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.

 

So the FBI was wiretapping people connected to Trump

page: 11
57
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ColoradoJens

Of course I believe CNN has factual reporting sometimes.

Hell I will go further than that and say most of the time. I just disagree with how they interpret it.

I have posted all over ats that I disagree with brushing any story merely because the source is biased.


Then my apologies. I stand corrected. Perhaps I jumped the gun and when I saw Xue posted in agreement with a CNN article and unfairly lumped in the OP. My bad.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ColoradoJens

No worries at all.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Was there unmasking and leaks that lead to hurting trump politically?

Of course.

So it's not hypothetical.

You just think that is ok as long as I can't prove intent.


Where did I say it was ok?

What I am saying is that you cannot make the kind of accusations that you have without having evidence.

There are already laws and processes in place for unmasking and wiretapping, and there are also laws in place that would address using the DoJ as a tool against political opponents.

That being said, if there was any evidence to suggest the DoJ was used against Trump for political reasons, there are laws in place to address it.

So I'm not sure what your angle here is, except to get outraged about something you can't even provide one speck of evidence to suggest. No matter what, your approach is highly illogical.



There is also a process in place to make sure that info is not leaked, but that didn't solve that problem, did it?

The point is some people like myself, people like Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, and many others have been outraged aboout Fisa court warrants, both in the secrecy of their proceddings and the fact that only .03 are rejected long before Trump came along.

One of the arguments made as to how bad this could be was that it could lead to the party in power using this process agianst their oppinents; and we now see that is the case.

You are merely making the argument that if it is legal, then its ok. I disagree.

We see the leaks were used to politically hurt Trump. Even though there isn't Obama or rice saying "Yes we did this for political purposes" much of the circumstance around it suggests that may be the case.

For example, the fact Hillary's team like podesta had undisclosed paid relationships with Russians and weren't investigated, the fact that rice unmasked americans connected with trump for such a dubious reason as a UAE meeting in the US, the fact that Obama took unprecedented steps to insure as many agencies as possible got access to this classified info, the fact that he told European allies about details of an ongoing investigaation into a political rival.

You say this is all perfectly lefit as long as Obama didn't literally say he was doing this for political purposes.

I think thaat is an afront to our political system that should be condemned in the strongest possible way.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Why don't we all just say it?

Obama used and the Dems are continuing to use the surveillance state against political opponents.

In addition, DC is so blatantly corrupt, even worse than we know or think, the shear number of those who would be implicated inhibits prosecution.


There, let's talk about aliens or something.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: burdman30ott6


...and in April it looked pretty damn plausible.


Yes it did, to the Cult.

To everybody else outside of Trump's little sycophant army it looked like the delusional 3am ramblings of a maniac off his meds.

What's interesting, is who told Trump he was being tapped...
I mean let's face it, Trump is a lot of things, but he is not clairvoyant...

So if it is true, someone leaked it...
How do you feel about such a leak of an ongoing investigation?


See, that's what I have been saying all along. Trump didn't manufacture the idea he was wiretapped. He was told that. Probably also told not to say anything just before he tweeted it out, but that's irrelevant now. Was it a lie, or was it factual? As Grambler said, it's looking more and more like it was factual.

But again, the bigger issue here is that Obama used all the intel to smear Trump's political momentum, and much like using the IRS to target conservative groups, it's kind of wrong and illegal. So this witch hunt started by the left, might well undo what tiny bit of thread left that holds the left together. And as much as a good portion of the left irritates me with their smug arrogance, having the entire party fold up would be bad, specially when the GOP is in about the same shape, but looks better on paper.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
So in other words, Trump's conversations in the campaign were also picked up?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



The point is some people like myself, people like Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, and many others have been outraged aboout Fisa court warrants, both in the secrecy of their proceddings and the fact that only .03 are rejected long before Trump came along.


Ok. That's fine. That does not mean the court was used to go after Trump in this case.



One of the arguments made as to how bad this could be was that it could lead to the party in power using this process agianst their oppinents; and we now see that is the case.


No, we do not see that is the case. You have no evidence to suggest it. Why do you continue to do so?



You are merely making the argument that if it is legal, then its ok. I disagree.


Of course. There are laws in place to take care of any illegal action, including using a position of to go after political rivals.

Are you saying you want to create more laws to cover the same things? I'm not sure what you expect to happen.



We see the leaks were used to politically hurt Trump. Even though there isn't Obama or rice saying "Yes we did this for political purposes" much of the circumstance around it suggests that may be the case.


Then go after the leaker. Again, what do you expect to happen here?



For example, the fact Hillary's team like podesta had undisclosed paid relationships with Russians and weren't investigated, the fact that rice unmasked americans connected with trump for such a dubious reason as a UAE meeting in the US, the fact that Obama took unprecedented steps to insure as many agencies as possible got access to this classified info, the fact that he told European allies about details of an ongoing investigaation into a political rival.


None of that indicates he instructed the DoJ to go after Trump or anyone connected to him.



You say this is all perfectly lefit as long as Obama didn't literally say he was doing this for political purposes.


Yes, it does seem legit. I need evidence to consider otherwise. You are not providing evidence. You are creating a conspiracy.



I think thaat is an afront to our political system that should be condemned in the strongest possible way.


If it was true, the justice system would go after them. What you are condemning are fabrications of the mind.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
And I just want to make it clear, I still do not believe this makes Trump tweets about being personally wiretapped proven.

I think trump overstepped, but it never really bothered me. In general his hyperbole is ridiculous most of the time (like how in his speeches he says things like "Nobody loves women more than me!" Ugh.)

But I am more concerned with the fact that 1) it looks like at least trumps convesations were probably picked up even if he wasn't personally wiretapped and so were much of his team that were then unmasked an leaked.

2) The media acted as if Trump suggestion was so insane that it was outside the realm of possiblity, and now when it is coming out of what I said above, they are acting like its not a big deal.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



No, we do not see that is the case. You have no evidence to suggest it. Why do you continue to do so?


Yes we do! Trumps team was targeted. rather or not politics were the intent, it is undisputed that manafort Carter Page, people like Flynn and others were listened in to, wiretapped, and leaked about.

Why do you continue to deny this?




Of course. There are laws in place to take care of any illegal action, including using a position of to go after political rivals.

Are you saying you want to create more laws to cover the same things? I'm not sure what you expect to happen.


No I am saying it should not be legal, and it can be used for political purposes and may have already been done.

It would be legal for Trump to fire Mueller right now. It would be legal for him to pardon Manafort right now. So you would find that perfectly legitimate, right?



Then go after the leaker. Again, what do you expect to happen here?


Laws and prcesses should be in place to make it extremely difficult for fisa court warrants to be used to go after political opponents.

I am not just concerned about Trump, I am concerned about this being done in the future again.




None of that indicates he instructed the DoJ to go after Trump or anyone connected to him.


We know that his people were instructed to go after Trumps people like manafort. we know that Rice unmasked people like Flynn and then it was leaked.

Claiming Obama was ignorant of this is ridiculous. And even if Obama wasn't aware, all the more reason to change the laws to make sure this can't be done in the future.



Yes, it does seem legit. I need evidence to consider otherwise. You are not providing evidence. You are creating a conspiracy.


Exactly. You find wiretapping political opponents legut unless a person says I am doing this for political reasons. I and most rational people find that to be a horrible idea.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
the funny thing is that when the patriot act was passed....
it was the right that was saying not to worry, if you aren't doing anything wrong, there's no reason to be concerned, right??

it was all fine and dandy as long as it was directed only at a small group of people who they saw as "enemies".
now,
I have to ask, if it's allright for the general population, then why shouldn't it be alright with those who's desiring to hold the power, like presidential candidates?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
the funny thing is that when the patriot act was passed....
it was the right that was saying not to worry, if you aren't doing anything wrong, there's no reason to be concerned, right??

it was all fine and dandy as long as it was directed only at a small group of people who they saw as "enemies".
now,
I have to ask, if it's allright for the general population, then why shouldn't it be alright with those who's desiring to hold the power, like presidential candidates?



I consider myself on the right and I was an am still appalled by the Patriot act and the erosion of our civil liberties.

This incident only firther illustrates the dangers of allowing scecret courts to allow secret wiretaps on American citizens.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

As bad as the PA can be, the "Left" (aka Democrats) propped it up too when they re-passed it.

And then they actually used it !!




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Yes we do! Trumps team was targeted. rather or not politics were the intent, it is undisputed that manafort Carter Page, people like Flynn and others were listened in to, wiretapped, and leaked about.

Why do you continue to deny this?


I deny that they were targeted because of politics.

What you should be saying is the DoJ targeted them because their actions warranted investigation and they may have broken the law.

Do you agree that people should be investigated if their actions are questionable, or should we simply turn a blind eye because of their potential political ties?



No I am saying it should not be legal,and it can be used for political purposes and may have already been done.


It isn't legal and what evidence do you have to suggest it may have already been done?



It would be legal for Trump to fire Mueller right now. It would be legal for him to pardon Manafort right now. So you would find that perfectly legitimate, right?


Trump has the authority, but such an actions could be considered an attempt to obstruct justice.
Not really sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, though.



Laws and prcesses should be in place to make it extremely difficult for fisa court warrants to be used to go after political opponents.


There are already laws in place. Again, you are fabricating nonsense.



We know that his people were instructed to go after Trumps people like manafort. we know that Rice unmasked people like Flynn and then it was leaked.


Instructed to go after people because of politics, or because their actions warranted investigation?

Please be specific.


Claiming Obama was ignorant of this is ridiculous. And even if Obama wasn't aware, all the more reason to change the laws to make sure this can't be done in the future.


I never made any such claim. Are you conversing with me, or the fabrications in your head?



Exactly. You find wiretapping political opponents legut unless a person says I am doing this for political reasons. I and most rational people find that to be a horrible idea.


Quit putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

This does appear to be legit because of the things we have found out about people like Flynn and Manafort...and Trump Jr. They needed to be investigated and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that suggests this is some sort of political witch hunt.

You and others are making that claim and have no evidence to support that claim.


edit on 19-9-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It's that's all true, I agree with you mate.

I'm not going to bat for Obama...
I don't think anyone dislikes him on this site as much as me...
For reasons that would derail...

What I will say though, is that it's far from irrelevant...

Burdman says Trump would have been briefed on Manafort, which could be true...

But that wasn't the claim.

The claim was that Obama tapped Trump...
If true, there is no way Trump would have been briefed on a case involving himself...

So someone leaked, if it's true.
That's not irrelevant...

Hell, all it does for me is prove my confirmation bias that the two sides are in fact one...
And that the real war is between Deep State assets all leaking in favour of each other...

Meanwhile we argue about Obamacare, iffy Pardons and Confederate Statues...

They're making bank and using it spy on all of us, divide all of us, and more importantly take freedoms and rights from all of us.



What do we do about that, is the real question...

Because I don't give a monkeys toss about tapping and Antifa or Nazis.



This is way bigger than that in the end.


/rant
Love ya bro.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I'm not going to bat for Obama...
I don't think anyone dislikes him on this site as much as me...


Because he wasn't a good Muslim.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I'm not going to bat for Obama...
I don't think anyone dislikes him on this site as much as me...


Because he wasn't a good Muslim.


Hahaha. I got nothing for that.
Well played!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
although trump could pardon manifort and whoever else he wishes, his pardon power does not flow down to the state level. so, if any infraction to state laws are found, the pardon would be useless, they could still be prosecuted on the state level..



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I wonder who has better food. Leavenworth or Sing Sing?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I wonder who has better food. Leavenworth or Sing Sing?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Obama was taking steps against Russia not trump. Unless to you they are one and the same.
He wanted to make sure other upcoming elections weren't messed with in the same way and he was correct because they tried to do it to the French.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join