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: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Talk about tap dancing through a field of cow flops. What Trump accused in April looks more plausible today than it did in April, and in April it looked pretty damn plausible.



+1 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




Why would Obama encourage this investigation to be spread among european allies and other intel agencies?

Read all about it.
www.nytimes.com...


yes you will see on page one of this thread I linked that article and a thread I did on it.

Even if you argue the FBI ordered the wiretapping and Obama didn't, he certainly did everything in his power to ensure Trump was smeared by it even to aallies.

This alone is outrageous, and yet t many people do not seem concerned.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD


Why do you play as if you couldn't understand what I said...unless I underestimate your intelligence and believe me I always felt you were a very intelligent person.
I understood what you said. Your post was nonspecific and I asked for clarification.


Tapping manafort and unmasking trump.

But now we are getting somewhere. Yes, we know know that Manafort was tapped. However, Trump being unmasked is new to me.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Ok.
Lock him up. Sic Sessions on him.

Meanwhile continuing the investigation(s), of course.

edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6




They can only get one if there is an already open investigation and evidence on a new player comes to light,

How about if further evidence on the original player comes to light?


My understanding is that once a warrant is closed, it is closed and the process changes if new evidence comes to light. The second warrant would have required high level JD requests because it was directed at an individual from the get-go, rather than part of a current investigation.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Ok.
Lock him up. Sic Sessions on him.

Meanwhile continuing the investigation(s), of course.


Ok I can live with that.

But I have no illusions, this will not be used to go after Obama.

Instead, it is more likely that Trump or a future president will use this same process to their advantage.

This is why the media and politicians should have been all over the politicization of the FBI against Trump in the first place, and not to mention the same politicization in bias for hillary in that investigation.


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The mental gymnastics by the liberals in this thread are pure gold.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Clinton is considering contesting the election results if evidence emerges of Russia and Trump connection/collusion.

There was no evidence found up till the point of Meuller taking over the investigation.There should have never been an investigation to begin with. No way this investigation is fair and unbiased. The evidence will be manufactured and another national nightmare will begin if Clinton fights the election results and ultimately wins office.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


In order to get a surveillance warrant from the FISA court, a domestic investigative agency (i.e. the FBI or CIA) can present an application to the presiding judge. The judge reviews the application, and then issues the warrant if they decide that there is probable cause.

www.sporcle.com...

Not necessarily an authoritative source, I know. The FBI does, of course, provide information to the DOJ but I don't think that a FISA application must include the "top of the Justice Department."



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
So if it is true, someone leaked it...
How do you feel about such a leak of an ongoing investigation?


Not necessarily leaked. Trump was briefed on the Manafort investigation prior to taking the oath of office. He likely found out about the wiretapping shortly after assuming office.

I've said it before, all of the money trails connect the Hillary campaign and Podesta as having been massively in Russia's pockets. It strikes me as an insincere and worrysome that Manafort was under such scrutiny for speculated minor contact with Russia while nothing happened with people exchanging hundreds of millions of dollars with Russia on the same political side as the then POTUS. With that in mind, I decry the legitimacy of the ongoing investigation in the first place.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: [post=22678050]RickyD


Tapping manafort and unmasking trump.

But now we are getting somewhere. Yes, we know know that Manafort was tapped. However, Trump being unmasked is new to me.


You're right...I stand corrected. Susan Rice unmasked other people from the core team working for his election. Does it make a difference though? Either way it was people unrelated to those investigations. None of those people have any charges against them and again...if they really had something they would have brought people in on charges to stop them. So isn't it still just as bad?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

As I understand the process, no. There is not necessarily anything illegal or wrong about unmasking.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

All I can say to that is...there sure was a significant amount more leaking for that election than any other that I've been alive for. Why would that be I wonder?
edit on 18-9-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RickyD

As I understand the process, no. There is not necessarily anything illegal or wrong about unmasking.


The unmasking itself isn't illegal.

However, insuring that this info gets to unprecedented levels of sharing that info to ensure leaks, and then giving that info to European allies is unbelievably unethical.

Again, you will see the very people defending this behavior scream how much of a dictator Trump is if he unmasks people like this and there are leaks about his political rivals.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime




There was no evidence found up till the point of Meuller taking over the investigation.

Really? How do you know this?
edit on 9/18/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Who were the unmasked names shared with? How many people?



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Unless we see the warrant (which will never happen), there's really no way this will ever be truly settled as to who endorsed the investigation into Trump confidants nor whether Trump, himself, was targeted.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EchoesInTime




There was no evidence found up till the point of Meuller taking over the investigation.

Really? How do you know this?


many people that would know such as Feinstein, Hoyer, Claapper and others said they had seen no such evidence.

Even the anon sources in the CNN article say there is no conclusive evidence on even Manafort.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Who were the unmasked names shared with? How many people?


Well the media got a hold of them and shared them with, oh I don't know, 3 billion people.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join