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.

 

FBI’s Own General Counsel Suspected of Being An Anti-Trump Leaker

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



Umm, ok.



If you could point out where I've ever said I support intelligence agencies committing felonies to overthrow the president, that'd be great.

Putting words in other people's mouth doesn't make them correct..



I said the intelligence agencies if they were leaking this info (which is a felony) would be acting partisan.

You say that is just common sense, implying its not a big deal.

Or if you would like to clarify and condemn these partisan leaks, thats fine by me.


Why do you assume the leaks have anything to do with partisanship? Is it that hard to believe there are people who's dislike for Trump has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat?

Criticism doesn't equal partisanship, despite the narratives on /pol telling you otherwise.



But we are not talking about criticism are we? We are talking about felony leaks.

Perhaps you would like to take this time to condemn these leaks rather than make excuses for them?




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So you admit to acting like Hillary supporters? You must hate yourself.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

howso? please explain...



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



Umm, ok.



If you could point out where I've ever said I support intelligence agencies committing felonies to overthrow the president, that'd be great.

Putting words in other people's mouth doesn't make them correct..



I said the intelligence agencies if they were leaking this info (which is a felony) would be acting partisan.

You say that is just common sense, implying its not a big deal.

Or if you would like to clarify and condemn these partisan leaks, thats fine by me.


Why do you assume the leaks have anything to do with partisanship? Is it that hard to believe there are people who's dislike for Trump has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat?

Criticism doesn't equal partisanship, despite the narratives on /pol telling you otherwise.



But we are not talking about criticism are we? We are talking about felony leaks.

Perhaps you would like to take this time to condemn these leaks rather than make excuses for them?

I don't know the entire story yet, so my judgment can wait. All you have are assumptions, and no matter how hard you try to act like you're "right", you have no idea. That's the reality.

Quick question, would you support leakers of info that damages Democrats? I mean, say someone came out with info that could sink the Democrat party in a day, would you be here screaming how the leakers need to be prosecuted or would you be laughing at the Democrats?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But doing that would shatter the illusion! Best to focus on the messenger rather than the message to avoid that altogether.


Why are you just repeating what the MSM wants you to talk about.

Can't you see you are falling for what they want?



THanks for the warning, that we cannnot trust the main stream media. But here is the thing Grambler. Enlightened has been a regular here now for around five years. I have been around for about 6. And even that speaks nothing to what ever any of us have learned prior to our visiting this conspiracy side. How is it you can still account for other peoples differences by blaming it on being suckered by the msm. One would think that one as intelligent as yourself would know that this is a predominant meme accented continuously on this site.

So how is it you think we are not aware of this. How is it that you can take this easily transmitted meme and use it to discount other peoples opinions. Just blame the msm and it's suckers. That's old man, just old and hackneyed.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't watch the MSM or TV at all so I'm not falling for anything they're throwing at people, though I find it ironic that the side that has adopted such MSM buzzwords as snowflake, safe space, triggered, SJW, fake news, etc. is trying to accuse anyone of falling for the MSM narrative.

Not directed at you in particular, just a general statement.
edit on 8/2/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I assume you were referring to how Hillary supporters ignored the message of her corruption and instead focused on the ones leaking the information? If so then you have admitted you are doing the same exact thing with Trump hence you act like Hillary supporters and must hate yourself.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
I appreciate your understanding and agree with much of what you have to say in this reply.
However I do consider that there is evidence of if not actualized collusion, at least that there was intent to collude. The whole bit with Jr and his meeting suggests it as well as the father son discussion on the issue as verified by Huckasanders and pawned off as just ''father and son counseling''



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Grambler

I don't watch the MSM or TV at all so I'm not falling for anything they're throwing at people, though I find it ironic that the side that has adopted such MSM buzzwords as snowflake, safe space, triggered, SJW, fake news, etc. is trying to accuse anyone of falling for the MSM narrative.

Not directed at you in particular, just a general statement.

It's not ironic, it's all by design. Cast doubt on the truth, or the perceived ability of others to tell you the truth, then insert your "media" as an alternative. As long as you demonize the other "media" enough, people won't question the validity of what they're being told anymore, because the other side HAS to be lying..

Wash, rinse, repeat. Until people convince themselves a man who has prided himself on lies and half truths his entire life is the only source of "truth"..




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join