under investigation from either the DoJ or the SC.
We don't even know if Trump was referring to a SC investigation.

You have nothing to back up you claim - apart from speculation... you who apparently "wait for the facts". Sure. Seems that principal gets thrown out of the window when you get over excited and you can;t control your confirmation bias.

edit on 16/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Let's not pretend you can say exactly what you mean in 143 character. I will agree that if he can't be specific enough, he should probably not write a tweet about it. Saying he has zero credibility is a little much, especially if you still believe the media with how many times they've been wrong.


The media has nothing to do with Trump's own words and actions. He is responsible for that.

The unnamed source's comment about it referring to the WaPo story does not make sense, given the context of what Trump tweeted.

He specifically referred to who was in charge of the investigation and called it a witch hunt.


What makes no sense is why you would believe that Trump has been told that he is under investigation... a point you have dodged.. conveniently.


Why does that matter whatsoever? He can simply ask if he is under investigation.


...and he will not be told. There is not a chance that the SC would tell him - ESPECIALLY if he was.


Then how did Trump know? He said he was in his tweet.

Unless you are going to be dishonest and push the narrative of an unnamed source, which you claim to be against.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Proof please.


You know very well that he is under investigation by the Judiciary committee.



My position is simply that we don't know and the last verifiable information we have is that Trump is not and never has been under investigation.


Yes, we do know. You admitted that he was under investigation yesterday by congress.

Are you now denying that?


This thread is about the SC.

The Judiciary is not investigating any crime and like I said many times - the only avenue open is impeachment. We'll see where Grassley goes with that.


The poster I replied to did not specify SC or JC. Fact is, he's under investigation.


So prove it.
A Trump tweet that has already been questioned as to what he meant is not proof - unless you only believe unnamed sources when it suits... surely not.

I'll wait for the official statement and pass on your propaganda thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join