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 lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

page: 10
119
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
BTW, any idea who "Bill" is?


EW Priestap (Bill)




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I agree 100% completely.

We need to know all of it so that we can properly decide where to even start in the gargantuan and monumental task before us that is fixing a system which is now plainly far too broken to be allowed to continue as is.

In a way I think this may be a major part of why people are clinging to the partisan delusions lies and obfuscations both sides are vomiting out on a daily basis.

If they acknowledge the true scope of the problem this has now brought parts of into the light of day it becomes very plain that nothing short of a major teardown and rebuild of the system will accomplish anything!

Not only that but once you really acknowledge how big this obviously really is and how widespread etc... You also pretty much instantly realize that there is no possible way to do this fixing without bloodshed.

It's natural to recoil in horror and fear when confronted with something like this which is quite impossible to deal with peacefully.

But we don't really have a choice if we want a future for our offspring etc



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Deep breaths


But this does get curiouser and curiouser... sure wish they'd expanded on that thought. What exactly worried them?

I can't wait until I can go read it myself. Maybe tonight. Right now I'm feeding roses in between commenting here. Then I have to feed the citrus trees....



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Oh snap, turns out the "insurance policy" crap was utterly misrepresented bull#. And this made it's way into the Nunes memo? Jesus what a joke.



They're not talking about an "insurance policy" in regards to not getting Trump elected as the carefully cherry-picked, out of context quotes would have you believe. They're talking about what positions they'll hold after the election.

D = Director
DD = Deputy Director
ADD = Assistant Deputy Director
EAD = ?
GC = General Counsel?

The path that was thrown out for consideration was the changes to hierarchy after the election. That plan was based on an assumption that Trump wouldn't win the election (and appoint new people at the top).

Good grief. Another collapsed allegation.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I just meant it was good evidence in the court of public opinion...


I get that but did you really need this for that opinion?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

EW Priestap (Bill)


Hahaha! I read that as "eeeeew -- Bill Priestap" at first. No confirmation bias there, eh? (But gotta admit, that way works too)

I found this interesting at the link:


Priestap has a wife, Sabina Menschel, "the current head of the D.C. office of Nardello & Co [...], the top private-eye firm in the Beltway," whose father, Richard Menschel, is a Goldman Sachs investment banker...


Hmmm... why doesn't that surprise me?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

edit on 7-2-2018 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The path that was thrown out for consideration was the changes to hierarchy after the election. That plan was based on an assumption that Trump wouldn't win the election (and appoint new people at the top).

Good grief. Another collapsed allegation.



I read "path" as the "path" for an electoral college victory for Hillary. Strzok laid out her path to victory in the meeting, Page wants to believe it...but the "risk" that Trump might win was too great and an "insurance policy" was needed in case she lost.

Regardless...I agree that there is not sufficient context to say definitively.



edit on 2/7/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. But, I like to fill my pockets with 'whataboutisms' for future use.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't actually see the interpretation you are suggesting.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

edit on 7-2-2018 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't actually see the interpretation you are suggesting.


I don't either.

I think AD is tying the preceding messages to the comment about an 'insurance policy.' However, those texts were sent the night before that one and in between they obviously met in McCabe's office.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


1. It shows them speculating about the purpose of the meeting. There's actually nothing here that proves anything regarding Obama (not in these exchanges anyway) or even informs us whether their speculation about the purpose of the meeting was accurate.


I am reading this much like you, that they are saying that they meeting is about ultimately informing Obama about what they are doing, probably about the trump russia investigation.

This makes sense, as there is no reason to think Obama wouldnt be kept in the loop, despite his lies to Chris wallace that he would not do that in ANY investigation.


2. The quote from Obama was in regards to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and was from April of 2016. The reason that quote was posted was because of what appears to be an inaccurate assumption that this was about that investigation.

You don't think that the President should be briefed by the FBI on national security threats like Russian interference in elections? Wouldn't it be worse if he didn't? I mean, wouldn't that in fact be not doing his job as President?


He was quoted saying it wouldnt happen in any investigation. That was a lie.

And no I am not surprised that Obama was aware of what was happening.

But he is a liar who would try to say that he only read about it in the paper if wrong doing comes up.

Just like he lied and said he didnt know about Hil;arys proivate email, htough he had emailed her on it.



3. Getting a talking points briefing would not be the same thing as Obama knowing every detail of what was going on in the FBI.


Thats true. And as we all know, if wrong doing is shown, he will do all he can to ssay he knew nothing of the investigation, and read about it in the paper.


As far as the rest of your post, yes both have lied.

There was nothing wrong trump asking Comey to tell people he wasnt being investigated, seeing as how that is what comey was telling trump.

Trump was dumb to fire comey, but it wasnt illegal; he was within his rights to fire comey for any reason.

It now is looking more an d more like comey may be facing some legal troubles himself for misleading a fisa court.

I dont have a problem with Obama being kept in the loop about investigations.

But he did lie. And seeing as how we know he was involved, he should be investigated if it turns out the investigation was tainted in any way.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Observe the breathless, uncritical sharing of anti-Trump news between these two. Even seasoned FBI agents can fall victim to TDS in that sort of echo chamber.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea


So not such a fan of Obama et al either. That tells me he might be more Team Hillary than Team Obama. Or not.


What's not talked about frequently is the smack they talked about people other than Trump. Eric Holder for instance. Bernie Sanders for another. They even spoke ill of Chelsea Clinton.

Bits and pieces have been cherry-picked to paint a picture of two people who were fans of Hillary and hated Trump so much that they would do anything — anything — to prevent his election. There's no actual evidence of them doing anything to stop Trump from getting elected mind you.

What there is, is proof that they thought much the same thing as tens of millions of Americans. That Trump is buffoon who was unfit to be President and that Clinton was a much better candidate. Not even that they were in love with Hillary mind you.

What's missing is any actual discussion of them doing anything improper. What's the "best" evidence of them discussing doing something improper in regards to Trump? The "insurance policy" text. Time to check that out.


Right now we have proof that the FBI who strzok seemed to be a point man charged trump people for lying to the fbi, but let Hillarys people off when they knew they lied.

You yourself have admitted the hillary case should be reopened.

Now we are seeing allegations of wrong doing; using an unverified dossier paid for by hillarys team to spy on someone who was in trumps team, not telling the fisa court they knew steele lied about not being the source of the yahoo news article, the state department giving steele info against trump, etc.

And yes, the texts show despite what they thought of other people, they desperately disliked trump and his cvoters, and did not want him to win, and wanted an insurance policy against him.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

Hold on to your hat if you're wearing one and find one to put on so you can hold it if you're not. I have just uncovered a smoking gun, a bombshell proving a massive conspiracy to keep Clinton from being elected.

An August 14th, 2016 text message says, "I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected."

OMG! (*sets own hair on fire and runs around in circles*) OMG!

But really, it's not that big of a deal. They're just doing what everyone else was doing. Talking about politics. But you see how that could easily be twisted into a Fox News Alert (or MSNBC News Alert!).



How disingenuous of you.

A simple look shows that they are suggetsing they are worried what trump supporters will do if hillary is elected.

In other words, more bashing of the smelly, hillbilly trump voters.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The texts refer to that MotherJones article that first mentioned the Steele dossier. Any thoughts?

"Did you read the MJ article?????????" - Page 427



edit on 7-2-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Oh snap, turns out the "insurance policy" crap was utterly misrepresented bull#. And this made it's way into the Nunes memo? Jesus what a joke.



They're not talking about an "insurance policy" in regards to not getting Trump elected as the carefully cherry-picked, out of context quotes would have you believe. They're talking about what positions they'll hold after the election.

D = Director
DD = Deputy Director
ADD = Assistant Deputy Director
EAD = ?
GC = General Counsel?

The path that was thrown out for consideration was the changes to hierarchy after the election. That plan was based on an assumption that Trump wouldn't win the election (and appoint new people at the top).

Good grief. Another collapsed allegation.



Where are you getting this?

I dont see them anywhere there discussing their positions.

I see them discussing a meeting that will occur. Then the next day, they are discussing an insurance policy just in case trump gets elected.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Oh snap, turns out the "insurance policy" crap was utterly misrepresented bull#....

They're not talking about an "insurance policy" in regards to not getting Trump elected as the carefully cherry-picked, out of context quotes would have you believe. They're talking about what positions they'll hold after the election.


Maybe... maybe not.

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.

The "we can't take that risk" indicates taking action to prevent that from happening, which would be "like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." The analogy is that both events are unlikely, but you take necessary precautions. For the latter, you buy life insurance... but what exactly did they do?

edit on 7-2-2018 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


A simple look shows that they are suggetsing they are worried what trump supporters will do if hillary is elected.


Doh! Yes -- thank you! I had a mental block there and couldn't figure out how they meant that. But yes, you make perfect sense of that.

Sorry, Ante!



new topics

top topics



 
119
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join