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.

 

Manafort was wire tapped

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

That means they don't have evidence.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: FauxMulder

Guess Trump was telling the truth when he said his phone was tapped . It was just Manaforts phone not his .

We've known that for months. The term "wire tap" was incorrect, but he and his people most certainly were having their communications monitored.

Notice how they eventually stopped investigating Manafort after failing to find any evidence, and then just before the election the investigation mysteriously re-starts. How very convenient. That's corruption in action, right there.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
When all of this is over and Trump isn't impeached I wonder what some of these folks are gonna do with their time.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

They will leave for a while, just like they did after Nov. 8th.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Money-laundering has been my bet the whole time for Trump associates.

Either obstruction of justice or Amendment XXV for the President.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
This is why you do not do drugs or day drink kids.


Either obstruction of justice or Amendment XXV for the President.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
This is why you do not do drugs or day drink kids.


Either obstruction of justice or Amendment XXV for the President.



Amazingly cogent and fact-based argument as usual Shooter.

(Actually, it's just the standard ad hom sniping from the sidelines we all expect.)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is in line with the mountains of evidence you produced to back up either.
At least I HOPE you have some evidence and sources. I HOPE you wouldn't post without such.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is in line with the mountains of evidence you produced to back up either.
At least I HOPE you have some evidence and sources. I HOPE you wouldn't post without such.


I expressed an opinion. I could back that opinion up if I chose to, but in this case I don't; you're not worth my time.

You, on the other hand, posted nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said. As I said, typical for your posts.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I expressed an opinion. I could back that opinion up if I chose to, but in this case I don't; you're not worth my time.

typical
You could get a winning lotto ticket as well.
There is no actual evidence for either option you posted.
I HOPE you understand that.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66




I expressed an opinion. I could back that opinion up if I chose to, but in this case I don't; you're not worth my time.

typical
You could get a winning lotto ticket as well.
There is no actual evidence for either option you posted.
I HOPE you understand that.


Care to prove your claim? Or is that merely your opinion?

And if so, why are you talking to me? You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine.

No need to suggest that I'm a drug user or alcoholic because you don't agree with me.

That's the kind of garbage that is against T&C and brings down the quality of these forums.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JinMI



He could, but why?


To stop to prosecution, which may reveal some compromising information about the Trump Campaign, in its tracks.


If there is something that Trump did that was illegal, pardoning Manafort will not stop the investigation. And Trump could be impeached.


If they had found anything illegal the wiretap probably wouldn't have been cancelled due to lack of evidence, as the article states.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JinMI



He could, but why?


To stop to prosecution, which may reveal some compromising information about the Trump Campaign, in its tracks.


If there is something that Trump did that was illegal, pardoning Manafort will not stop the investigation. And Trump could be impeached.


If they had found anything illegal the wiretap probably wouldn't have been cancelled due to lack of evidence, as the article states.

I completely agree.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JinMI



He could, but why?


To stop to prosecution, which may reveal some compromising information about the Trump Campaign, in its tracks.


If there is something that Trump did that was illegal, pardoning Manafort will not stop the investigation. And Trump could be impeached.


If they had found anything illegal the wiretap probably wouldn't have been cancelled due to lack of evidence, as the article states.


Not completely factual:




The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.

The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.

Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Post an actual source for either of your bs claims.
Otherwise each is worthy of questioning lucidity.
The director in charge of the investigation has stated that relieving comey in no way interfered with the investigation.
www.washingtonpost.com... igence-committee/?utm_term=.a8d4b343a6b5


RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.

Also the 25th you referenced has NEVER been used as you suggest it may.
Unless you have a source that indicates otherwise.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Again, they're not strictly claims ... they're opinions. You know the difference, you post opinion all the time.

No, neither statement is justification for calling me a drug user or an alcoholic. Lucidity isn't determined by your agreement.

You don't seem to understand that obstruction of justice is based on the act and intention of Mr. Trump, not whether he was successful at it. Swing and a miss.



If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect (such as by providing a false alibi) or to hide from investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime), this may leave them liable to prosecution.


Obstruction of Justice

Amendment XXV has never been used to remove a President at all; your point is moot. When Trump is determined to be incompetent, he will be removed. Unless you can prove that's not what Amendment XXV does.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Par for the course.
Bs with nothing to back it up.
Exactly what one with clouded vision sees.
Unless the acting director of the fbi committed perjury you are full of it.



So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today

That says all that needed to be about the non issue.

Wacky leftist interpretations of the 25th dont fly either.
You made the claim, once again you cant back it up.
Cloudy Cloudy Cloudy



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Interesting. So Manafort was under FBI investigation since 2014. Yet there is no evidence to indict him of any crime.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

/yawn

Bored now.

You have your opinions, I have mine. Try to stay within the bounds of T&C in the future, eh?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Try not posting bs and acting as if it is fact.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join