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: 14
57
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Lets not forget that Obama DNI Clapper is caught blatantly lying once again.



Clapper: But I will say that, for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against– the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign. I can’t speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.

...

TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?

CLAPPER: Yes.

TODD: You would be told this?

CLAPPER: I would know that.

TODD: If there was a FISA court order–

CLAPPER: Yes.

TODD: –on something like this.

CLAPPER: Something like this, absolutely.

TODD: And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?

CLAPPER: I can deny it.


www.mediaite.com...

The lies just keep adding up from Obama officials on this.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Manafort left the Trump Campaign August 19, 2016.

He had been a target of FBI surveillance as far back as 2014.

The start point of the new surveillance is not cited in the CNN article, but the range is given as early fall.

Is it possible that Clapper was being very specific in that a) in the first wave of surveillance there was no Trump Campaign and b) when it was renewed Manafort had already resigned from the campaign.

That fits the facts as well.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not if the CNN article is accurate.


Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.


And further.


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.


Now clapper doesn't leave office until Nov. 2016.

Manafort didn't leave until August as you said.

If communications were worrisome about helping "the campaign" and Clapper was there until Novemnber, and we know that going into 2016 whil Clapper was still there there were wiretaps, then we know Clapper is lying.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Manafort could encourage the Russians to help with the Campaign AFTER he left.

We don't have enough information to say for certain.

We don't know when the FBI stopped surveilling Manafort in 2016. (From 2014-2016?)

We don't know (beyond a vague reference to "fall") when they started surveilling again.

Why would Clapper lie? He would know that the Trump Administration could discover the stop/start dates.

(I'm not defending him. Just thinking about the way these things go.)

And, after Manafort left in late August he was no longer part of the Campaign. Think about what you quoted Clapper as saying ..



Clapper: But I will say that, for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against– the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.


Not against the President Elect (so not Trump after November 9th) Not against Trump the Candidate or against his campaign.

Sounds to me like the surveillance could have been done after November 9th and before Jan 20, 2017 (when Clapper left.)


Nevermind. If it happened after Nov. 9 there would have been no request to help "the campaign"

So, somewhere between Aug 20 and Nov 8 ... if Clapper was being "technically" truthful.
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Manafort could encourage the Russians to help with the Campaign AFTER he left.

We don't have enough information to say for certain.

We don't know when the FBI stopped surveilling Manafort in 2016. (From 2014-2016?)

We don't know (beyond a vague reference to "fall") when they started surveilling again.

Why would Clapper lie? He would know that the Trump Administration could discover the stop/start dates.

(I'm not defending him. Just thinking about the way these things go.)


I will admit that it is possible by looking at this very carefully that there could be a time frame for what you are saying.

This is going to be complicated so bear with me.

Clapper is there all through 2016 and 2016 until November.

Manafort joins the campaign in March 2016.

Cnn says that the first court ran out sometime in 2016.

So if it ran in in say Feb. 2-16, techinically manafort was not part of the campaign at that point.

We then know a second warrant was started that at least went into early 2017.

This would mean in order for Clapper to be telling the truth, the first warrant had to run out before March, and the second would have had to start after november.

Now CNN also says Manafort was named in the Urkainian probe in August, so it seems likely he would have been egtting tapped before november.

www.cnn.com...

Even if that is the case:
1. Its quite the semantic trick to say no one in the campaign was tapped when he knew Trumps campaign manager had been tapped right before he was manager.

2. More importantly, you ask why would Clapper lie?

Who knows? Its been confirmed he lied under oath when he said the NSA did not collect data on millions of Americans. Why did he lie then?
edit on 19-9-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, I know there is a very narrow window for him to be "technically" telling the truth - it was mostly an intellectual exercise.

Clapper is a pathological liar just like all politicians and those who desire power over others..
edit on 19-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, somewhere between Aug 20 and Nov 8 ... if Clapper was being "technically" truthful.


Yes good catch I forgot about him saying help the campaign.

That timeframe seems mighty skeptical, and would mean when Clapper made his claim he would have known that Manafort was wiretapped both right before and after being campaign manager.

That seems just as slimey.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yep. Slimers gonna slime.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Three maybes there.

Here's another. Maybe Trump is busted.


How would Trump be busted?


As long as we're speculating, this one's easy. Trump might have said something to incriminate himself in the whole Russia fiasco.


Might have. If he did, why sit on it so long and allow him to run, win, and be sworn in before doing anything about it?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambleri getting older but isn't this what nixon got in trouble. so obama had fbi spying on hillary's opponents i wonder if they spied on bernie.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ColoradoJens

I love this argument.

So if is show that even an anti trump outlet like CNN says this, it's still not good enough.

If I post breitbart or drudge, you all will say it's no good.

If I post CNN or other left wing outlets that are admitting thhis, then you still have problems with it.



Fascinating, isn't it? How they remain able to type, with all of the spinning, I don't know. I'd be dizzy!

Of course, no source is good if it doesn't agree with their current narrative.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: nataylor

Not the station the congressmen are reffering to.

From their FCC letter.




We're writing in response to recent troubling press reports that a radio network funded by the Russian government may have used U.S. airwaves to influence the 2016 presidential election. We ask that you investigate these troubling reports and apply all applicable laws and regulations to enforce the public interest standard for licensed stations that broadcast this network.


An article published by the New York Times Magazine (9/13/17) titled "RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War" suggests that Sputnik, a radio network funded by the Russian government, was used as part of the Kremlin's effort to influence the 2016 presidential election


www.zerohedge.com...

Here is a quote from the NYT piece they are referencing.


It’s hard to imagine Russia’s state-backed media getting any traction in the United States if there wasn’t already an audience for it. For some subset of Americans, the intelligence report singling out RT and Sputnik was just another attack from the supposed “deep state” that Breitbart, for instance, had been fuming about for months — and it was less than surprising when, this spring, Sputnik hired a former Breitbart reporter, Lee Stranahan, to start a radio show in Washington. As Stranahan told The Atlantic, though his paycheck might now come from the Russians, “Nothing about it really affects my position on stuff that I’ve had for years now.”


www.nytimes.com...

and eta from the station itself.


Radio Sputnik Starts Broadcasting in Washington DC on FM Station

01.07.2017(updated 07:22 01.07.2017)
Attention senators, representatives and any fun-loving radio listeners in Washington, DC: Radio Sputnik is now available at 105.5 FM 24/7 and you don’t want to miss a second of its broadcast.

Sputnik News spoke to several members of its radio team to get their perspectives on the new radio station and what it means for the political conversation in DC. Eugene Puryear, whose show By Any Means Necessary draws from a Malcolm X quote about how to achieve black liberation, said that his show is one "that I think really tries to capture a lot of the energy for the movement for black lives, or the climate justice movement, that are moving young progressive people but are also trying to tie that framework into how we look at current events."


sputniknews.com...

The members of Congress were referring to Radio Sputnik> As I said, yes, they didn’t start broadcasting on analog FM until June, 2017 (when the switched to a “new station,” WTOP). Before that, they broadcast on a digital sub channel, on their old station of W288BS. Exact same content provider, largely the exact same content (Stranahan joined when they did the switchover). They just switched stations in 2017.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I for the life of me can't understand how people don't think illegal surveillance of Trump team members was not going on. Here is why:

1.) Obama campaigned ruthlessly for Clinton. He campaigned in a way that no previous sitting President has ever done. Lets face it...the two have never been big fans of each other. She was Obama's SoS because to have her anywhere outside the main sphere of political influence and power would have made him a one term President. Many assume....wrongly.... that Obama championed Hillary so strongly so as to save his legacy. Lol...hardly. He campaigned so diligently for Hillary to avoid this surveillance scandal. It is going to only get bigger. He needed Clinton as President because she is indeed part of the mess.

2.) James Comey, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and the NSA Director Mike Rodgers had all claimed their was no surveillance. IT IS ALL ON CAMERA. Now we have this mess. They lied, plain and simple. But the bigger question is why did they all lie? My feelings are that the surveillance was a lot bigger than what we are being told.

My gut feeling is some of this surveillance was done without a FISA warrant. I think that is what is being covered up and that is why the players are now panicking. Some will say that is impossible to do. The program is so tightly administered it can't happen. I disagree. The corruption of the last 8 years was so prevelent that anything could be done.

I have no doubt in my mind that the scale of surveillance on Trump's campaign team is much more than what is now being admitted. I also believe they did it thinking they would easily find something to knock Trump out of the race but it never came. Now they are stuck with the aftermath. They are panicking out there...I'll bet on it.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Yes allegedly. manafort allegedly did nothing wrong to. That was the reason for the investigation. So why none into Podesta?


Perhaps there is more to the Manfort issue than we know that goes far beyond anything the Podesta group has done.

Again, Manafort has his hands in with some real shady people. The Podesta Group only happened to do some work for a think tank that they apparently did not know was receiving certain funds.

So the two situations do not seem comparable at all.



I did not claim the original wiretap on Manafort was neccessarily out of politics (it could have been or not).


If it wasn't out of politics, you admit your earlier argument about the FISA courts are irrelevant.



What I have said is that it has resulted in being used for political gain, including exploiting the unmasking and leaking of info.


You don't know where the leaks came from, so to say that was for political gain is an assumption. Also, there is no evidence to suggest the unmasking was exploited for political gain. Another assumption on your part.



That is why there should be incredible restraints on being able to wiretap poltical oppoenets, because even if it starts with noble intentions, it can end up being corrupted.


There are already "restraints" in place. What more are you expecting to be done?



Was the leak about the unmasking of Flynn used to harm Trump politically. Yes. So it has been exploited.


Leaks are going to happen from time to time. Again, it is already illegal so what do you want to be done?



What are you tslking about? Your whole stance is that what Obama did was legal. Now you are saying its not allowed? Are you confused?


It appears you are not paying attention. Here is what you posted to which I responded:



You are the one who needs a written statement by Obama announcing he did this for political reasons before you think we shouldn't allow it.


It's already not allowed, which is why I posted what I did. What you have to provide is evidence that Obama did this for political reasons, whether it's a written confession or or evidence.

My stance is not that what Obama did was illegal. My stance is that you have no proof Obama did anything whatsoever.

Do you understand that?



I am saying we shouldn't allow scret Fisa warramts for wiretaps on political opponents unless it is the most of extreme circumstances, and that ion that case there should have to be far more over site than just the president and his court appointees.


How do you know this was a wiretap on a political opponent for political purposes? You already admitted the court may have issued the warrant legitimately, outside of politics.

Are you saying the IC cannot follow leads and investigate people because the person in question may have different political leanings that the current sitting president? Do we bypass the rules and laws simply because people such as yourself will create loony conspiracies out of thin #ing air?



I have not created a conspiracy out of thin air. I outlined over three times now all of the shady stuff that happoened, including illegal leaks.


The leaks are the only leg you have to stand on and you cannot prove where those leaks came from and their intent.

Yes, you are creating conspiracy out of thin air. You cannot prove anything you have asserted and you have admitted that.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:21 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?


It looked plausible to me and I was not a Trump supporter till after the election and he did a lot of what I think needs doing and is an indication of hope that we can clean out some of this corruption. He has certainly given rope to the liars we felt they were to expose their true nature.

ETA

I did vote Trump in the Gen election but I was NOT a supporter..... That was a vote to keep Hillary out. I am a Paul guy and he go waxed early so I went for Cruz. DJT wasn't even my second choice now look at him.
edit on 20-9-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The OP has nothing to do with Trump's ridiculous claim that Obama ordered HE be wiretapped. Everyone knows he made that crap up. People he was involved with were wiretapped YEARS before due to connections with Russia? Um.. not the same thing. Also it's funny how that worry about his connections with Russia.. and his subsequent connection with Trump doesn't seem to bother anyone. Apparently it's more important to justify one of the many claims made by Trump, rather than actually figure out if something illicit was going on.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I posted how is still think trumps tweet was technically wrong.

Funny though how the claim that trump colluded with russia is still not shown to have any proof, but you spin this as it somehow verifys these hysterical claims.

Or what do you mean by trump connections to russia? I assume every politician and businessman in the US has connections to russia.

This article shows no proof whatsoever of trump colluding with russia.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Shhh never mind this.

Let's focus on Russians and white supremacy boogie men.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Does it take effort for Trump supporters to focus on wiretapping without focusing on the actual “why”?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: xuenchen

Nah...it will be the same as it always has. One side belittles the other, then vice versa. Has any of the partisans on either side actually changed their minds or been swayed from their side yet?


Is this how you actually view information? As an attempt to be swayed and therefor automatically discount the relevance or implications of that information?

By your above statement you are saying that regardless of information you are programmed and will never change your belief system in your side. Which ever side that may be is irrelevant.

Please understand my observation has nothing to do with partisan politics.




top topics



 
57
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join