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: 11
119
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Agree with Boadicea. I think you have correctly described the context and meaning of that text.




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No. But, I like to fill my pockets with 'whataboutisms' for future use.


It's cool, I get that. I do the same thing on occasion.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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




Give me a chance to download the file and I will check it out.

However, assumeing you are right, this is even more troubling that Obama wants to know basically what they are doing regarding the allegations in the dossier.

Now this in its own right is not necessarily shady; however it does speak to the fact that Obama wasnt totally ignorant of the existence of the dossier and that it was being used.

In other words, if there turns out to be wrongdoing with the dossier, it will be harder for Obama to go back to the well and claim he just read about it in the paper.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie


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!


I think you're right -- pretty much at least. I consider the Constitution a damn good foundation for a free and prosperous nation... the problem is all the crap that's been added to it over the years, and how much of that crap has eroded and basically nullified the very principles upon which the Constitution was founded.

So yes, I definitely believe that we need a major teardown of that crap that violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution... and yes, I believe that we can re-build upon that same foundation in light of we know now, and the world we live in now.


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


We have to give peaceful a damn good try though even knowing that when bad people do bad things, good people have no good options, only best options.

It is scary, but I also believe in the power of doing the right thing for the right reason... i.e., righteousness. It doesn't have to become WWIII.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Where are you getting this?

I dont see them anywhere there discussing their positions.



I agree, it is clear.

Dont look now, but these talking points are coming straight from
Media Matters. Hmmmm.

It appears the coordinated rebuttal to these bombshell texts
is a full on snark attack.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Maybe this has been answered already (there are a lot of pages to go through) but what was going on in early Sept. that Obama would want to be informed on?

It cant be the Hillary email investigation that was closed in July and wieners laptop emails were not found till late Sept.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParkerCramer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships
Flashback When Obama Insists He Doesn't Get Involved With FBI Intestigations!





OBAMA: “I can guarantee. I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.”

WALLACE: “Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?”

OBAMA: “How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.”

news.grabien.com...

Well maybe Obama was not under oath but this sure proves him a liar.

And Comey was under oath, what is that called?

Perjury?


😳
😳



OMG
A clock, how clever and so friggin insightful.

You Sir are the epitome of what is wrong with America, always stirring the pot and sowing disharmony.......

I bet your momma is so proud.😕


I've been right all along for the last 3 years.

Not My fault the Obama Administration is getting their clocks cleaned.

😎🎁😎




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
Maybe this has been answered already (there are a lot of pages to go through) but what was going on in early Sept. that Obama would want to be informed on?

It cant be the Hillary email investigation that was closed in July and wieners laptop emails were not found till late Sept.


You seriously don't know ?

🔓




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


I read "path" as the "path" for an electoral college victory for Hillary. Strzok laid out her path to victory in the meeting


I don't see the FBI having a meeting 3 months before the election to discuss a path to electoral college victory for anyone. I think it's the difference between the connotations that are being put on the "path." In the context of an election, it makes sense to think "path to victory" because, we've all heard "path to victory" a whole lotta times in that particular context.

The text by itself doesn't have any other context for you to make many more assumptions.

However, when it's framed as a proof of malfeasance (as it was by the GOP and GOP-friendly outlets), it takes on an even more sinister appearance. That the "path" that they were discussing could be taken as possibly a plot to keep Trump from getting elected and therefore an "insurance policy" would be to do *something* if he won to get him removed from office. This seems to be what Trump diehards grasped onto. They don't believe that Russia meddled in the election, they believe that Seth Rich "leaked" emails to WikiLeaks and he as murdered and that anything involving Russia is a massive conspiracy to cover up for that, to explain why Clinton didn't get elected and to facilitate removing Trump from office. (or some combination)

But when I look at it in the context of the texts that come immediately before, what I see is two people talking about staffing changes. People assuming new roles. Strzok not being thrilled with being "add" but being fine with it. Some questioning about having a subordinate taking a leadership role in a recent meeting.

In that context, I took it that they're talking about a path in terms of a transition but I'm not 100% on that. Even after reading it a few more times. What I don't see is evidence that they're conspiring to stop Trump from getting elected. In fact, "an insurance policy in the unlikely even you die before you're 40" is an analogy for a safety net of some kind in a very unlikely event of something happening. That suggests to me that they really didn't think Trump was going to win.

So I'll agree, there's not enough there to be definitive but that's really the inherent problem with this sort of thing. We're only getting a sliver of the picture and it's too easy to interpret in whatever way people want to believe.

Do you ever worry that these two actually did their jobs to the best of their abilities and are being unjustly smeared for partisan reasons?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye


I read "path" as the "path" for an electoral college victory for Hillary. Strzok laid out her path to victory in the meeting


I don't see the FBI having a meeting 3 months before the election to discuss a path to electoral college victory for anyone.


I don't think they had a meeting to solely discuss that. I think it came up in the meeting.

A whole lotta people were talking about paths to victory for Hillary and Trump three months before the election. I think my explanation makes a lot more sense than yours.

Also, I don't think people were hung up on the word 'path.' They were hung up on the words 'insurance policy' (should Trump win).



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

did you look at the times on the texts??

you are asking us to believe that they took an 11 hour break from texting and then picked up right where they left off 11 hours ago??

I think there are a lot of missing messages between those 2 texts.


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



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Why would the fbi be setting around McCabes office 3 months before an election discussing the fact that Trump has no chance to win?

And then after that, why would Page be telling strzok that she wants to believe that, but is suggesting an insurance policy in case Trump wins?

There is nothing to suggest this is about getting a better position or anything like that.

What I can tell you is that if texts from nunes were released saying he wanted an insurance policy in case there was an investigation of trump russian collusion, you would be outraged.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yup. Obama is caught all over video stating he "does not talk with the FBI about ongoing investigations". Yeah...ok...




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
And why would Page have bought a copy of All The Presidents Men
to brush up on Watergate? Trump was not even in office yet.

Did they know the Agency was setting a trap?
Was their "OUR task" part of that trap?

When did Trump talk about his National Security Cabinet?

When did Carter Page fit in?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Just where is Obama hiding these days?
Since the election he vowed to lead "the resistance" and disappeared.
Probably to a country without an extradition treaty to the US.
How much money did he have to pony up for that?




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You're right

What I'm saying is that as soon as someone steps back from the two party tar baby obfuscating the real situation for the first time and actually takes a good look at things...

It's literally impossible not to see how staying the course on all this, fixing what needs to be fixed, and finally wresting the power and economic benefits out of the hands currently possessing them will inevitably lead to violence.

People willing to go this far aren't going to peacefully let their I'll gotten gains and power go because we ask nicely.

Even if you offered them immunity and let them keep the money they wouldn't take it.

They will fight to not only keep power, but also to bury any historical notation of their crimes!

Look at how hard all the little factions are already playing right now and the extraordinarily dangerous rhetoric and accusations now flying nonstop!

These people are fully prepared to rip society apart and burn down the tattered remnants after they have done so if their positions etc even come under serious threat.

If they can't run the show they will do their level best to make sure there is no show to run!

This is what infuriates me about the people who have the temerity to call this situation no big deal...

If it's such a nothing burger guys why then are your precious political parties of choice both positioning to burn everything to the ground if they don't get their way?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
What is Obummers' legacy? The permanent destruction of the Democratic Party as we know it. I've never witnessed the destruction of an entire political party before. To quote Mr. Spock, fascinating.

I'm wondering what steps they may go to in order to try to keep this from all coming out, but each day will bring newer and newer revelations about what would now be buried had Billary attained the POTUS.

Just makes a person smile, you know, that "Yeah, been there, done that" smile....

Fred..



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


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.


I did say that I was fine with it being reopened. I also have no problem with the OIG investigation of the investigation. You're also not making an argument against the "Trump people" being charged with lying to the FBI either. In other words, what you're alleging is that *somebody* went too easy in the HRC email investigation. Which may be true but it's not the same as saying that Strzok acted improperly regarding Russian interference investigation.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that the people in charge of who got charged in either case are different. The FBI doesn't charge people, least of all Strzok. In the Mueller probe, we can assume I think that Mueller is ultimately the one who makes those calls. Then again, maybe Strzok pushed against charging people in the HRC case. I dunno but I'm okay with it being investigated.


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.


That is not accurate. Let me point out something I pointed out to somebody off ATS after reading the Grassley-Graham referral:

Look at *just* page 2 of it. This is the various ways they referred to what was in the FISA warrant application and in the order it was done:

"Mr. Steele's dossier"
"Mr. Steele's dossier claims"
"Mr.Steele's information"
"allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier."

All of those refer to the same thing. They started with "dossier" and by the end of the page, were giving a much more reasonable description that is entirely different than "the dossier."

What those FISA warrant apps contain is not "the dossier" nor, as I've said before, does it seem that it even contains the memos concerning Page. Why then do you think they keep saying "the dossier?" Because they're not actually attacking what's in the FISA warrant app.

They're attacking the dossier: "salacious and unverified" and then the bit about the Cody Shearer dossier. The dossier isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is only what was in the FISA warrant app and that's not the dossier. What's in there is what they got from Steele in a debriefing but it's much more effective to keep hammering away at the dossier, regardless of the relevance of doing so.

The insinuation they made is that the Cody Shearer dossier (which is the state dept reference) had some influence over Steele and "the dossier" and therefore, it could be influenced by a Clinton associate. Except none of that is actually relevant. The Shearer dossier was passed along to Steele just prior to his meeting with the FBI. The allegations about Carter Page are in two of the earliest memos in what became the dossier. What they also don't mention is that Carter Page noted when giving it to the FBI, "We have no means of verifying the sources or the information but note some of their own is remarkably similar to our own, albeit from a completely different sourcing chain." But again, none of this has *any* relevance on the intel about Carter Page much less how the FBI used it.

So why is it being mentioned?

They also insinuate that because Steele talked to the press about it, that maybe the SVR knew he was looking for stuff and Kremlin officials fed him unsolicited disinfo. Except, again, the Page memos were way before that so that's also irrelevant in regards to the "allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier."

So why is it being mentioned?

And finally, they say that either Steele lied to the FBI about talking to the media, which calls into question his credibility. Interesting to note, Grassley-Graham do not even imply that the Isikoff (Yahoo) article was used to corroborate anything. In fact, I'm wondering now if Nunes didn't misinterpret what he read in the Grassley-Graham referral which really strikes me as the likely primary source of his own memo (which is pretty crazy when you think about it). Having read the article, I know that only one short paragraph in it, 10 paragraphs from the top and 1 paragraph from the bottom, actually references anything from Steele ("a well placed Western intelligence source" or whatever he's referred to as).

It may be a fact that Steele lied to the FBI about having spoken to the media. I don't know. But I do know that he had 22 years with MI6 and achieved a high position with them, that he was well regarded and that he had a history of providing the FBI with credible intel as a private professional.


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.


That's your interpretation. I don't see *anything* in there that says that they would, let alone actually *did* anything improper to keep Trump from being elected.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Its been a great read seeing you and Grambler go back and forth the last few days.


I wish more conversation online was of such a solid quality.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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.


It wasn't disingenuous at all, I was making a point about how out of context texts can be easily spun. You interpreting it this way:

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

is all you. That's your interpretation. Nothing in that text says that. It doesn't say, "I'm worried about what Trump supporters will do if HRC is elected."

And the fact that you add, "more bashing of the smelly, hillbilly trump voters" only shows how emotionally invested you are when you interpret the text.



new topics

top topics



 
119
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join