Obama can't be prosecuted. You can thank Trump for that.

[Skylar]

You only make yourself look like a hack.

You posts mean nothing.

I make myself look like a person who demands evidence, not simply accusations.

Its what separates us. You accept accusations as evidence, your beliefs as facts.

I require far more. As does the law.

 

[Rawley]

Here's a breakdown of indictments and cases in Mueller's probe

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors have indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses.

abcnews.go.com

In Stone's 24-page indictment, Mueller painted perhaps the clearest picture yet of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

1,000% Ratty. Kudos

 

[Chuz Life]

I make myself look like a person who demands evidence, not simply accusations.

Its what separates us. You accept accusations as evidence, your beliefs as facts.

I require far more. As does the law.

Do you agree that Brandon and Kumswalla could call the press and disclose what they know about whether Trump is implicated in the Epstein files, right now - today - if they wanted to?

 

[BULLDOG]

WHY?

There are zero credible allegations, zero evidence that supports loud claims from Gabbard.

So why give the rightwingers an impression that a wrong doing by Obama is being conceded here?

No wrong doing is conceded. There is no need to discuss their accusation because even if they were true, he has immunity.

 

[Chuz Life]

No wrong doing is conceded. There is no need to discuss their accusation because even if they were true, he has immunity.

Going to have to let it all be played out to see if you are right about any of it.

 

[struth]

And where pray tell, is the evidence that Obama committed treason.....listed in that press release? Be specific please.

So a report on Russian interference in the US election is war against united states? How does it 'aid and comfort' Russia? None of this makes the slightest sense. It offers zero material support. And the legal definition of treason is constitutionally non-negotiable.

Even your premise is silly. If repeating Russian talking points is treason, then half of MAGA has its head on the chopping block. Thankfully for y'all, its not. Treason requires direct support of an enemy government. And repeating a talking point isn't direct support by any legal definition or application of the law.

The Russians did help Trump's campaign. Unambiguously. The Mueller report confirms this. Whether or not that reflects a preference by the Russians for Trump's election is the issue that was debated. So your working theory is if someone looking at the evidence drew the conclusion that Russia's helping of Trump reflected a preference by the Russians for Trump's electiopn

That they've made war against the United States and can be executed?

Laughing.....good luck with that. This is just theater for morons and will go no where.

So you didn’t read the press release?


It breaks it down

 

[struth]

I make myself look like a person who demands evidence, not simply accusations.

Its what separates us. You accept accusations as evidence, your beliefs as facts.

I require far more. As does the law.

You don’t demand evidence, you ignore it

 

[Skylar]

Do you agree that Brandon and Kumswalla could call the press and disclose what they know about whether Trump is implicated in the Epstein files, right now - today - if they wanted to?

Not now they can't. Trump can. And despite MAGA running on the issue of the release of the Epstein files, Trump now refuses to release them. With his administration lying about the Epstein files, insisting there is no list, then insisting that there is a list but the democrats made it, then insisting its all fake news, with the story changing every week.

Whataboutry doesn't make the Trump administration's coverup of evidence linking Trump and Epstein disappear.

 

[jknowgood]

The only problem is that Obama never claimed there was any collusion.

That’s a huge hole in Bondi’s claim.

He didn't have to, you loons are still quoting it.

 

[Nostra]

The impeachment of Trump had ample evidence, which was largely ignored and buried in right wing media.

They asked you to believe wild, improbable things to explain Trump’s corrupt actions. They also asked you to accept that the president can use his political office as a means to attack his political opponents because that’s what they thought would be “best” for the country.

Lies.

 

[buckeye]

I want to know who raped those girls in Epstein's operation and I want them to rot in jail or worse, for their part in it.

 

[Mac-7]

So far all you’ve found are honest assessments. You’re trying to turn the truth into a crime when you don’t like the facts.
You’re trying to turn the political process into a crime when you don’t like the outcome.

Don’t be a sucker.

No

The dossier paid for by Hillary was total lies that obama (allegedly) instructed his underlings to present as facts

 

[Rawley]

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”​

• In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
• Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
• Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
• The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
• The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
• The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

Key Findings of the Mueller Report | ACS

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=

Dude, you keep stamping your feet and saying found evidence of "collusion." Yet, he never said "here is the evidence of collusion" In fact he said just the opposite.

 

[mudwhistle]

I make myself look like a person who demands evidence, not simply accusations.

Its what separates us. You accept accusations as evidence, your beliefs as facts.

I require far more. As does the law.

You're a ******* idiot.

Ask me for the evidence. Just how ridiculous can one get?


You know that I don't work for the DOJ and I would be fired if I did provide you with their evidence, you silly ****.

 

[Skylar]

You don’t demand evidence, you ignore it

Evidence of TREASON? Of making war against the United States for doing a full review of an ICA document?

That's not what treason means. There's zero evidence of treason, election rigging, sedition, or a coup. The closest thing we have in the USC for a coup is an attempt to destroy or overthrow the US government.

With an ICA document revision? That's pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Nostra]

The only problem is that Obama never claimed there was any collusion.

That’s a huge hole in Bondi’s claim.

Barry told his DOJ to make it all up, Simp.

 

[Marener]

He didn't have to, you loons are still quoting it.

So, then what’s the crime? Did he think it?

This is a sad joke.

 

[Nostra]

I make myself look like a person who demands evidence, not simply accusations.

Its what separates us. You accept accusations as evidence, your beliefs as facts.

I require far more. As does the law.

Still waiting for you to post your “evidence, Simp.

 

[tahuyaman]

This thread doesn't discuss how horrible you might think Obama is, or if he is guilty of treason. None of those thing matter. The SC granted trump, and all presidents immunity from prosecution for anything that can remotely be tied to his powers as president. Can you think of a legal reason why trump was able to walk, but Obama should be charged?
If so, now is the time to educate us all. I look forward to your reasoned legal opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

He can’t be prosecuted for official acts. Such as the killing of an American citizen through a drone attack.

Fabricating evidence against a political foe is not an official act.

 

[Skylar]

You're a ******* idiot.

Ask me for the evidence. Just how ridiculous can one get?


You know that I don't work for the DOJ and I would be fired if I did provide you with their evidence, you silly ****.

So you admit that you have NO evidence of any crime by Obama. Gabbard has already dropped press releases and 46 page documents outlining their supposed evidence.

It just doesn't support any claims of sedition, treason, a coup or election rigging. It doesn't even come close. It doesn't demonstrate ANY crime by Obama. But instead, affirms that every meeting they refer to was part of Obama's official duties. Sealing his immunity under Trump V. United States.

Y'all are literally arguing that a revision to a ICA document constitutes war against the United States and an attempt to destroy or overthrow the US government.

Laughing.....good ******* luck with that pseudo-legal horseshit.