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.

 

Strzok text and why isn't anyone asking the obvious?

page: 8
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Its not implausible that anyone not in agreement with what was going on is easily silenced. Everyones got dirt, and if not the FBIs specialty is using entrapment and evidence tampering to conjure up crimes.

Besides, it sorta looks like the team was hand picked to stack it full of political rivals of the accused.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How it looks make what are being called "facts" pretty suspect.

That is the problem.

I keep saying it....Trump is a scumbag. But the folks against him seem to be worse. The FBI being shown to hide evidence in the Bundy trial further supports my belief that they have no credibility.

All the opposition had to do to avoid this farce is run anyone other than Hillary



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I have a fundamentally basic question which Wikipedia answered.

Who created the FBI and is it constitutional?

From Wikipedia...

Creation
The Bureau of Investigation (BOI) was created on July 26, 1908, after the Congress had adjourned for the summer.[11] Attorney General Bonaparte, using Department of Justice expense funds,[11] hired thirty-four people, including some veterans of the Secret Service,[14][15] to work for a new investigative agency. Its first "Chief" (the title is now known as "Director") was Stanley Finch. Bonaparte notified the Congress of these actions in December 1908.[11]

The bureau's first official task was visiting and making surveys of the houses of prostitution in preparation for enforcing the "White Slave Traffic Act," or Mann Act, passed on June 25, 1910. In 1932, the bureau was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation. The following year it was linked to the Bureau of Prohibition and rechristened the Division of Investigation (DOI) before finally becoming an independent service within the Department of Justice in 1935.[14] In the same year, its name was officially changed from the Division of Investigation to the present-day Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI.

So I don't think it is constitutional and probably should not exist today.

Maybe Trump should do away with it now that we suspect Obama was using it as a political weapon (as Hoover arguably did as well).



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



The difference of the bias is the RINO's and Dems hate America and the freedom we have to say what we think. The Middle to Right indies and R's love it here for the chance to do what we want as long as it hurts no one and say what we want.


Love America...hate America...please spare me the bull#.

That means absolutely nothing whatsoever.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



How it looks make what are being called "facts" pretty suspect.

That is the problem.


No. It is not a problem.

How it looks to people, through their own partisan filter, does not change the facts themselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert




My reaction depends on what the truth of the matter is and what facts are found.


.


That's really it isn't it? When will you know we've arrived at the truth? People have a way of denying facts and truths.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Evidence tampering? You know of an incident in this investigation?
I have not even heard of a rumor of evidence tampering.
That's pretty serious.
edit on 12152017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It's the live version of the oroboro.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert




My reaction depends on what the truth of the matter is and what facts are found.


.


That's really it isn't it? When will you know we've arrived at the truth? People have a way of denying facts and truths.


We will know when all of the facts are presented, the complete context is as well, and we have no choice but to face what those facts/contexts tell us.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert




My reaction depends on what the truth of the matter is and what facts are found.


.


That's really it isn't it? When will you know we've arrived at the truth? People have a way of denying facts and truths.


We will know when all of the facts are presented, the complete context is as well, and we have no choice but to face what those facts/contexts tell us.


.....if you say so. From what I've seen here, we have a few flat earthers here when it comes to Trump and Russia.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert




My reaction depends on what the truth of the matter is and what facts are found.


.


That's really it isn't it? When will you know we've arrived at the truth? People have a way of denying facts and truths.


We will know when all of the facts are presented, the complete context is as well, and we have no choice but to face what those facts/contexts tell us.


.....if you say so. From what I've seen here, we have a few flat earthers here when it comes to Trump and Russia.


That's true. We also have people of the same mindset when it comes to denying Trump/Russia, and of course anything to do with Obama/Hillary is blown to epic proportions.

Needless to say, we have a lot of people on this site that are "special".



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Special" is such a broad term...a nice way of saying something cruel in some cases. However, we usually use that term to shield the subject from embarrassment.

Anyways, introvert and silly, I have a question.

Do you think Strzok is a real person?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

In this case? Not proven yet, no. But the Dossier questions are not answered, so who knows. We do know that something strange is going on, and if they are coincidences im sure having all facts laid out will help clarify.

In other cases? I mean, with holding exculpatory evidence int he Bundy case is pretty egregious.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



How it looks make what are being called "facts" pretty suspect.

That is the problem.


No. It is not a problem.

How it looks to people, through their own partisan filter, does not change the facts themselves.


Except im not partisan. So how is that going to work for me?

I didn't want Trump to get his nomination. I think his supporters were insane for giving the nomination to him. And the DNC was insane for not running anyone else ont he planet against him.

Do I lean right? Sure. But I lean left, too. So that "its through a partisan filter"nonsense just doesn't cut it.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sillyolme

In this case? Not proven yet, no. But the Dossier questions are not answered, so who knows. We do know that something strange is going on, and if they are coincidences im sure having all facts laid out will help clarify.

In other cases? I mean, with holding exculpatory evidence int he Bundy case is pretty egregious.


They talk in the texts about how they think texting is safe compared to other methods of communication. Why are they worried about be uncovered?
Hmmm

Why would a DC insider suddenly get the Urge to become a HAM radio operator?

Double hmmmm

If there are other people in DC with HAM licenses, then we have a big problem that would need explaining



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ah..the truth..
Does the sky reflect the ocean or does the ocean reflect the sky?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: erikthegreen

I hadn't given that a thought.
If he's not real they sure went to a high amount of trouble and detail constructing a profile of him.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




In other cases? I mean, with holding exculpatory evidence int he Bundy case is pretty egregious.


And subject to discussion. I'm not up on it but I know it's controversial on here.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




They talk in the texts about how they think texting is safe compared to other methods of communication. Why are they worried about be uncovered?
Hmmm


They were having an affair? Maybe???



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Im going to be honest here: i would love nothing more than to see the whole thing blow up in Hillary/Obama's face. Not because of my personal disdain for them, but rather because it will go a long way toward correcting the slide into what we have today. A slide that was aided by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. I think Reagan was the start of the regime we have in charge today.

So im hoping to see this all blow up in their faces. Then for Trump to hurry up and leave office so we can try to have a normal nation again. Something with jobs, with healthcare that doesn't cost me 20% more every year, with growth in wages...the America that I was used to.

It'll never be paradise. But if we could at least stop the sh## show, we would all win.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join