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

[Chuz Life]

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.

If Trump can make a statement with social media, so can Brandon or Kumswallera. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

[MarathonMike]

What accountability? Its a story backed by no specific evidence of any actual crime.

I mean, how does ordering a full review of an ICA report constitute.....treason. Which is defined as war against the united states or aid and comfort to her enemies?

How would an ICA report finalized in January......constitute a election rigging for an election that had occurred 2 months earlier in November?

Even the time lines are a confused, gibbering mess. No one outside of MAGA is taking this seriously. Nor is there a any plausible path forward in court for this. As ever meeting cited by Gabbard was absolutely part of Obama's official duties.

LOL playing games with the word "crime". Coercing the intelligence agencies to completely manufacture a fake Russian Collusion Hoax that lasted for years is a crime against the American people. That is true whether Obama can be prosecuted or not.

 

[jknowgood]

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

This is a sad joke.

Nevermind I can't help you're too stupid to get it.

 

[postman]

No

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

Can you say curveball?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Laughing....hahahahahahahah....laughing.....hahahahahah.......

 

[postman]

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

Of course you have a credible citation to back up that lie?

 

[Mac-7]

Can you say curveball?

I can

But in your context have no idea what it means

 

[Skylar]

If Trump can make a statement with social media, so can Brandon or Kumswallera. Don't pretend otherwise.

If a social media post could make the US government release the Epstein files, then they'd already be released. As MAGA campaigned on the issue for over a year.

But now that they have power, now that they CAN release the Epstein files, MAGA refuses and suppresses the evidence. They lie about the content of the Epstein files. MAGA makes up conspiracy about the Democrats 'altering' the Epstein filed, backed by nothing. They gaslight, insisting that only weaklings would even ask about the Epstein files.

And Trump is taking huge political damage over this issue, angering his own base, sparking rebellions among house republicans that are breaking ranks with him to vote with Democrats to release the Epstein files, and tanking Trump's favoribility ratings until the last 2 polls show him 11 and 13 points underwater: the worst performance by a US president in polling history save for one:

Donald Trump in his first term.

The only conclusion I can draw that makes any sense is that releasing the Epstein Files would inflict even MORE damage to Trump than refusing to already has.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's enough that Teflon Obama FINALLY be held accountable publicly for at least ONE of the illicit acts he orchestrated as President.

All it takes is credible evidence. A rewarmed conspiracy theory wont do.

 

[buckeye]

Its a story backed by no specific evidence of any actual crime.

They have a trail showing Obama's intelligence team rejected an intelligence brief stating that Russia was not favoring either candidate the day before it was to be published.

Then Obama and some on his intelligence team had a new one written showing the opposite about Trump and used the already discredited Steele Dossier as proof. That one went out.

How do you explain that?

 

[postman]

LOL playing games with the word "crime". Coercing the intelligence agencies to completely manufacture a fake Russian Collusion Hoax that lasted for years is a crime against the American people. That is true whether Obama can be prosecuted or not.

You mean like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney using the intelligence community to completely manufacture WMD's in Iraq?

 

[Mac-7]

Of course you have a credible citation to back up that lie?

The DOJ is working on it

If we cant put obama in jail how about canceling his pension and Secret Service protection if the allegations are proven?

 

[Mac-7]

You mean like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney using the intelligence community to completely manufacture WMD's in Iraq?

I dont think that happened as you claim

The intelligence community hoodwinked the president

 

[Skylar]

LOL playing games with the word "crime". Coercing the intelligence agencies to completely manufacture a fake Russian Collusion Hoax that lasted for years is a crime against the American people. That is true whether Obama can be prosecuted or not.

Dude, an ICA report revision isn't war against the united states. An ICA report revision isn't an attempt to destroy overthrow the US government. Nor is it even possible for an ICA report in January to rig an election in November.

That's hysteric pseudo-legal panty shitting nonsense. These claims aren't serious nor do they make the slightest sense.

This is just theater for dipshits to try and distract MAGA from Trump's refusal to release the Epstein list.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a social media post could make the US government release the Epstein files, then they'd already be released. As MAGA campaigned on the issue for over a year.

But now that they have power, now that they CAN release the Epstein files, MAGA refuses and suppresses the evidence. They lie about the content of the Epstein files. MAGA makes up conspiracy about the Democrats 'altering' the Epstein filed, backed by nothing. They gaslight, insisting that only weaklings would even ask about the Epstein files.

And Trump is taking huge political damage over this issue, angering his own base, sparking rebellions among house republicans that are breaking ranks with him to vote with Democrats to release the Epstein files, and tanking Trump's favoribility ratings until the last 2 polls show him 11 and 13 points underwater: the worst performance by a US president in polling history save for one:

Donald Trump in his first term.

The only conclusion I can draw that makes any sense is that releasing the Epstein Files would inflict even MORE damage to Trump than refusing to already has.

Read slower.

They (Brandon and Kumswaller) know who's in the Epstein file.

They could name names, INCLUDING Trump's NAME, if they wanted to.

So, why aren't they doing so?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

These are people who are in the process of ripping our country down largely over a lie some con man told them -- "The only way I lose is if the election is rigged" -- said MONTHS before the election and with exactly ZERO (0) evidence.

I surely don't know how this will turn out, but I do know that the last thing they need for ANYTHING is real evidence.

 

[postman]

They have a trail showing Obama rejected an intelligence brief stating that Russia was not favoring either candidate the day before it was to be published.

Then Obama and some on his intelligence team had a new one written showing the opposite about Trump and used the already discredited Steele Dossier as proof.

How do you explain that?

They never "publish" intelligence briefs.
They're TOP SECRET, and are only distributed to a small handful of people in the entire government.

And if it was after November 2016, any brief that Obama received, Trump also received

That's the law.

So if Obama manipulated anything, Trump got both the before and after versions.

Again, that's the law.

 

[buckeye]

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

That’s a huge hole in Bondi’s claim.

Bondi is not claiming that. And its immaterial.

What's material are the actions by Obama.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....hahahahahahahah....laughing.....hahahahahah.......

Laughing.....that's what your argument has been reduced to? Emojis and excuses why you've got zero evidence to back any of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Your claim couldn't stand for a day.

Well that was easy.

If you ever manage evidence that Obama committed any crime, give me holler. But you're going to need a way better distraction from the Epstein files than this weak tea. I've chewed gum that lasted longer.

 

[The Duke]

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

We'll just see what the law says about that, counselor. You ain't no lawyer or patriot. STFU.