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: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



I can't wait to hear your outrage when a Republican gets the court to rubber stamp warrants, then unmasks and leaks info to hurt there political rivals.


Can you please provide some evidence that the warrants were approved and the unmasking and leaks were done with the intent of hurting their political rivals?

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




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

how much of that coverage was about russian ties, or information that could only have been obtained by wiretaps?? most of that negative coverage had it's source from trump's own mouth...

come give me some examples???



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



I can't wait to hear your outrage when a Republican gets the court to rubber stamp warrants, then unmasks and leaks info to hurt there political rivals.


Can you please provide some evidence that the warrants were approved and the unmasking and leaks were done with the intent of hurting their political rivals?


Were the leaks illegal?

What other intent for them could there have been?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

You know for the most part yeah they are. Why do you assume that everyone in government is corrupt? It's a very poor assumption. The world is full of good and decent people and most people in government are there because of a desire to make things better. This whole idea that everyone in government is crooked is horribly skewed.
Our justice system may not be perfect but it's pretty damn near and it functions as it should for the most part.
edit on 9192017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Were the leaks illegal?

What other intent for them could there have been?


Now you have to provide evidence of who the person was that did the leaking and their intent was to harm their political rivals.

Unless you can do that, you are making assumptions.

Also, you failed to address the issue of the warrants and the unmasking. Please prove those actions were taken to harm their political rivals.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler

how much of that coverage was about russian ties, or information that could only have been obtained by wiretaps?? most of that negative coverage had it's source from trump's own mouth...

come give me some examples???



Most of Hillary's negatives were about things she did herself.

Everyone thought Hillary was going to easily win, so it wasn't until after the election the leaks started in full force.

And just being able to listen in to your opponents conversations is a huge advantage, even if you aren't leaking info.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Were the leaks illegal?

What other intent for them could there have been?


Now you have to provide evidence of who the person was that did the leaking and their intent was to harm their political rivals.

Unless you can do that, you are making assumptions.

Also, you failed to address the issue of the warrants and the unmasking. Please prove those actions were taken to harm their political rivals.


So that's the new standard.

Get a fisa court to rubber stamp a warrant, wiretap unmask and leak against your opponent, and unless there is proof that this was for political reasons, it's all perfectly legit.

Prove that whoever leaked or hacked the emails did so for political reasons.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The evidence was laid out for everyone and most legal experts with the exception of judge Napolitano were saying the same thing. All last spring I linked article after article outlining just why she wouldn't be indicted so it's no surprise. They interviewed her just before they closed the case and that was just a formality because everyone already knew where the case was going. Why do you think trump isn't going after her? Cuz he's Mr. Nice guy? No because he's seen the evidence or been updated on it and knows there's nothing to go after.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

well, then maybe you should inform trump's and others in his administration of this fact!!!



sounds like they might be the source of some leaks themselves!!! like secrets locked into a safe that isn't even being shared between the lawyers!!!

and let's be a bit honest here, huh....
alot of the negative stories about hillary came from emails that were illegally obtained and dumped on the net!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So that's the new standard.


Proof and evidence has always been the standard.

You don't get to make things up as you go along. Without clear evidence, your assertions are illogical.



Get a fisa court to rubber stamp a warrant, wiretap unmask and leak against your opponent, and unless there is proof that this was for political reasons, it's all perfectly legit.


It appears it was all legit, except for the leaks. And you cannot make any claim as to the intent of the leakers unless you actually know who they are/were.



Prove that whoever leaked or hacked the emails did so for political reasons.


I do not have to prove anything. You made the assertions. You back it up.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What leaks?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

What leaks?



Hahahaha!



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Most of Hillary's negatives are made up crap.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Alright. I'm done. This album has a scratch in it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Fisa courts only deny .03 warrant requests. It is a rubber stamp.

You are literally suggesting any President should be able to wiretap opponents, and unmask and leak info, and as long as no one is saying outrigt they are doing it for political purposes, it's ok.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Most of Hillary's negatives are made up crap.


Hahahahaa!!!!

Keep going this is good!



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Well personally its not an assumption that they're all corrupt. Its the knowledge there are enough of them that are. The ones that are tend to rise in the ranks because they're useful to those that put them there. I have a judge in my family as well as someone who manages campagins on a state level. The amount of corruption I have been exposed to and even seen used by them was eye opening. Seeing how a commonwealth attorney's offices really does business was a pretty surprising thing too. Oh and do you know how I was able to see into that prosecutorial office and how they conduct themselves. Because my campaign managing family member got the commonwealth attorney elected and was handed the number 2 role in said office after the election. He had not passed a BAR exam yet ran a lot of facets in that office. I am well versed on how the game is played I have seen it for my self. In fact I had warrants on myself at one point that were erased due to my own connections with the legal system.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

first of all...
if they are "leaks" then more than likely they are true!!!
are you sure you want to call them "leaks"....
otherwise, they are just made up stories... which was what much of hillary's negative press was.

and just what was "leaked" about trump before the election???



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



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Fisa courts only deny .03 warrant requests. It is a rubber stamp.


Ok. That does not prove anything you have asserted.



You are literally suggesting any President should be able to wiretap opponents, and unmask and leak info, and as long as no one is saying outrigt they are doing it for political purposes, it's ok.


Literally, I've suggested no such thing. I've asked you for evidence of what you have claimed and you seem to be side-stepping that request.

And so you try to change the focus on to me by making ridiculous assertions.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Seems like a lot of people are having a hard time admitting Trump was right... I wonder will it be the same when the Russia investigation turns up nothing against Trump...



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join