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.

 

More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

page: 6
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert



Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.


The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

However, where a cointel op is concerned, using an informant to make contact with those 3 individuals was a pretty typical next step. Based on what that informant does or does not learn, the investigative team weighs potential next steps--surveillance, etc. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the more logical conclusion is that the F.B.I. was just running the cointel playbook.


No it is not usual for the FBI to send a spy out in secret ti investigate a presidential campaign.


Lets assume for a moment it wasnt for political purposes, which could be the case.

If they were truly worried about russian attempts, they would have told trump about these attempts, and interviewed his team on the record.

Instead, they sent a spy.

Why would they do this?

In addition, we know that Hillary people had connections to russians in the past (podestas) and during the election through foreign agent steele (kremlin sourced dossier) and we know the fnu said that russia was trying to infiltrate both campaigns, yet the didnt, as clapper suggested, send "informants" (spies) to "protect" hillarys campaign.

Why was that?

And finally, does this not then justify trump sending "informants" from the cia or fbi to any of his opponents that may have anyone who has ever spoke to russians in the future?

After all, we know that the intel agencies say russia will meddle again.

So trump should be alloed to have these spies, oops sorry i mean informants, on his oponents for regular cointelpro reasons.

And yes, he should also unmask people, and get wiretaps, etc., all to protect them and for cointel pro reasons.

And not one person cool with the FBI behaviior here will have any reason to complain.




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
What's stupid is using the literal definition of a word to take something out of context. Here, let's try the word terrorist on for size.

A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

en.oxforddictionaries.com...

From a Trump rally-

There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too.

www.mediaite.com...

You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks," Trump said to cheers. "

www.weeklystandard.com...

I guess this means Trump is a terrorist. I mean, the definition is someone who uses unlawful violence or intimidation in pursuit of political aims. If you're going by the literal definition, you have to believe that. Context doesn't matter, remember.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.


You have excellent timing.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
You have lost the plot.

you said I was using a nebulous definition of the word spy, so I provided the first three I could fin.

I have asked me to give your definition of the word spy, you have not.

You clearly think that had halper been a spy, it would be a problem, hence your reticence to use that term.

So please, outline for me quite clearly what halper would have had to do to have been a spy in your mind.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Rudy Giuliani says Bob Mueller's appointment is illegitimate, which means his investigation is illegitimate.

Does that imply that Mueller can safely be ignored by the White House?


I don't think so. Rudy will say just about anything, but it doesn't make it true.
If there were truly cause to believe Mueller's appointment was illegitimate--i.e., DOJ didn't follow protocol, etc., it's reasonable to assume we'd know about it. Given the stakes, they had to make certain all the I's were dotted and T's crossed.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks


“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.


I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.


Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was


"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."


You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.


I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert



Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.


The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

However, where a cointel op is concerned, using an informant to make contact with those 3 individuals was a pretty typical next step. Based on what that informant does or does not learn, the investigative team weighs potential next steps--surveillance, etc. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the more logical conclusion is that the F.B.I. was just running the cointel playbook.


No it is not usual for the FBI to send a spy out in secret ti investigate a presidential campaign.



The FBI used an informant to make contact with three subjects of an ongoing cointel investigation. That's a pretty typical next step.

If anything shady was going on beyond that next step, then the IG's review should uncover it--same with the FISA warrants.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks
You have lost the plot.

you said I was using a nebulous definition of the word spy, so I provided the first three I could fin.

I have asked me to give your definition of the word spy, you have not.

You clearly think that had halper been a spy, it would be a problem, hence your reticence to use that term.

So please, outline for me quite clearly what halper would have had to do to have been a spy in your mind.

No, I’m just not following your bankrupt line of reasoning the way everyone who wants to believe this does. Either you have evidence or you don’t.

Which is it?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks


“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.


I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.


Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was


"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."


You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.


I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...


What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.

Watching people doing backflips to try and validate another one of the presidents lies, I’m thinking the same thing.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert



Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.


The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

However, where a cointel op is concerned, using an informant to make contact with those 3 individuals was a pretty typical next step. Based on what that informant does or does not learn, the investigative team weighs potential next steps--surveillance, etc. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the more logical conclusion is that the F.B.I. was just running the cointel playbook.


No it is not usual for the FBI to send a spy out in secret ti investigate a presidential campaign.



The FBI used an informant to make contact with three subjects of an ongoing cointel investigation. That's a pretty typical next step.

If anything shady was going on beyond that next step, then the IG's review should uncover it--same with the FISA warrants.


Exactly. If there was something going on, we will find out.

What we know now does not indicate anything nefarious or illegal was happening.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly. You nailed it. Obama green lit Trump to literally send informants to gather intel to prevent Russian influence. Which means Trump can now place as many as he wants, into any campaign he wants. Hell he could plant 1 informant into each Democrat that is running across the entire US for local all the way up to federal level. Unmask them all and then leak every single possible lukewarm somewhat negative sound byte to his press secretary and hold daily briefings on how Russia is influencing all of these campaigns.

He should say he’s doing it without doing it just to watch the people who are all ok with Obama doing it now have to be against it.

The hypocrisy is so ridiculous at this point.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.

Watching people doing backflips to try and validate another one of the presidents lies, I’m thinking the same thing.


I'm a logic kind of guy and the lack of logic in this thread is astounding.

The delusion in this thread is so bad that other members are having a hard time differentiating between two very different things and cannot seem to help but conflate separate issues.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0311Warrior
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly. You nailed it. Obama green lit Trump to literally send informants to gather intel to prevent Russian influence. Which means Trump can now place as many as he wants, into any campaign he wants. Hell he could plant 1 informant into each Democrat that is running across the entire US for local all the way up to federal level. Unmask them all and then leak every single possible lukewarm somewhat negative sound byte to his press secretary and hold daily briefings on how Russia is influencing all of these campaigns.

He should say he’s doing it without doing it just to watch the people who are all ok with Obama doing it now have to be against it.

The hypocrisy is so ridiculous at this point.


That is not what has happened here and you are creating a false equivalence.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks


“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.


I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.


Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was


"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."


You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.


I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...


What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.



Where is it? It hasn’t been in any link you have provided yet.

It’s not complicated, either there is evidence that clearly and objectively shows that Obama put a spy in Trumps campaign, or there isn’t. If you have to move the definition of “spy” even the slightest bit to make it work, then you don’t have the evidence you claim you do.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Lol no I’m not. Wake up. I can’t do it for you.
Deny ignorance. Try to. Just a little bit. Please. Or go back to eating sand.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.

Watching people doing backflips to try and validate another one of the presidents lies, I’m thinking the same thing.


I'm a logic kind of guy and the lack of logic in this thread is astounding.

The delusion in this thread is so bad that other members are having a hard time differentiating between two very different things and cannot seem to help but conflate separate issues.

Their theory only works through conflation. That’s the basic fallacy behind it.




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Here's the real peril with the left justifying this for no greater reason than their hatred for Trump. What happens, if it hasn't already taken place, when the Feds interfere with State and local elections by the same means? Seems to me, those instances would receive far less attention than the one involving a presidential election and would therefore be even easier to manipulate.

Since we aren't allowed to know the 'facts' that justify such 'infiltrations', like a religion we simply have to have blind faith that the investigators only ever initiate and conduct their investigations for 'legitimate' reasons.

Unlike FISA warrants that require judicial approval, no judge signs off on these 'infiltrations'. So for those who think the present circumstances involving Trump's campaign is ok, what safeguards do you think are in place to make sure abuses never get directed against a cause or candidate you support?

Really curious.




edit on 29-5-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert



Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.


The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

However, where a cointel op is concerned, using an informant to make contact with those 3 individuals was a pretty typical next step. Based on what that informant does or does not learn, the investigative team weighs potential next steps--surveillance, etc. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the more logical conclusion is that the F.B.I. was just running the cointel playbook.


No it is not usual for the FBI to send a spy out in secret ti investigate a presidential campaign.



The FBI used an informant to make contact with three subjects of an ongoing cointel investigation. That's a pretty typical next step.

If anything shady was going on beyond that next step, then the IG's review should uncover it--same with the FISA warrants.


Exactly. If there was something going on, we will find out.

What we know now does not indicate anything nefarious or illegal was happening.



Yes thank god there is an investigation going on.

You know, what you fought against saying only right wing nuts wanted.







 
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join