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.

 

Wall Street Journal calls for investigation into the FBI !!!

page: 2
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Or lazy... Clearly they have determined that their readers have thrown all pretenses of skepticism and intellectual due diligence out the window with the way they are in your face with their bs these days.


It's amazing that the "right-wing" is willing to tear down our Intelligence Community for nothing more than to provide cover to Trump and his ilk.




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah the name of the game these days is trying to link Manafort's FBI surveillance back in 2014 to Trump. Like did these people all format their brains or something? 2016 and 2015 were only the last two years. How can you think that Trump had anything to do with Manafort beyond those two years is beyond me. Just because they are in under the same microscope now is no reason to automatically assume they were always in cohoots just to justify Trump's asinine comment about him being wiretapped during the election.

I logged on to ATS this morning and saw two topic exploring that line of reasoning as a serious conversation. I got a headache just TRYING to make those mental gymnastics work...
edit on 20-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
HMMM again ... this dropped about an hour ago .. .

Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President - NYT



SEPT. 20, 2017
WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, has asked the White House for documents about some of President Trump’s most scrutinized actions since taking office, including the firing of his national security adviser and F.B.I. director, according to White House officials.

Mr. Mueller is also interested in an Oval Office meeting Mr. Trump had with Russian officials in which he said the dismissal of the F.B.I. director had relieved “great pressure” on him.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I was repeating verbatim the sub-heading of the Wall Street Journal article. There is nothing stopping you from disputing their conclusion.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude


It's sad that this will also turn into a partisan "US vs. THEM" scenario, when the implications go so far beyond dem/repub it's not close to funny.


I think we crossed that bridge when the President accused his predecessor of "wiretapping" him to advantage his opponent and the administration accused one of our closest allies of conducting the surveillance.


It must be me. Brain short circuit or something. But if Manafort was under surveillance, and Manafort lived and worked in Trump Towers during the election, and we ASSUME that the IC didn't drop the surveillance when he joined the Trump campaign, is it not even remotely possible that Trump Towers were "tapped" if even just to hear Manafort?


I'm not saying it was wrong or bad, but to make the leap of logic that it never happened, and in the next breath, admit that Manafort was indeed being watched and recorded kind of seems illogical.

Could you help me with that.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I'm not saying it was wrong or bad, but to make the leap of logic that it never happened, and in the next breath, admit that Manafort was indeed being watched and recorded kind of seems illogical.


I didn't say it didn't happen. I tend to believe that the CNN reporting is probably accurate actually. What I take issue with is the leap in logic that him being under surveillance is evidence of election meddling.
edit on 2017-9-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.


What title do you hold in the IC? If you don't work for the government, I would have to ask how you know more than Clapper or anyone else in this matter?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Seriously.

Haven't we been told all along that there was nothing that the Russians or that Trump could have done to meddle in the Election by our friends on "the right"?

But now, magically, standard surveillance of subjects of long-standing interest like Paul Manafort is "meddling with the election"?

You can't make this up.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude


I'm not saying it was wrong or bad, but to make the leap of logic that it never happened, and in the next breath, admit that Manafort was indeed being watched and recorded kind of seems illogical.


I didn't say it didn't happen. I tend to believe that the CNN reporting is probably accurate actually. What I take issue with is the leap in logic that him being under surveillance is evidence of election meddling.


When leaks included things that were used against Trump on the campaign, and those leaks emanated from the IC during an active investigation, I'm not sure how else you can look at it. It can't be both ways.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.


What title do you hold in the IC? If you don't work for the government, I would have to ask how you know more than Clapper or anyone else in this matter?


That explains your supposed conundrum. You asked for an explanation, I gave it to you.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Anything to keep the narrative going and to continue to deny they were wrong. Your brain may need to wear a brace to wrangle all the gymnastics though.
edit on 20-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Anything to keep the narrative going and to continue to deny they were wrong. Your brain may need to wear a brace to wrangle all the gymnastics though.


I don't pay that much attention to it these days. As it's really nothing more than the repetition of 2 or 3 tactics.

Admittedly, when I try to make sense out of the absurdity, my eyes go a little funny.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.


What title do you hold in the IC? If you don't work for the government, I would have to ask how you know more than Clapper or anyone else in this matter?


That explains your supposed conundrum. You asked for an explanation, I gave it to you.



that you are full of #? Again, I must have missed the point. Remember, I'm an idiot. I don't even know advanced calculus. Explain it, or you could admit you really don't know, that's always an option.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.


What title do you hold in the IC? If you don't work for the government, I would have to ask how you know more than Clapper or anyone else in this matter?


That explains your supposed conundrum. You asked for an explanation, I gave it to you.



that you are full of #? Again, I must have missed the point. Remember, I'm an idiot. I don't even know advanced calculus. Explain it, or you could admit you really don't know, that's always an option.


How could the FBI gain intelligence on conversations Manafort was having without "tapping" Manaforts "lines"?

They "tapped" the "lines" of the people he was talking to.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Heh. I've severely curtailed my posting here for the same reasons. It's not worth it having the same tiring arguments with the same people who refuse to update their thinking no matter what so I only really come here when I want to post something interesting or I'm super bored at work. I have more engaging arguments with the kids on GameFAQs message boards than I do with the people here, (and if you know anything about GFAQs, that should terrify you).
edit on 20-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

From the Zero-hedge article, which I presume is quoted from the WSJ article:



Mr. Comey told Congress in late March that he “had no information that supports those [Trump] tweets.”

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was even more specific that “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against—the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.”

He denied that any such FISA order existed.


It appears they either lied or were ignorant of the facts. These are the directors of their respective agencies, and In this very thread we have people dismissing such criticism out of hand.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

They were listening to the other side of the conversations involving Manafort.


What title do you hold in the IC? If you don't work for the government, I would have to ask how you know more than Clapper or anyone else in this matter?


That explains your supposed conundrum. You asked for an explanation, I gave it to you.



that you are full of #? Again, I must have missed the point. Remember, I'm an idiot. I don't even know advanced calculus. Explain it, or you could admit you really don't know, that's always an option.


How could the FBI gain intelligence on conversations Manafort was having without "tapping" Manaforts "lines"?

They "tapped" the "lines" of the people he was talking to.



Did he ever talk to Trump?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Did he ever talk to Trump?

That is the million dollar question.
I do think either comey or some other addressed that very question to congress or the senate with respect to trump.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Heh. I've severely curtailed my posting here for the same reasons. It's not worth it having the same tiring arguments with the same people who refuse to update their thinking no matter what so I only really come here when I want to post something interesting or I'm super bored at work. I have more engaging arguments with the kids on GameFAQs message boards than I do with the people here, (and if you know anything about GFAQs, that should terrify you).


I just enjoy seeing some of the jack wagons get their metaphorical asses handed to them ... sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel though.




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join