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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
Comey wouldn't squeal on himself, LOL.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: gortex
You did know that Comey answered 2 questions as no , right ?
Did the Russians influence the election in the 3 given states : no
Did the Russians influence the election process : no
Should have ended there , but they have some very stupid folks digging trying to find anything
They have to try and preserve their precious Lefty Fascist Party and find some excuse for a Clinton loss
Poor , poor Hillary .......
Thats what it boils down to
Period
No soup for you....
Those are the questions that were asked and answered. The questions asked by Nunes that were answered "no" weren't about "influence of the election" but rather manipulation of vote tallies. This is nothing but conflation that amounts to a straw man argument.
There have been no serious claims that Russians hacked voting systems that I'm aware of.
I suspect that on some level you understand this but you're playing along, rather disingenuously, because you want it to be taken to mean that there is no evidence of Russian influnence/attempted influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Add this:
Rep. Adam Schiff said Monday that in addition to the existence of “circumstantial evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, there’s direct evidence of “deception.”
www.cbsnews.com...
the California Democrat and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said that he couldn’t speak in detail about the circumstantial evidence, but he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
I like this one
11:03 AM: Schiff begins asking Comey to comment on Trump’s tweets alleging Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower. Comey says there is no evidence to support Trump’s specific wording in those tweets.
no evidence to support Trump’s, "specific wording"
Damn I hate these people
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.
Trump yelled that he was wiretapped. All the capslock you use in the world isn't going to change that.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.
He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.
imo
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
No. they said OTHER FORMS of SPYING could had been used."wiretapping" is AKA surveillance. Any policeman will tell you wiretapping is just the start(and only good for lan lines). Classic wire tapping is that.
Trump yelled that he was wiretapped. All the capslock you use in the world isn't going to change that.
Trump dont know the diffrence though does he? He i sOld school and as such was thinking they tapped his phone lines. Are you saying Trump is that smart? I thought you thought he was a idiot that coudn ttie his shoes. was i wrong? And I do nto "yell" with caps. i emphasize instead of bolding because bolding is a PAIN IN THE AZZ.
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.
He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.
imo
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: gortex
You did know that Comey answered 2 questions as no , right ?
Did the Russians influence the election in the 3 given states : no
Did the Russians influence the election process : no
Should have ended there , but they have some very stupid folks digging trying to find anything
They have to try and preserve their precious Lefty Fascist Party and find some excuse for a Clinton loss
Poor , poor Hillary .......
Thats what it boils down to
Period
No soup for you....
Those are the questions that were asked and answered. The questions asked by Nunes that were answered "no" weren't about "influence of the election" but rather manipulation of vote tallies. This is nothing but conflation that amounts to a straw man argument.
There have been no serious claims that Russians hacked voting systems that I'm aware of.
I suspect that on some level you understand this but you're playing along, rather disingenuously, because you want it to be taken to mean that there is no evidence of Russian influnence/attempted influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election.
originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: gortex
He declined to answer if a FISA court approved or denied a surveillance request ...
There is nothing classified about that info.
originally posted by: GuidedKill
I'm just curious how an investigation into the "Russians" and the Trump team or even President Trump himself occurs without ANY surveillance being done on Trump at all.
So they say in one breath they are "investigating" Trump and the Russians but find no proof of ANY surveillance at all..
So just what kind of investigation is this if they are investigating the subject....Weird..
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.
He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.
imo
Hmmm... Now what's worse Trump being a liar or Trump being what you just said? I don't think I'd like either answer...
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: odzeandennz
No. It was very illuminating in that it officially outed Trump as a liar about the wiretapping claim.
In this one situation, I honestly don't think it proves him a liar, as much as it proves him a naïve fool, who doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.
He's impulsive, compulsive, and like a young teenager doesn't always have the mental development or emotional control to think through the consequences of his actions.
imo
Exactly correct. trump should had studied modern surveillance before shooting his mouth off this time and confusing himself and everyone else as to what a wiretap actually is.
So what's the circumstantial evidence?
he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.