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.

 

Four People Charged By DOJ In Leak Crackdown

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mkultra11
The people of the United States voted Trump in a National Election.


He lost the popular vote. The 'people' voted for Clinton. The electoral college voted for Trump.

I'm not trying to argue that Trump shouldn't be president. He won the election, he is the president no matter what. Don't try and pretend that he won with majority support from the electorate though, he lost the popular vote.


Calif and NY don't run the whole country.


4.5 million people vote for Trump in California and 2.8 million voted for him in NY, do those votes not matter?




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Trump didn't win in Calif or NY.

You seem to not understand the formula and why it works in the strange ways it works.




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Seriously, what is all of this sudden push to rehash
Clinton and the vote count?

How is that remotely on topic?

This is happening in several threads, must
mean Hillary is in a bad mood again sulking
That she lost, she blew it!

But she won't leave the stage?!?!



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Actually 52% of the people voted for someone other than Clinton as well. We use an electoral college and for good reason. Clinton won the popular vote in all the states she carried and Trump won all the popular votes in the states he carried.

The people of New York and California don't get to negate the votes of people from other states. The electoral college was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, where a few populace states could control the government over all others.

The founding fathers got it right. It says a lot when politicians stop trusting the founding fathers in exchange for power.

She lost - move on.
edit on 8-8-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe I'm just reading these comments wrong. I'm glad she lost. I just don't want revisionist history coming up in the belief that there was some popular vote mandate to have Trump.

Most voters didn't want Trump or Clinton, neither one got over 50%. When you say 'the nation wanted Trump' I guess I just misread because I assumed you meant the people, the voters. If you meant the system in how we elect president wanted Trump then you're spot on. The system wanted Trump, the voters, did not.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: links234

Seriously, what is all of this sudden push to rehash
Clinton and the vote count?

How is that remotely on topic?

This is happening in several threads, must
mean Hillary is in a bad mood again sulking
That she lost, she blew it!

But she won't leave the stage?!?!



Good point, many posts have been hijacked by these election truthers. Maybe they just read her new book "How I Won the Popular Vote and Russia Stole My Election"



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: links234

Seriously, what is all of this sudden push to rehash
Clinton and the vote count?

How is that remotely on topic?

This is happening in several threads, must
mean Hillary is in a bad mood again sulking
That she lost, she blew it!

But she won't leave the stage?!?!



I think some people are getting some strange vibes this week.

Like something is ready to "Happen".

It must be North Korea. (sure)



edit on Aug-08-2017 by xuenchen because: classifiedatthetimeandstillis



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
You know what I would do if I were surrounded by this huge (YUUUUGE) group of people and wasn't sure who I could trust?

I'd test a few of them out... put them in lucrative positions where it would be relatively easy to attack me but also relatively obvious what they were doing, and carefully weed out people until I found a few that I could trust.

Then I'd meet with them one at a time, not officially, just casually... stop by their office for 5 minutes, or maybe say a few words while preparing for a press briefing. I'd use those brief moments to let them know what I was planning and to set up a code only we would know. Something like, oh, I don't know, "when I'm ready for you to go public with the investigations, I'll mention to the media how upset I am with you."

It's a sting operation. Pure and simple. And the best part is, no one knows it's even happening! They really think they're winning!
  • Just after a meeting, while everyone is making chit-chat and walking out:
    Trump: You get a chance to look over Comey's files yet?
    Sessions: Not all of them yet, sir.
    Trump: Stay on it, Jeff. But keep it quiet. Keep it damn quiet.
    Sessions: You got it.

  • As they walk out to a press briefing:
    Trump: How are the files coming?
    Sessions: I think I have enough to prosecute 36 people so far.
    Trump: The timing has to be right. Hold for my signal.
    Sessions: OK.

  • At a fundraiser, off to the side:
    Sessions: You never did tell me what the signal is.
    Trump: Been thinking about that. I'll stir up the media with something about being disappointed in you.
    Sessions: That should make a good cover! They'll eat that up.
    Trump: Yep. Just play along.
    Sessions: Done.

I swear I am seeing genius, pure genius, in Trump's manipulation of the media. He's got the left running around in circles chasing ghosts, destroying their own credibility, while he and a few trusted people are working quietly behind the scenes to find the corruption. All the proof I need is in the intensity with which leaks are now coming.

Most people will see an advertising blitz and think "Wow, this company must be doing great!" but the truth is that any well-run company only spends huge sums on advertising when they need to increase sales. When they're doing great, they only maintain a low-level public presence; it's much cheaper and increases profits. So when an advertising blitz comes around, I know that company is either seeing sales drops, is attempting a major growth push, or is expecting imminent sales problems... just the opposite of what most think.

When I see leaks intensify in frequency and intensity, especially when they extend to things like the phone call transcripts, that tells me this is a desperate push to destroy Trump at all costs, instead of an intense effort to destroy his popularity. Only an expectation of imminent prosecution would cause anyone to take the kind of risks they are now taking with classified data. This is just the beginning of a long-term operation, and we ain't seen nothing yet!

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump likes to LEAK his own stuff and blame it on others.

Just like the Tax document that said, "client copy"...

He's TRYING to do the same to Mueller right now...by sending messages to Mueller he'll PROBABLY leak, and then blame on the Mueller team to discredit them.

It's insanely transparent.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Hey, that may be part of the leaks! If so, it's not illegal for the president to do it. That's the genius part.

Not sure how you call what's been happening "insanely transparent" because it keeps backfiring on everyone else. Is the media too blind to see through the transparency?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I bet Trump is one, that would be comedy gold



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Great Comments Redneck!
I think your spot on with the Sessions/Trump "souring".




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join