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.

 

Clapper- It’s ‘A Good Thing’ FBI Was Spying On Trump Campaign

page: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Wait till the evidence comes out that the CIA and the 5-eyes were in on it too.





posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: slatesteam
a reply to: xuenchen

In other news, “that’s just rain, not urine at all”



So original it needs to be copyrighted.
😃



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"WAAAAAAAAH! It's not fair that Trump is being investigated and the FBI is using perfectly legal investigating tactics to do it! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"


So the FISA Warrant was a Legal Investigation ? I guess the IG begs to Differ with your Superior Intellect when it comes to Legal Matters of State........................



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Of all the potential constitutional crisises I’ve heard of recently, the alleged misdoings of (at least several top officials of) the IC (and alphabet agencies) are the most plausible and concerning to me. If the IC actually did no wrong, then I am disappointed that they didn’t do their job better, and that we don’t have more information already, voluntarily on everyone’s part. It sucks, but how else should I look at it?
edit on 5/18/2018 by japhrimu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

You do realize this isn't illegal right? We put moles into drug gangs all the time and you don't need approval to do so. This still isn't wiretapping. But hey, I'm not surprised we are yet AGAIN trying to move the goal posts back on the whole wiretapping issue.


I hope you remember those words in about 2 years.
The pendulum swings both ways.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It's a bit like your asking me if I'll believe that the Loch Ness Monster is real if you can capture it but sure.

But see, it's also a completely loaded question. You already believe that this is true without any real evidence that is and you won't stop believing that it's true if that evidence never comes.

Why would you? It's a win-win for you.

There's no potential for "smoking gun" evidence of the absence of this conspiracy so all you have to do is continue to believe and disregard reasoned arguments, as you're doing right now. It's a typical shifting of the burden of proof away from the party making the (outrageous) claim.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

You do realize this isn't illegal right? We put moles into drug gangs all the time and you don't need approval to do so. This still isn't wiretapping. But hey, I'm not surprised we are yet AGAIN trying to move the goal posts back on the whole wiretapping issue.


So, the sitting govt spies on their party's opponent in an election campaign using the FBI and all you have to say is 'it's not illegal'. Says it all. So much for the faux outrage of over Nixon.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: matafuchs



Pretty sure you have been told by our INTEL repeatedly our DEMOCRACY WAS ATTACKED, and a smear campaign went out to help trump.



I dunno dude, Russian bots tweeting "MAGA" or "Hillary is doo-doo" doesn't really rise to the level of "DEMOCRACY WAS ATTACKED" for me. On the other hand, say a political parties central server was hacked and sensitive info was compromised, THAT would be an attack IMHO. How'd that FBI investigation go? Oh yeah, "No Russians here folks! LOOK OVER THERE."



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Xuenchen, I'm not going to disable my computer protection in order to view your questionable sources, nor am I going to pay money to view them. Laughing about it only makes me think you may be barely old enough to post here.

And thank you for providing that other link, which checks out as less biased and doesn't ask me to pay. However, now that we have a real source, your title doesn't check out.

Your title claims Clapper confirmed there was an insider, but your new source contradicts that. It says Clapper called it hyperbole, which mean exaggeration.




hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric;



Now, do you see why using more legit sources is important?

He did say if it were true it would be a good thing, and I don't like him saying that - it is insinuating that crimes were committed but we don't know that as no proof has been provided. It also sounds unprofessional. However, your OP is deceptive and twists the actual story.

You need to try better if you don't want your credibility questioned all the time.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Clapper called Trump's tweet hyperbole.
He went on to admit that someone inside the campaign could have been an FBI informant.

I think it's becoming pretty clear that Obama administration leveraged govt power to surveil his party's opponent and more than likely set up a plan B to try and get Trump removed from office should he win.

edit on 18/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu


They used all the tools they could, right?


No. It was actually a fairly minimal investigation by all accounts.


If the info was enough that showed something nefarious, then why didn’t they protect us from it?


I don't think that they ever uncovered evidence of Trump conspiring with the Russian government because I don't think that he did. That's not the same as saying that there wasn't good reason to investigate given the circumstances.


If Trump wasn’t involved, why wasn’t he informed or warned?


Trump was warned. They didn't specifically tell him later that they were investigating people involved in his campaign and why would they do that if they didn't know if he or his direct reports were involved? And they couldn't know that he wasn't involved or if there was anything to even be involved in without investigating.


If these guys under surveillance were doing bad, why didn’t the IC warn somebody and isolate the problem before it cost America the election, rather than keep it so secret amongst themselves?


They were running a limited, deliberately low profile investigation which was opened three months before the election. They didn't even get the FISA warrant on Page until the month before the election (a month after he'd resigned from the campaign).

Clearly they didn't turn up anything actionable regarding the four Trump people they were looking at. But they also hadn't investigated enough to conclude anything satisfactorily.

I will also say that Trump was briefed after winning the election about Russian interference and he chose to not only disregard what he was briefed on, he took to the podium and denounced Russian interference in the election as a hoax.

Furthermore, Sally Yates warned McGahn that Flynn was lying and potential compromised and the administration did NOTHING about it. Trump did nothing until the leaks that revealed that Flynn was lying were published. Then he attacked the leakers, forced Flynn out and pretended like he'd acted immediately upon discovering that Flynn was lying. Oh, and then he told Comey that the FBI should stop looking at Flynn.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

P.S. I'd believe Satan himself before I'd believe anything from the trump campaign, or white house or the filthy liar himself. That's just me.


You would believe anything from the sh!t I have seen you post.


Literally, one of the dumbest dullards on the internet.

I'd hate so see the assessment of psychologists from a far on her... IQ wouldn't register.


edit on 0217x6702America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by six67seven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So instead, the FBI does a phony investigation on Hillary Clinton classified material flying all over the internet and the phones and concludes nothing was wrong.

BwaaaaHaHaHa

That's all going to get cleared up fast real soon.

😀

Yes, I am laughing at you making that false statement.


So many people are laughing at you right now..



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kharron

Clapper called Trump's tweet hyperbole.


And who said anything otherwise?

Here is his new source:



Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told CNN's Don Lemon Thursday night that the president's claim that the Obama administration spied on his campaign is "hyperbole" but if it is true, it is a "good thing."

"They [the Obama admin's FBI] may have had someone who was talking to them in the campaign, but, you know, the focus here... is not on the campaign, per se, but what the Russians were doing," Clapper said.

But if there was an intelligence agent "observing" the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia, "that's a good thing because the Russians posed a threat to the very basis of our political system."


If what you're assuming is true, that would be terrible, but you're assuming, of course. I am waiting patiently for the investigation to complete, then we will know what was necessary and what was not.

If it is shown that there were signs of interference, collusion, bribery or any of those nefarious actions, then an investigation was necessary... agreed?

edit on 18-5-2018 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Your partisan glasses are clearly so tightly strapped to your head that you see everything with a bright red tint.


If you could see yourself right now from my angle you’d be in tears.

Literally.

It’s sad.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Additionally, so we're on the same page here -- if it is shown that Russians did not interfere, that Trump cabinet did not talk to any Russians, that no money was exchanged in any deals, that no promises were made regarding access to the president in exchange for money; if it turns out that there was NO reason for investigation and the previous administration started a false investigation into a political candidate for the purposes of intimidation or whatever other illegal reason...

Well, that would be a damn scandal, and you'll hear me calling for justice day in, day out! I promise that.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Then you had better start getting your talking points together. What you stated is exactly what happened.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

What about all the stuff you just set as your hurdle...what if any of that can be shown to be common place and part of how the prior administration, and the DNC candidate, operated?

The kicker: the biggest link to Russia thus far is Manafort, whose links date back to when he was working for John Podesta (yes, that Podesta...).

So who really will wear that stain? Trump, who just hired someone sent to him from other insiders, but who also had been doing dirty deeds while associated with the DNC?



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Bottom line is this.

If you think that the US government under President Obama did not use anything they could to NOT get Trump elected you are in serious denial. The DNC primary coverup. Server Coverup. Classified emails on laptops. More and more.

How many of them laughed and said he will never be president? They tried. They failed. They went as far as to walk out a porn star who openly admitted she never had sex with Trump to show he did and paid her off.

For the last time...with all that has come out about what they were doing if there was any actual evidence it would have been presented long ago. Before the election even.

This investigation is nothing more than a way to keep negative rhetoric in the news cycle.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Kharron

Then you had better start getting your talking points together. What you stated is exactly what happened.


And of course, you'll provide proof? Mueller's investigation is over or you already have the final report?

No?

What are you talking about then?




top topics



 
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join