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.

 

Trump may declassify Carter Page, Bruce Ohr documents as soon as this week

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: underwerks




I believe everyone who runs for president and everyone they appoint in their campaign should be subject to a rigorous investigation before they are even allowed to run for president.


So you believe that the intelligence community--individuals appointed to their positions--should be the gate keepers of who is allowed to run for President of the United States? And what happend when those gatekeepers, like say.. Peter Strozk, are so politically apposed to one candiate and in favor of the other that they... lets say for argument sake... activate an "insurance policey" by manurfactuing a political "witch hunt" in order to find something... anything.. to keep a politcally undesirable candidate out of the election? Pretty sure that runs contrary to the Constitution. I dont recall were it says that any candidate must be pver 35.. a U.S. citizen... and granted approval by the FBI...


Nope. I believe it should be a thorough PUBLIC investigation. In front of everyone with all the information made public and accessible from the start. And afterwards the candidates should be required to answer any discrepancies in a town hall style setting, in person to any citizen who wants to ask a question. If it takes 6 months of the candidates talking and answering questions from us citizens then so be it.

If a candidate can’t intelligently debate one on one with the citizens they’re supposed to represent they shouldn’t be considered for the position.

To not do that leads us to where we are today. With people like yourself fighting for a president who views any investigation into himself regardless of the validity as illegal and wrong.

I want the best and brightest. Not the richest and most obtuse.
edit on 10-9-2018 by underwerks because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You already have an 18 month process and people get to vote.
Do you actually think you'd get an honest town hall process??? Horrible idea.
People with the most money and power would have that process completely corrupted.
It's a worse idea than the intelligence services vetting directly - all you would do with a town hall process is provide the intelligence services to do the bidding of their masters via a cut out and make it look above board.

There is no viable approach to the vetting process you describe.
The world is imperfect - sometimes you personally don't get what you want, including the President you want. Others are happy with the result, though. That's how it goes.


edit on 10/9/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: underwerks

You already have an 18 month process and people get to vote.
Do you actually think you'd get an honest town hall process??? Horrible idea.
People with the most money and power would have that process completely corrupted.
It's a worse idea than the intelligence services vetting directly - all you would do with a town hall process is provide the intelligence services to do the bidding of their masters via a cut out and make it look above board.

There is no viable approach to the vetting process you describe.
The world is imperfect - sometimes you personally don't get what you want, including the President you want. Others are happy with the result, though. That's how it goes.



Please explain how it’s a horrible idea to have our elected officials publicly answer to the people that are tasked with electing them.

However rich and powerful a candidate might be wouldn’t effect their performance when ANYONE is allowed to ask them questions and debate with them. That’s the whole point.

It seems all you care about is what you have personally invested in the idea of Donald Trump and the pleasure you get from the whole us versus them narrative.
edit on 10-9-2018 by underwerks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2018 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


I second what UKTruth posted. There is no way to perform such a vetting process that you just described, objectively. Just look at the spin and propaganda peddling presented by the media as news--particularly since the early 2000's, e.g.,-- Hillary being fed the questions before her presidential debates. All we would get is a ridiculous circus. We already have campaigns--which are already too much of a circus for my liking--but presenting it like it some sort of official right of passage would just be a mockery. It would never be a genuine vetting process.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: underwerks


I second what UKTruth posted. There is no way to perform such a vetting process that you just described, objectively. Just look at the spin and propaganda peddling presented by the media as news--particularly since the early 2000's, e.g.,-- Hillary being fed the questions before her presidential debates. All we would get is a ridiculous circus. We already have campaigns--which are already too much of a circus for my liking--but presenting it like it some sort of official right of passage would just be a mockery. It would never be a genuine vetting process.


A thorough public vetting is the only one that would ever be genuine. Because otherwise we’re stuck with what we have today. The exact opposite.

Pep rallies, basically. That isn’t democracy.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

My view has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Quite simply, you already have a very public vetting process.
Adding to it is just more of the same. You simply can't remove bias and corruption from organised events like town halls. Money would change hands for questions. Some questions would be leaked to candidates beforehand...horrible idea.
Who would make the decision on whether a candidate passed vetting????
You haven't thought it through.
I suspect what you are accusing me of is what you are guilty of yourself - you want a new process to try and ensure you get who YOU want - and that is exactly how people would try and manipulate the process you are suggesting.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


We don't disagree that candidates be held accountable to the public (not the FBI/CIA et al.) but it isn't going to help beyond what we already have in place. An official process would be too easy to manipulate, and it would not longer be an accountability to the people but to those who control/bought out the "official process". We see examples of that everyday on T.V., 24/7.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: underwerks

My view has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Quite simply, you already have a very public vetting process.
Adding to it is just more of the same. You simply can't remove bias and corruption from organised events like town halls. Money would change hands for questions. Some questions would be leaked to candidates beforehand...horrible idea.
Who would make the decision on whether a candidate passed vetting????
You haven't thought it through.
I suspect what you are accusing me of is what you are guilty of yourself - you want a new process to try and ensure you get who YOU want - and that is exactly how people would try and manipulate the process you are suggesting.


Not at all. I want every presidential candidate to be answerable to the people they are supposed to represent before they are elected. If that makes it harder on them, good. That’s kind of the point.

I think the real reason you’re vehemently against politicians being accessible in this way is because you realize that Donald Trump would have failed miserably at it. But so would Hillary. And so would every other candidate whose only qualification is having the backing of super PACs and super rich donors.

And to add to that, it would make political parties almost obsolete. If the democrats and republicans showed up with Hillary and Trump as their respective candidates that would be the end of them.

I think the real threat to people like you and Hillary and the people currently running the country is the dissolving of the political parties that put them in power. What’s your partisanship worth when it isn’t about team sports and group identity anymore?



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: underwerks


We don't disagree that candidates be held accountable to the public (not the FBI/CIA et al.) but it isn't going to help beyond what we already have in place. An official process would be too easy to manipulate, and it would not longer be an accountability to the people but to those who control/bought out the "official process". We see examples of that everyday on T.V., 24/7.


How do you buy out a process that allows everyone, regardless of social status, wealth, and power equal access to the people who are supposed to represent us?



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

But Victim is his favorite role to play. As we all know.
Spineless jellyfish coward.


.......You do know that Obama left office almost two years ago, right?



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
May, yawn......

Please, do us a favor. Hold your breath in anticipation.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I was just reading that yourtag line that I imagine appears on all your posts. Do you suppose you will still have that same feeling when Islam becomes the majority religion in America? Personally I want freedom from crazy people who have an invisible friend that can’t even speak for themselves. a reply to: Quadrivium



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Beacuse such a process would have to be coordinated in some fashion. Those who coordinate such a thing can be bought out, or the overall process can be coopted.

How do you think such thing should go? Considering that this started out with the idea that candidates be investigated by intelligence agencies, this thing you talk about seems to keep evolving with each post you make.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake


As this article states, the Declassification has to be approved by Sessions, or Wray, or Rosenstein.

theconservativetreehouse.com...

If none of these 3 approve, declassification does not occur.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

1) "They were spying on Carter Page who was being approached by russia as a possible agent."

Wouldn't the US government then watch the Russian over the American?
IF they thought a Russian spy was operating in america, wouldn't you ask the american to help capture the spy?

You do know that there is a "hop" rule. Which means that the "man" can not just at Page records, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people. So spying on Page would let them spy "legally" on Trump. here is an article from NPR, so you cannot claim bias.

www.npr.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: underwerks

Beacuse such a process would have to be coordinated in some fashion. Those who coordinate such a thing can be bought out, or the overall process can be coopted.

How do you think such thing should go? Considering that this started out with the idea that candidates be investigated by intelligence agencies, this thing you talk about seems to keep evolving with each post you make.

The conversation appears to keep changing because I keep being asked questions about some of my first ideas. I don’t know how every single detail of what I propose could be carried out, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Especially when the system is as broke as it is today.

I’m trying to figure a way out of our current predicament. But all I’m met with is “Leave it the way it is. Even though it’s already corrupt...” Because reasons.

If you have any other ideas beside “leave it the way it is” I’m all ears. Though I suspect a lot of people here like the corrupt way it is as long as it benefits them and whatever political group they belong to.

Apologies to the OP for veering the thread off topic, but these are things that need to be discussed if we ever want to remedy any of this. I’m just trying to answer the questions that were asked of me.
edit on 10-9-2018 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Declassify everything about TRUMP. Full disclosure, business, taxes, divorces..c'mon!

Let's see everything on every-damn body....including him too!



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So you are for this release then.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Taxes are not classified.



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: Sillyolme


You do know

www.npr.org...


Nope, she does not




top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join