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: 12
57
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


So I guess he got a wiretap against Tony Podesta for working with russians without disclsoing it.

Oh wait, he didn't.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

What is this unmasking everyone keeps talking about? Sounds like a buzz word that's just being repeated .



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.



So now you're admitting Trump was tapped by the Obama Administration but it's ok because Obama was doing it to protect the U.S. from the Russians?!?!?!?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's rich to say the least!!!

HAHAHAHAHAH Even from you!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

But it's ok you made up your mind that she's guilty and for some reason Comey covered for her?
Yeah ok. I see how this works. Everything you believe is true and above board and everything I believe is a lie.
How lucky you are. I wish I was you...



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

But it's ok you made up your mind that she's guilty and for some reason Comey covered for her?
Yeah ok. I see how this works. Everything you believe is true and above board and everything I believe is a lie.
How lucky you are. I wish I was you...


I try to give reasons for all of the opinions I give.

Make a thread on Hillary or go back to ones I participated on,; I gave many reasons why the investigation into her was flawed.

You claimed here Obama was just protecting us from Russia with these wiretaps, and it wasn't political. Then why do nothing about Russias connections with Hillarys party like Podeseta who had very similar actions to manafort who was wiretapped.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler





Yes that's why the fisa court only denies .03 requests for warrants

How do you know that? Someone on the web said it?
People from the FBI and the CIA have stated that it's hard to get those warrants. That it requires about sixty pages of documentation just to get the ball rolling.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


So I guess he got a wiretap against Tony Podesta for working with russians without disclsoing it.

Oh wait, he didn't.


There is a lot more context to that issue than you are providing.

The Podesta Group was working for a non-profit center in the Ukraine and it was not until later they found out that the center was receiving government money.

Since they thought it was a non-profit that was not tied to a foreign government, they didn't have to disclose anything. When they found out they were receiving government funds, they disclosed it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Because it never happened dear. God this is exhausting.
The IC didn't go after anyone for political reasons. They are cops. They don't care what party you belong to.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler





Yes that's why the fisa court only denies .03 requests for warrants

How do you know that? Someone on the web said it?
People from the FBI and the CIA have stated that it's hard to get those warrants. That it requires about sixty pages of documentation just to get the ball rolling.


Because the numbers have been released.

As I linked earlier.


But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That’s a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.


www.motherjones.com...

Yep .03 percent denied, sounds real tough to get them.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There's that odd equation again . Is that 0.3 percent or three tenths of a denial. You lost me there.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

There's really no difference


But the math is very simple: 11 / 33,900 *100% = 0.03%

And as I mentioned in the other thread, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence committee are investigating whether the FBI/Comey/etc used the phony Steele Dossier to get FISA warrants. To that end, they've asked to see all FISA warrant applications related to the Russia investigations.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


So I guess he got a wiretap against Tony Podesta for working with russians without disclsoing it.

Oh wait, he didn't.


There is a lot more context to that issue than you are providing.

The Podesta Group was working for a non-profit center in the Ukraine and it was not until later they found out that the center was receiving government money.

Since they thought it was a non-profit that was not tied to a foreign government, they didn't have to disclose anything. When they found out they were receiving government funds, they disclosed it.


It happened multiple times with the Podestas.


Lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department today acknowledging that its work years ago for a European nonprofit benefited the same Ukrainian political party once advised by Paul Manafort, who later ran Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.


www.politico.com...

So with Manafort working with the same groups, it was enough for wiretaps. With the Podestas, they were duped. Well prove they didn't know they were working for Russian money, or Manafort did know that.

How about John Podestas Russian stocks.


Bartiromo asked Podesta why he failed to disclose his role in Joule as required by law when he entered the White House in January 2014 to serve as counselor to President Barack Obama.

“Maria, that’s not true. I fully disclosed and was completely compliant,” Podesta shot back.

But according to his own financial disclosure form, Podesta only listed two of the three entities that made up Joule Unlimited, failing to disclose his presence on the board of the Dutch-registered Stichting Joule Global Foundation.


nypost.com...

He too must have been innocent and duped here right?

Its only people not connected to democrats that need to be wiretapped for russian connections. Democratic russian connections that were failed to disclosed are all innocent misunderstandings.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


So I guess he got a wiretap against Tony Podesta for working with russians without disclsoing it.

Oh wait, he didn't.





There is a lot more context to that issue than you are providing.

The Podesta Group was working for a non-profit center in the Ukraine and it was not until later they found out that the center was receiving government money.

Since they thought it was a non-profit that was not tied to a foreign government, they didn't have to disclose anything. When they found out they were receiving government funds, they disclosed it.


It happened multiple times with the Podestas.


Lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department today acknowledging that its work years ago for a European nonprofit benefited the same Ukrainian political party once advised by Paul Manafort, who later ran Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.


www.politico.com...

So with Manafort working with the same groups, it was enough for wiretaps. With the Podestas, they were duped. Well prove they didn't know they were working for Russian money, or Manafort did know that.

How about John Podestas Russian stocks.


Bartiromo asked Podesta why he failed to disclose his role in Joule as required by law when he entered the White House in January 2014 to serve as counselor to President Barack Obama.

“Maria, that’s not true. I fully disclosed and was completely compliant,” Podesta shot back.

But according to his own financial disclosure form, Podesta only listed two of the three entities that made up Joule Unlimited, failing to disclose his presence on the board of the Dutch-registered Stichting Joule Global Foundation.


nypost.com...

He too must have been innocent and duped here right?

Its only people not connected to democrats that need to be wiretapped for russian connections. Democratic russian connections that were failed to disclosed are all innocent misunderstandings.







Killing them softly with facts Grambler!!




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



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

There's that odd equation again . Is that 0.3 percent or three tenths of a denial. You lost me there.


They denied 11 out of 33,900 requests, as I posted.

Thats .03 percent.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

No there's no knowledge that there are. You need to know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Lots of people think the weatherman is always wrong.
Lots of people are wrong. The forecast is mostly correct.

Lots of people think that the mail is always late.
A lot of people are wrong about that too. Mostly the mail is delivered quickly and accurately.

Lots of people think politicians don't keep their promises.
Lots of people are wrong because actually most politicians do try to keep campaign promises and many many promises are successfully implemented during their tenure.

That the government is corrupt is another like those above.
Most people in government are good honest people who want to make a difference.

But here is something that's true. People will sit on their couch and curse the government but would never get off their fat assets and do anything to make a difference.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickyD

What is this unmasking everyone keeps talking about? Sounds like a buzz word that's just being repeated .


SUSAN RICE EXPLAINS WHY SHE UNMASKED TRUMP OFFICIALS




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Well, this kind of thing will tend to happen when all your campaign cohorts are playing hide the salami with Russian operatives.



Well of course this is the response I expected.

At first it was how dare Trump makes claims Obama would have had this type of surveillance, and now it is well of course there was this surveillance but it was warranted.



1. Trump wasn't the "target." Manafort (for good reason) was the "target."

2. Trump and others stayed in contact with Manafort and may have spoken with him while he was "wired."

3. IF someone was speaking to Manafort about inconsequential things that weren't, say, illegal, or weren't part of covering up an illegal action, etc., then it may be embarrassing and feel like a violation, but the FISA warrant for Manafort was in place, so it was captured entirely legally and they have nothing to worry about. They would not be "unmasked."

4. If someone was discussing illegal actions or a cover-up of illegal actions with Manafort while he was being surveilled, then isn't it a good thing they will also be caught out at it? They would probably be "unmasked."

5. Obama, McConnel, Ryan and a few others probably were briefed on the wiretap, but that is NOT the same as one of them ORDERING the wiretap themselves, nor is it the same as TRUMP being directly targeted.

Conclusion - Trump may be on some of the surveillance of Manafort, however, he may not have said anything to incriminate himself or to worry about...also, this DOES NOT equate to the "Obama had my wires tapped" claim Trump made - that is false still in it's entirety. Manafort was wired by the FBI after making a full case to the FISA court and obtaining a legal warrant.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Oh and seeing as we we are discussing all of the evil things the russians did to influence the election, its worth point out three congressmen have contacted the FCC demanding them to look into a russian radio station that attempted to influence our elections!

Only problem, the station didn't exist until June 2017.


Just when you thought the 'Russian collusion' narrative couldn't get any more surreal, 3 House democrats decide to write a letter to the FCC which can only be described as 'criminally stupid' and even that seems generous.

According to the letter, signed by Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J), Sputnik Radio, "a radio network funded by the Russian government, was used as part of the Kremlin's effort to influence the 2016 presidential election." As such, these 3 democrats demand that the FCC launch an investigation into Sputnik Radio.

And while it may only seem 'marginally stupid' to suggest that propaganda from a Russian-operated radio station might outweigh the $1.2 billion that Hillary spent on her campaign and/or all of the propaganda spewed by the mainstream media, the argument goes full "criminally stupid" when you realize that Sputnik Radio didn't even start broadcasting in the U.S. until June 2017 (which is about 8 months AFTER the 2016 presidential election...for anyone who may have missed the nuance there).


www.zerohedge.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't feed trolls playing word games...that's why I didn't bother to reply to her.




top topics



 
57
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join