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.

 

FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

...and you? DEATH TO ALL WHO DO LOVE TRUMP?

You're a literal Yang to the Yin here, you know? there is just no getting through to you.




posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The goal of Russia is to sow mistrust of American liberal democracy. You and Grambler are certainly doing your share. Lucky for you the First Amendment allows you to do that. The same amendment also means no-one is going to an internment camp just because they are part of the majority who did not vote for that idiot in the White House.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Debriefing as in “they interviewed him”...


Obviously...

When a spy gets “debriefed” the handler is the one asking questions.. and maybe giving instructions on what they are supposed to do next..

The one being debriefed is the one doing the talking and doing what they are told..


In what definition is a debriefing a 2 way exchange of intelligence?!?!

The debriefer is the dominant party. Aka the one asking questions , giving orders..


The debreifee is the submissive party, handing over information and taking orders..


Well, atleast this seems to be a misunderstanding rather than intentional propaganda..



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So no proof.

Ok.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

At least he plays the part well



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Where have I ever used that sort of language?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JBurns

The goal of Russia is to sow mistrust of American liberal democracy. You and Grambler are certainly doing your share. Lucky for you the First Amendment allows you to do that. The same amendment also means no-one is going to an internment camp just because they are part of the majority who did not vote for that idiot in the White House.


Really?

I would think those that say that Trump needs impeached are doing that.

Or how about the people that actually paid to get dirt on Trump directly from Kremlin sources.

You know, the DNC and hillarys team.

That seems to be the clearest case of allowing Kremlin agents to sow distrust in the US system.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grambler


They think intent matters



It does, but the main point here is that if Grambler is going to make claims, he needs to be able to back it up.

He has a habit of fabricating things out of thin air and making illogical extrapolations.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


No, it is you who has no proof my friend. Can you produce one shred of evidence demonstrating Trump's guilt? Of course you can't. That isn't your fault, it is theirs. They've never released any evidence. They've trained half the population to respond to this BS on queue, split right down political lines. How about we stop looking at this as a left vs right thing, and simply leave it at this: in this country you're innocent until PROVEN guilty. So, until that proof comes to light (regardless of how it comes to light), Trump is innocent and will continue as head of state.

Once again, the FBI has already investigated Trump (during Obama Admin, no less) and found nothing. Nothing is going to magically appear that they didn't already come across.

Anyone keeping their fingers crossed for Mueller is in for a serious let down. I don't even care, the only reason I continue to talk about it is so I can rub it in when Trump is cleared by yet another investigation into Russia-hysterics. I already know in my heart of hearts he will walk.

He had to say it 16 times the other night though. I feel this way sometimes too. I say things over and over and over again, feels like I speak to brick walls here sometimes.

"There is no collusion. Even if there was it isn't illegal. But there was no collusion." -PRESIDENT Donald John Trump
edit on 1/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Can you produce one shred of evidence demonstrating Trump's guilt?


That's Mueller's job. Tick tock....



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Where did steele get info that the FBI had an inside source on trumps team if not directly from the FBI?

Oh, and apparently the USA today and others also made this same mistake as me.


Glenn Simpson, founder of the Fusion GPS research firm that hired former British agent Christopher Steele, told investigators that the FBI had shared the existence of "a human source from inside the Trump Organization" in a September 2016 meeting with Steele.


www.usatoday.com...

A debreifing doesnt just involve questions, it involves telling the person information on what happened to.

And clearly simpson himself disgrees with you.


You know, my
24 understanding was that they would have gotten into
25 who his sources were, how he knew certain things,

1 and, you know, other details based on their own
2 intelligence.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Just an understanding of the definition of “debriefing”. Lol.


That said this seems more misunderstanding than blantant propaganda..

My guess is homie saw “debreiefing” and thought it was a trading/swapping of info. Rather than a dominant/submissive dynamic where I do was really only going one way.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns



No, it is you who has no proof my friend. Can you produce one shred of evidence demonstrating Trump's guilt? Of course you can't. That isn't your fault, it is theirs.


I never made any claim to anything of the sort.

You guys really aren't good at basic logic, are you?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


It doesn't matter, per se. The circumstantial evidence and the direct actions they took is enough for a finding of intent. The attitude and content of their illicit exchanges also demonstrates this "intent." Letting Hillary walk free despite lies under oath/espionage is another way to prove their intent.

Finally, because both Peter Strozok and Lisa Page were engaging in an extramarital affair, both of them can be impeached as far as their credibility goes. In law enforcement, your word is your bond and all you have in that world is your credibility. By engaging in dishonest acts like affairs, Strozok and Page have completely rendered their credibility/benefit of the doubt moot.

Reason being is all the lying and misdirection that goes into one of those. Clearly neither of them have any morals or ethics, and engaged in all sorts of lies and deception. That just doesn't fit into law enforcement.

Why exactly do you think Strozok/Page/et al were removed so suddenly? I can assure you it isn't for baking cookies on company time.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Fair enough

I haven't had my daily Starbucks triple macchiato


YET



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Take it easy! How am I propagandist? I've been suspecting for the last 6 months at least that the hacking and the "collusion" are gonna turn out to be fake. I'm just looking at this document now, and specifically this part of it, and if it's true then it indicates that the FBI had reason to suspect. That's why I'm surprised, like I wrote just now. Of course it doesn't prove anything either way, it's just a couple lines of text that someone claims is true.

a reply to: JBurns

Cool story. I didn't claim any of that though. I'm only questioning OP's theory, and pointing out that if we believe that the debriefing crime happened then we gotta believe they had the source too.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


JC, my favorite voice of reason LOL

That is a good point. A lot more context is needed for some of the statements, especially where it involves the raw sources and the part where they say someone has already died from it? I am quite curious here who they are talking about



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants


Oh, that wasn't an actual attack
Just using satire to emphasize my other satirical point. Sometimes I use extreme examples to build a straw man of a particular argument in order to have a better grasp on certain key points

I don't use it as a logical fallacy, rather as a way to more clearly articulate certain key points (at least points I thought was important). But as another member said, my logic/common sense is barely functional until I get at least 20oz of caffeine

No offense intended Cutepants, just wanted to point out how silly it was to attack someone without having actual evidence in hand. I have been adding a small subtext under those types of posts, but I did forget to include it this time.
edit on 1/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Nope debrief isn’t a 2 way trade of info..

It is a one way exchange. It is a subordinate answering what they are asked, and doing whatever new thing they have been told to do.

Maybe if they were planning on enlisting his aid in further investigations they might tell him something.. but that is likely perfectly legal.



If I report to the cops you are selling dope, and they say

“we have been looking into him too. Will you help us further investigate by trying to get you to sell me some dope”

That’s probably legal. Especially once an investigation is running.


edit on 10-1-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grambler


They think intent matters



It does, but the main point here is that if Grambler is going to make claims, he needs to be able to back it up.

He has a habit of fabricating things out of thin air and making illogical extrapolations.


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump. It was, as I explained, because he was the one who would be hurt by it.

In the same way, the leaks of hillary emails were against here, regardless of the leakers intent.

You are so desperate to deflect for your narrative that you are willing to accept any wrong doing by the intel community until they have written statements admitting that they broke the law to hurt trump.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join