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.

 

Did I Hear Right? Did Trump Exclude His Own Nat’l Security Advisor from His Meeting with Putin?

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


There are two different contradictory narratives. No matter how you spin it, someone is not telling the truth. Tillerson claims that Trump pressed Putin hard about Russian meddling, that we know happened because Obama knew about it, but did nothing! But how could that be, when Trump just announced his own doubt, saying that "it could be a lot of countires"?

Tillerson is the one filling our minds with lies and propaganda to cover up for a compromised president, too cowardly to stand up to the man that "made him", and ready to cave to any and all of his demands.



What do you mean did nothing? Tell us how the meeting should have gone - I'm sure your approach will be a riveting read.

Here is CNN's view of how the meeting should have gone. They are advocating aggression from the off with no evidence, followed up with blackmail, which CNN are known for. Every normal person should be happy that lunatic liberals are not in charge:


The Trump-Putin meeting went on longer than expected -- for two and a half hours rather than the planned 30 minutes. That is apparently good news. I disagree. Half an hour was more than adequate for the necessary messages, which should have been on the lines of "Mr. Putin, we know what you are up to. Stop it." If further elaboration were needed, it could have included the line, "We know where you and your cronies keep your money. If you want to see it again, back off."


That the kind of thing you wanted?

There was nothing unusual about the after meeting debriefs - Russia heard what the wanted to hear, the US the same. Happens all the time. You're just lost in a maze of conspiracies spoon fed to you.

By the way, zero evidence exists of Russia hacking the DNC or any part of the election.
edit on 8/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



What do you mean did nothing?


Don't ask me!!! Those were Trumps words, shortly before the meeting. He was blaming Obama, out one side of his mouth, for doing "nothing" about the Russian meddling, and then out of the other side of his mouth, laying seeds of doubt that the Russians interfered at all.



There was nothing unusual about the after meeting debriefs


Except for the two contradicting narratives.



By the way, zero evidence exists of Russia hacking the DNC or any part of the election.


You just keep spewing nonsense!


“I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,” Trump said in an interview with Fox and Friends on Sunday.

Trump was referring to a report stating that the CIA gave Obama information about the Russian attempt to influence the election, but quoted administration officials who lamented that they failed to respond properly.
www.breitbart.com...

Trump has been compromised and this last meeting is just proof on a stack of proof. First, he changed the Republic platform to favor Russia in the illegal Crimea annexation. Then ,he tried to lift the sanctions that Obama laid down. Now, Putin demanding their compound, that was seized by the Obama Administration, back.

But, what really takes the cake, and is proof on my opinion of Trump and Co's collusion with Russia, is the joint task force on cyber security! Are you f#ing kidding me!?

Trump is a compromised president.





edit on 8-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



What do you mean did nothing?


Don't ask me!!! Those were Trumps words, shortly before the meeting. He was blaming Obama, out one side of his mouth, for doing "nothing" about the Russian meddling, and then out of the other side of his mouth, laying seeds of doubt that the Russians interfered at all.



There was nothing unusual about the after meeting debriefs


Except for the two contradicting narratives.



By the way, zero evidence exists of Russia hacking the DNC or any part of the election.


You just keep spewing nonsense!


“I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,” Trump said in an interview with Fox and Friends on Sunday.

Trump was referring to a report stating that the CIA gave Obama information about the Russian attempt to influence the election, but quoted administration officials who lamented that they failed to respond properly.
www.breitbart.com...

Trump has been compromised and this last meeting is just proof on a stack of proof. First, he changed the Republic platform to favor Russia in the illegal Crimea annexation. Then ,he tried to lift the sanctions that Obama laid down. Now, Putin demanding their compound, that was seized by the Obama Administration, back.

But, what really takes the cake, and is proof on my opinion of Trump and Co's collusion with Russia, is the joint task force on cyber security! Are you f#ing kidding me!?

Trump is a compromised president.






Lol, your recovery is going to be a long one.

No evidence of any Russian hack
No evidence of any collusion.
Nothing unusual about two sides of a discussion framing it the best way for their audiences.

You failed to answer the question by the way... how would you have approached the meeting? CNN style, using blackmail and aggression as they have outlined? Or something else?
edit on 8/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I would have kept the meeting on agenda, short and simple, with my Secretary of State and my National Security Advisor, as well as the press present.



No evidence of any Russian hack


That's a bald face lie.



No evidence of any collusion.


That's a bald face lie.



Nothing unusual about two sides of a discussion framing it the best way for their audiences


Two separate narratives is unusual though, and that's what we got, as well as further proof that our president is compromised, and his Sec of State is complicit.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
If I did hear right from MSNBC’s “The Last Word” show of last night, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin wished to keep their meeting small to avoid leaks, and to that end Donald Trump excluded his own National Security Advisor from the meeting.

I don’t get it. What was this all about?

If Trump can’t trust his own National Security Advisor not to leak, then what does this say about Trump’s selection of a National Security Advisor?

More importantly, I don’t think that anything should have been discussed by Trump and Putin that had to be kept from public scrutiny. In other words, the discussion should have been completely open to the world, especially to America which is supposed to have a government by and for the people, not by and for Trump, and especially not by and for Putin... but, sadly, it seems to be going in that direction.

So, a pressing question comes out of this: what did Trump and Putin wish to keep secret? What did they have to hide?

This smacks of suspicious Political Conspiracy, the subject matter of this forum.

So, who needs to have a secure backchannel to the Russians the likes of which Jared Kushner allegedly attempted to set up here stateside at the Russian embassy when, as a substitute, you can have very tight, closed-door, face-to-face meetings between Trump and Putin?


Who cares, i honestly dont care if him and Putin wanna raw dog eachother.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

Nikki Haley: ‘Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections’

Sen. King: 'No doubt whatsoever' Russia interfered in election

Ex-intel chief: 'No evidence whatsoever' anyone but Russia interfered in election

James Clapper: 'Absolutely' Russia Interfered in Election


There is no evidence in any of those links.
Opinions are not proof or evidence. If Russia was on trial in a court of law, they would be cleared very quickly based on what we have seen to date.
When a single shred of evidence is produced that Russia hacked the DNC then I will at least give it some credence - till then there is nothing to support the claims. As for your theory that the meeting wit Putin yesterday means there was collusion to interfere with the election - well that is pretty laughable, but I am glad you made that claim as it discredits only you.
edit on 8/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Well his first pick was Mike Flynn so what does that tell you?



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

Nikki Haley: ‘Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections’

Sen. King: 'No doubt whatsoever' Russia interfered in election

Ex-intel chief: 'No evidence whatsoever' anyone but Russia interfered in election

James Clapper: 'Absolutely' Russia Interfered in Election


There is no evidence in any of those links.
Opinions are not proof or evidence. If Russia was on trial in a court of law, they would be cleared very quickly based on what we have seen to date.
When a single shred of evidence is produced that Russia hacked the DNC then I will at least give it some credence - till then there is nothing to support the claims.


So no evidence is good enough for you unless you saw or heard it with your own ears (or if it fits your agenda)?

Ya know, thats ok...its smart not to trust everyone and everything you hear...however, if not well balanced...you come off as a little...off...like your elevator doesnt quite reach the top.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

No only Tillerson was there and an interpreter for each side.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Wow thank god this person wasn't the president. We would be glowing in a nuclear waste land after the first week this tool took office.
edit on 7/8/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Yeah and the Russian brief said something different entirely.
Someone is lying.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: stosh64

Yeah and the Russian brief said something different entirely.
Someone is lying.


Actually Putin veridied Trump's story when asked. The contention seems to be if Trump accepted Putin answer.

Problem for Putin if they were not involved and he denies it people will assume he's lying. So Russia is in a rough spot there is no way to prove innocence. He may be guilty but evidence need's to be presented and Putin has said exactly that.
edit on 7/8/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Did he say Tillerson wasn't there?
No.
He said national security advisor and he WAS NOT ALLOWED IN.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

Nikki Haley: ‘Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections’

Sen. King: 'No doubt whatsoever' Russia interfered in election

Ex-intel chief: 'No evidence whatsoever' anyone but Russia interfered in election

James Clapper: 'Absolutely' Russia Interfered in Election


There is no evidence in any of those links.
Opinions are not proof or evidence. If Russia was on trial in a court of law, they would be cleared very quickly based on what we have seen to date.
When a single shred of evidence is produced that Russia hacked the DNC then I will at least give it some credence - till then there is nothing to support the claims.


So no evidence is good enough for you unless you saw or heard it with your own ears (or if it fits your agenda)?

Ya know, thats ok...its smart not to trust everyone and everything you hear...however, if not well balanced...you come off as a little...off...like your elevator doesnt quite reach the top.


Nope - how about law enforcement getting to actually review the DNC log files and the other associated claims from a company appointed by the DNC to do the investigation... that would be a good start. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's organisations claims are not good enough for me and they shouldn't be for anyone else. When actual evidence comes to light then lets talk.

Till then there is no proof at all and only a moron would walk into a meeting with Putin and try and blackmail him, as CNN suggest, for example.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


If you refuse to trust Amercian intel chiefs and leaders who ARE privy to what you are not, that's your problem, not mine.

President Trump is compromised. He's unfit to represent of best interest of the American People. This meeting with Putin and his Administration's lies as well as his trashing of the US intel community, the past US president and the Free Press just provide more proof.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

Nikki Haley: ‘Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections’

Sen. King: 'No doubt whatsoever' Russia interfered in election

Ex-intel chief: 'No evidence whatsoever' anyone but Russia interfered in election

James Clapper: 'Absolutely' Russia Interfered in Election


There is no evidence in any of those links.
Opinions are not proof or evidence. If Russia was on trial in a court of law, they would be cleared very quickly based on what we have seen to date.
When a single shred of evidence is produced that Russia hacked the DNC then I will at least give it some credence - till then there is nothing to support the claims.


So no evidence is good enough for you unless you saw or heard it with your own ears (or if it fits your agenda)?

Ya know, thats ok...its smart not to trust everyone and everything you hear...however, if not well balanced...you come off as a little...off...like your elevator doesnt quite reach the top.


Nope - how about law enforcement getting to actually review the DNC log files and the other associated claims from a company appointed by the DNC to do the investigation... that would be a good start. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's organisations claims are not good enough for me and they shouldn't be for anyone else. When actual evidence comes to light then lets talk.

Till then there is no proof at all and only a moron would walk into a meeting with Putin and try and blackmail him, as CNN suggest, for example.


you mean when actual evidence comes from a right wing source? What if its the same?



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough


Gots to love it. Leaders need to do this sort of thing publically now and then. Didn't you read "The Prince"? Its 101.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


If you refuse to trust Amercian intel chiefs and leaders who ARE privy to what you are not, that's your problem, not mine.

President Trump is compromised. He's unfit to represent of best interest of the American People. This meeting with Putin and his Administration's lies as well as his trashing of the US intel community, the past US president and the Free Press just provide more proof.


I would say you have a BIG problem if you choose to trust US Intelligence. They lie for a living. Until they provide some evidence their words ring hollow.
The person with access to ALL the intelligence is your President:

“I’ve said it very simply. I think it could very well have been Russia. I think it could well have been other countries. I won’t be specific. But I think a lot of people interfere,” Trump said. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”


You choose to believe those that fit your narrative.... you don;t believe the President even though he has access to information you don't, but you choose to believe others that have access to information you don't. That is called bias.

I don't believe Trump or anyone else. I want to see evidence.

Your statement in your last paragraph shows clearly your standards of proof render your views worthless on this subject.
edit on 8/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


If you refuse to trust Amercian intel chiefs and leaders who ARE privy to what you are not, that's your problem, not mine.

President Trump is compromised. He's unfit to represent of best interest of the American People. This meeting with Putin and his Administration's lies as well as his trashing of the US intel community, the past US president and the Free Press just provide more proof.


I would say you have a BIG problem if you choose to trust US Intelligence. They lie for a living. Until they provide some evidence their words ring hollow.
The person with access to ALL the intelligence is your President:

“I’ve said it very simply. I think it could very well have been Russia. I think it could well have been other countries. I won’t be specific. But I think a lot of people interfere,” Trump said. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”


You choose to believe those that fit your narrative.... you don;t believe the President even though he has access to information you don't, but you choose to believe others that have access to information you don't. That is called bias.

I don't believe Trump or anyone else. I want to see evidence.


the left should not choose to believe facts that by chance "fit their narrative" but the extreme right or trump supporter can twist and cherry pick a story till it fits their agenda and run with it?
edit on 8-7-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join