A grand jury has just been ordered to investigate the Trump-Russia Collussion Obama Deep Staters

[forkup]

Funny but Fox News and others were already talking about this stuff well before the election.

There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation. There was however plenty that Clinton was, including that the investigation was reopened 11 days before the election. In fact, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC. Just check the date.

Weirdest plot ever or... the things you believe just ain't so.

 

[Cougarbear]

There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation. There was however plenty that Clinton was, including that the investigation was reopened 11 days before the election. In fact, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC. Just check the date.

Weirdest plot ever or... the things you believe just ain't so.

You simply are clueless because you only follow what your talking cult leaders are telling you starting with Obama and his Cartel.

 

[forkup]

You simply are clueless because you only follow what your talking cult leaders are telling you starting with Obama and his Cartel.

Cougar, I don’t need “talking heads” to explain why the claim that the “Obama Cartel” tried to OVERTURN the election is absurd. A second-grade understanding of presidential succession is enough to realize that even if Obama had wanted to interfere, the result would’ve just been a President Pence, not Hillary. It's just as ridiculous as claiming that you get milk from a cow by turning it upside down and wait for milk to pour out of its mouth. It's just not how it works.

And yes, I bolded “overturn” because that word implies the election already happened. But you’ve now quietly shifted your claim to them trying to influence the election before it. Those are two very different accusations. One requires knowledge of how government works. The other? Of how time works.

The facts are simple: if the goal was to sabotage Trump’s campaign, the FBI would’ve gone public about the investigation before the election just like they did with Clinton. But they didn’t. So if you’ve got a credible source saying otherwise, I suggest you bring it, you said Fox reported on Trump being investigated, find me that source. I doubt you will.

And while you’re at it, maybe you can explain why a very public investigation into Hillary Clinton weeks before the election wasn’t also election interference, or treason, if you’re being consistent.

But maybe the real issue isn’t Obama or Hillary, maybe it’s that your favorite talking heads have found a way to disconnect your brain from your mouth. Or in this case, your fingers.

 

[popscottpopscott]

There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation. There was however plenty that Clinton was, including that the investigation was reopened 11 days before the election. In fact, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC. Just check the date.

Weirdest plot ever or... the things you believe just ain't so.

forkup ...
"There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation."
Exactly what is your argument here? "Just check the date".... You are posting a NYT article before the election in Oct. 2016

"The facts are simple: if the goal was to sabotage Trump’s campaign, the FBI would’ve gone public about the investigation before the election just like they did with Clinton." There seems to be confusing to her meaning and use of a "private email" ..... most normal folks have "private emails"... happens every day.. Gmail, Outlook.com, and Yahoo Mail, etc
Most normal people don't go to the trouble to setup their own unsecure unauthorized server setting in the closet to obtain a "private email"... and most people don't have the president of the US communication through this server using a pseudonym email to hide his identity!!!!

 

[struth]

There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation. There was however plenty that Clinton was, including that the investigation was reopened 11 days before the election. In fact, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC. Just check the date.

Weirdest plot ever or... the things you believe just ain't so.

Um your link is from before the election

 

[Cougarbear]

Cougar, I don’t need “talking heads” to explain why the claim that the “Obama Cartel” tried to OVERTURN the election is absurd. A second-grade understanding of presidential succession is enough to realize that even if Obama had wanted to interfere, the result would’ve just been a President Pence, not Hillary. It's just as ridiculous as claiming that you get milk from a cow by turning it upside down and wait for milk to pour out of its mouth. It's just not how it works.

And yes, I bolded “overturn” because that word implies the election already happened. But you’ve now quietly shifted your claim to them trying to influence the election before it. Those are two very different accusations. One requires knowledge of how government works. The other? Of how time works.

The facts are simple: if the goal was to sabotage Trump’s campaign, the FBI would’ve gone public about the investigation before the election just like they did with Clinton. But they didn’t. So if you’ve got a credible source saying otherwise, I suggest you bring it, you said Fox reported on Trump being investigated, find me that source. I doubt you will.

And while you’re at it, maybe you can explain why a very public investigation into Hillary Clinton weeks before the election wasn’t also election interference, or treason, if you’re being consistent.

But maybe the real issue isn’t Obama or Hillary, maybe it’s that your favorite talking heads have found a way to disconnect your brain from your mouth. Or in this case, your fingers.

Dude, if you were correct, there would have been no Russian Hoax impeachments. It’s now fact that Obama started this using Hillary paying for the fake Steel Dossier that got this going and the foundation for the impeachment. Wake up! The FBI, DOJ, the Grand Jury and Congress are investigating this. Where there’s fire there is destruction!

 

[forkup]

Dude, if you were correct, there would have been no Russian Hoax impeachments. It’s now fact that Obama started this using Hillary paying for the fake Steel Dossier that got this going and the foundation for the impeachment. Wake up! The FBI, DOJ, the Grand Jury and Congress are investigating this. Where there’s fire there is destruction!

"Dude", you just made my point and confirmed you don’t even understand it.

I said the claim that Obama tried to overturn the election is deranged. You came back with a word salad of “Clinton-funded dossier” and “Trump impeachment,” none of which reversed a single vote or came close to reinstalling Hillary. You’re yelling “overturned!” about events that happened after Trump took office. What exactly do you think “overturning an election” means? You can’t cry coup over a process that left the guy in office for four years.

Also, and I shouldn’t have to spell this out, neither of Trump’s impeachments had anything to do with Russia.

The first was about blackmailing Ukraine to go after Biden.
The second was for inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
Zero Russia. Zero Steele dossier. Zero “hoax.”
You’re literally conflating things that happened years apart and pretending it’s a straight line.

And yeah, Clinton funded opposition research. You got us. You cracked the case. You discovered that politicians run negative campaigns. Amazing work, Sherlock. Now go explain how that overthrew democracy when the guy she ran against still became president.

Here’s the truth: you’re not exposing a deep state plot. You’re regurgitating half-digested talking points from outrage influencers who couldn’t pass a basic civics quiz. You can’t tell the difference between “someone investigated Trump” and “they tried to install Clinton by force”, because you don’t want to. The fantasy of persecution is just too intoxicating.


You’re not making an argument. You’re posting a tantrum and hope nobody notices.

 

[forkup]

forkup ...
"There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation."
Exactly what is your argument here? "Just check the date".... You are posting a NYT article before the election in Oct. 2016

"The facts are simple: if the goal was to sabotage Trump’s campaign, the FBI would’ve gone public about the investigation before the election just like they did with Clinton." There seems to be confusing to her meaning and use of a "private email" ..... most normal folks have "private emails"... happens every day.. Gmail, Outlook.com, and Yahoo Mail, etc
Most normal people don't go to the trouble to setup their own unsecure unauthorized server setting in the closet to obtain a "private email"... and most people don't have the president of the US communication through this server using a pseudonym email to hide his identity!!!!

.
Let’s be clear: that article doesn’t confirm a full-scale counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. In fact, the story downplays the idea that Trump had any connection to Russia. It even quotes sources saying the FBI saw “no clear link to Russia.” That’s not confirmation, it’s the opposite. That’s why the public and most of the media didn’t treat it like a bombshell.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s investigation was splashed all over the front page, including Comey’s letter about reopening it, dropped 11 days before the election. If the goal was to sabotage Trump and help Clinton, they had a funny way of showing it.

As for the email stuff: no, most people don’t set up a private, unauthorized server in their home. But most people also aren’t Secretary of State. That’s not a “normal” role, nor is being a U.S. Senator or First Lady. Context matters. And for what it’s worth, both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used private email accounts for some official business. That doesn’t excuse Clinton’s setup, and like I’ve said before, I supported the reopening of the investigation when new info came to light on this forum, right before the election, damn the political consequences for her.

But again, that’s the point. Clinton got hammered in the press over her emails. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, was being investigated for its ties to a hostile foreign government, and the public didn’t hear a word about it until after the election.

If you think Clinton deserved scrutiny because her behavior was “not normal,” then you need to explain why it’s somehow “normal” for a campaign aide to tell an allied diplomat that they’re working with Russia. That tip is what launched the investigation, according to Mueller, the DOJ IG, the bipartisan Senate Intel Committee led by Marco Rubio, and even John Durham, who, despite being handpicked to debunk the whole thing, confirmed the same origin point.

And maybe you can also explain why the Trump campaign had over 100 contacts with Russians, including some directly tied to the Kremlin and of who some were offering “dirt” on Clinton.

 

[Cougarbear]

"Dude", you just made my point and confirmed you don’t even understand it.

I said the claim that Obama tried to overturn the election is deranged. You came back with a word salad of “Clinton-funded dossier” and “Trump impeachment,” none of which reversed a single vote or came close to reinstalling Hillary. You’re yelling “overturned!” about events that happened after Trump took office. What exactly do you think “overturning an election” means? You can’t cry coup over a process that left the guy in office for four years.

Also, and I shouldn’t have to spell this out, neither of Trump’s impeachments had anything to do with Russia.

The first was about blackmailing Ukraine to go after Biden.
The second was for inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
Zero Russia. Zero Steele dossier. Zero “hoax.”
You’re literally conflating things that happened years apart and pretending it’s a straight line.

And yeah, Clinton funded opposition research. You got us. You cracked the case. You discovered that politicians run negative campaigns. Amazing work, Sherlock. Now go explain how that overthrew democracy when the guy she ran against still became president.

Here’s the truth: you’re not exposing a deep state plot. You’re regurgitating half-digested talking points from outrage influencers who couldn’t pass a basic civics quiz. You can’t tell the difference between “someone investigated Trump” and “they tried to install Clinton by force”, because you don’t want to. The fantasy of persecution is just too intoxicating.


You’re not making an argument. You’re posting a tantrum and hope nobody notices.

You wrote: "I said the claim that Obama tried to overturn the election is deranged." Then, you said, "ou can’t cry coup over a process that left the guy in office for four years." Now, let me point out a key word here, "tried." Do you even know what it means to try and over turn an election? "Trying" and "succeeding" are two different things. However, when it has to do with a crime, both are crimes and there are punishments. So, Obama and his Cartel are all guilty of trying to overturn the election, the will of the people, by use of illegal and immoral tactics like lying and cheating. Had the impeachment been successful, then they would be guilty of succeeding the coup and their penalties will be harsher. It's like the difference between attempted murder and successful murder. One gets maybe 10-20 years in prison and the other gets life in prison or death.

What do you think the Russian Collusion Hoax was for? It was to set him up for another impeachment. Another attempt to overthrow the elected President of the United States. Another coup attempt. Democrats are pathetic anti-democratic liars. If they win, move on Republicans. If they lose, they can't move on and will do anything including assassination if possible, in which they almost succeeded in doing.

 

[Skylar]

Fox News Reports AG Pam Bondi Empaneling Grand Jury to Review Declassified Russiagate Documents - The Last Refuge

As a sidenote, a few days ago it was reported that AG Pam Bondi was “blindsided” with the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The narrative was essentially that the criminal review or expectation was a hot potato handed to Bondi by Gabbard and Bondi was...

theconservativetreehouse.com

DOJ launching grand jury investigation into Russiagate conspiracy allegations: sources

Bondi directed her staff to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has...

www.foxnews.com

This is what is needed to prosecute the Obama/Hillary coup cabal. Subpoenas and testimony under oath will expose their seditious plot.

What 'seditious plot'? What Gabbarrd has 'revealed' is a debate among intel officials in 2016 on whether or not Russia's unambigous help of the Trump campaign constituted a preference by the Russians for Trump's victory in the 2016 election.

With the 2016 Intel leadership team determining that it did.

Where's the crime exactly?

 

[popscottpopscott]

forkup
""There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation."

So was the Comey testimony (Sept) and the NYT article (oct) (Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia)
before the November 8, 2016 election? How do you claim there was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation.

https://archive.ph/CJqFI#selection-315.0-315.63

 

[forkup]

You wrote: "I said the claim that Obama tried to overturn the election is deranged." Then, you said, "ou can’t cry coup over a process that left the guy in office for four years." Now, let me point out a key word here, "tried." Do you even know what it means to try and over turn an election? "Trying" and "succeeding" are two different things. However, when it has to do with a crime, both are crimes and there are punishments. So, Obama and his Cartel are all guilty of trying to overturn the election, the will of the people, by use of illegal and immoral tactics like lying and cheating. Had the impeachment been successful, then they would be guilty of succeeding the coup and their penalties will be harsher. It's like the difference between attempted murder and successful murder. One gets maybe 10-20 years in prison and the other gets life in prison or death.

What do you think the Russian Collusion Hoax was for? It was to set him up for another impeachment. Another attempt to overthrow the elected President of the United States. Another coup attempt. Democrats are pathetic anti-democratic liars. If they win, move on Republicans. If they lose, they can't move on and will do anything including assassination if possible, in which they almost succeeded in doing.

Tried or succeeded makes no difference if the supposed “crime” couldn’t have possibly accomplished the thing you’re accusing them of. For the third time: impeachment wouldn’t have overturned the election, it would have made Mike Pence president. That’s not a coup. That’s a scenic detour through Indiana.

Calling that a “coup” is like accusing someone of grand theft auto because they sat in their own driveway, stared into space, and muttered “someday.” Even if everything you claimed were true, your conclusion still doesn’t follow. The logic and the accusation aren’t even on speaking terms.

And as for the endless “Russian hoax” rant — you keep repeating it like an incantation, but repetition isn’t evidence. Multiple investigations found real contacts, real interference, and real reasons for concern. You may not like the outcome, but pretending it was all fiction doesn’t make it so. One delusion at a time, please.

 

[forkup]

forkup
""There was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation."

So was the Comey testimony (Sept) and the NYT article (oct) (Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia)
before the November 8, 2016 election? How do you claim there was zero public acknowledgement that the Trump campaign was under investigation.

https://archive.ph/CJqFI#selection-315.0-315.63

You're right, my claim that there was zero public acknowledgment of the Trump campaign being investigated before the 2016 election was inaccurate, and I apologize. I could argue that an unattributed statement from FBI sources in a New York Times article doesn’t count as an official public acknowledgment, but that feels pedantic, and I can’t stand it when people try to lawyer their way out of admitting they were probably wrong, so I won’t do that here.

That said, this correction doesn’t undermine the core argument I was making. If anything, I think it strengthens it. The Times piece you linked, seems to be based on leaks from FBI sources that explicitly downplayed the investigation’s significance. That’s not what you’d expect from an agency supposedly trying to tilt the election toward Hillary. Whether it was silence or public denial, neither supports the idea of a pro-Clinton FBI effort.

What I am noticing, though, is that you still haven’t addressed this contradiction in either of your responses. And since I just owned my mistake without hedging, I’d appreciate if you extended the same principle and engaged with the core of my argument, because avoiding it starts to look like evasion.

 

[Cougarbear]

Tried or succeeded makes no difference if the supposed “crime” couldn’t have possibly accomplished the thing you’re accusing them of. For the third time: impeachment wouldn’t have overturned the election, it would have made Mike Pence president. That’s not a coup. That’s a scenic detour through Indiana.

Calling that a “coup” is like accusing someone of grand theft auto because they sat in their own driveway, stared into space, and muttered “someday.” Even if everything you claimed were true, your conclusion still doesn’t follow. The logic and the accusation aren’t even on speaking terms.

And as for the endless “Russian hoax” rant — you keep repeating it like an incantation, but repetition isn’t evidence. Multiple investigations found real contacts, real interference, and real reasons for concern. You may not like the outcome, but pretending it was all fiction doesn’t make it so. One delusion at a time, please.

Illegally attempting to falsely setting a duly elected president of the United States for the purpose of overthrowing the president is insurrection and an act of treason. Obama Cartel clearly and factually tried to do it. He’s up a creek without a paddle to save him and his cartel. The grand jury will come back with an indictment.

 

[forkup]

Illegally attempting to falsely setting a duly elected president of the United States for the purpose of overthrowing the president is insurrection and an act of treason. Obama Cartel clearly and factually tried to do it. He’s up a creek without a paddle to save him and his cartel. The grand jury will come back with an indictment.

Sure, Cougar. And when the results don’t match your expectations, I’m sure it’ll be “the deep state” all over again. And on and on we go.

I think we’ve reached the end of this conversation. I can’t force you to engage with reason, so I won’t try any further. Good night.

 

[Cougarbear]

Sure, Cougar. And when the results don’t match your expectations, I’m sure it’ll be “the deep state” all over again. And on and on we go.

I think we’ve reached the end of this conversation. I can’t force you to engage with reason, so I won’t try any further. Good night.

Reason? When Obama and the gang hang for their crimes, what will you say then?

 

[forkup]

Reason? When Obama and the gang hang for their crimes, what will you say then?

I wasn’t going to continue, but your question is too perfect an example of the difference between us.

You say when, not if, and seem to think it’s somehow impossible for me to simply say I was wrong. But that’s exactly what I’d say if “Obama and the gang” were hanged.

I’m here to find out if I’m right not to signal to people who think exactly like I do that I can’t possibly be mistaken. Because I care more about being honest than about being right, I tend to be right more often.

So I considered your premise and asked myself how it could be true. I didn’t have to think very hard before seeing it doesn’t add up, for reasons I’ve already given.

You, on the other hand, started with your conclusion locked in place. And because it’s locked, instead of engaging with my premise, you just repeated your conclusion. Not for a second even considering the possibility that I'm right.

This leaves you only two options. Either reality conforms to your conclusion in which case you were right, or it doesn't in which case, there's some conspiracy and you were still right. Either way you win... at least in your own head.

So what if I’m wrong? Then I’m wrong and I can admit it. I wouldn’t need a conspiracy theory to explain to myself why I was still “really” right.

That’s the difference between us, one of us is looking for the truth, and the other is just looking for a way to never lose.

In any case I'll leave you to your ego..I wish you both the best.

 

[Lisa558]

Illegally attempting to falsely setting a duly elected president of the United States for the purpose of overthrowing the president is insurrection and an act of treason. Obama Cartel clearly and factually tried to do it. He’s up a creek without a paddle to save him and his cartel. The grand jury will come back with an indictment.

From which area are the grand jurors being selected? If it’s DC, they’ll all walk.

 

[struth]

From which area are the grand jurors being selected? If it’s DC, they’ll all walk.

Bondi has one in FL. Brillant legal mind, arguing the grand conspiracy lead to the illegal raid on Mar A Largo

 

[Cougarbear]

I wasn’t going to continue, but your question is too perfect an example of the difference between us.

You say when, not if, and seem to think it’s somehow impossible for me to simply say I was wrong. But that’s exactly what I’d say if “Obama and the gang” were hanged.

I’m here to find out if I’m right not to signal to people who think exactly like I do that I can’t possibly be mistaken. Because I care more about being honest than about being right, I tend to be right more often.

So I considered your premise and asked myself how it could be true. I didn’t have to think very hard before seeing it doesn’t add up, for reasons I’ve already given.

You, on the other hand, started with your conclusion locked in place. And because it’s locked, instead of engaging with my premise, you just repeated your conclusion. Not for a second even considering the possibility that I'm right.

This leaves you only two options. Either reality conforms to your conclusion in which case you were right, or it doesn't in which case, there's some conspiracy and you were still right. Either way you win... at least in your own head.

So what if I’m wrong? Then I’m wrong and I can admit it. I wouldn’t need a conspiracy theory to explain to myself why I was still “really” right.

That’s the difference between us, one of us is looking for the truth, and the other is just looking for a way to never lose.

In any case I'll leave you to your ego..I wish you both the best.

You're looking for the truth??? The truth is out there. Gabbart gave you the truth and more and more is coming out. We know it's been given to at least one grand jury. Obama was clearly orchestrating a way to stop Trump from being President before the election and after the election. Those are the actual facts in writing. And, there is so much more out there.