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

[toomuchtime_]

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

If, in fact, Obama did enter into a conspiracy with Clinton to include false information in official intelligence reports with the aim of subverting the election, he could not be prosecuted for given the order to include that false information to intelligence officials because as President he has the power to do so, but he might be indicted for entering into a conspiracy with Clinton to do so because such an act lies outside of his official powers as president. In other words, he acted as an individual when entering into the conspiracy and so no presidential immunity would apply. The charge would not be treason, but it might be sedition.

 

[Skylar]

There is proof. Not really any theories.

There's zero proof of any crime. Revising an ICA document is not making war against the United States. Revising an ICA document isn't attempting to destroy or overthrow the US government. There's literally zero evidence that this was attempted, or that there was even remotely plausible.

Its a story, backed by jackshit. A story tthat doesn't make the slightest sense and would be laughed out of any court they ever tried to front it in.

 

[buckeye]

You have a paper trail that there was debate on the topic. And that the intelligence team ultimately decided that Russia helping Trump's campaign reflected a preference for his election over Hillary Clinton.

No, not the team. Part of the team. And whistleblowers are coming forth now that were on the team that lost.

And what the winning Obama team chose to do was rewrite the briefing that had already been issued and was ready to be published that said Russia did not favor Trump or Clinton with another brief with an opposite conclusion based on the Steele Dossier that had already been discredited by the same agencies that said Trump was favored.

 

[Chuz Life]

Whataboutry doesn't change the fact that MAGA campaigned on the release the Epstein files. Biden and Kamala can't release them.

Trump can. But instead of releasing them, his administration 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.

Every time you want to bring up Biden and Kamala, you splatter on the same wall: they can't release the Epstein files now.

Trump can. That makes this 100% his problem.

If Elon Musk can post that Trump is in the Epstein files. . .Brandom and Kumswaller can too.

Correct?

 

[buckeye]

There's no evidence that he ordered that the ICA to include language about Russia's preference for Trump.

Why did he reject the original brief? And allow the second one to be published?

 

[BULLDOG]

There is proof. Not really any theories.

then don't hold back. spit them out.

 

[buckeye]

This is being done as an Epstein distraction.
They know that even if there was something there, anything, it's too late to investigate it for any actual criminal activity.

It would be like opening up an investigation of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky all over again.

Just wanted you to know that you're just as easy to skip over here as in the Sewer, rattle. You're still, dumb, dishonest and a troll, meaner gene, radical right and postman are all you.

 

[postman]

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/trump-getting-first-presidential-daily-briefing-tuesday

Trump receives first President’s Daily Brief

Trump received his first classified national security briefing in August after he became the Republican nominee, and less than a month later, received a second briefing at his request.


President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday received the President’s Daily Brief, the same daily intelligence briefing that President Barack Obama receives.

 

[buckeye]

You're describing a revision of a ICA report.

And what did that revision lead to?

 

[BULLDOG]

If, in fact, Obama did enter into a conspiracy with Clinton to include false information in official intelligence reports with the aim of subverting the election, he could not be prosecuted for given the order to include that false information to intelligence officials because as President he has the power to do so, but he might be indicted for entering into a conspiracy with Clinton to do so because such an act lies outside of his official powers as president. In other words, he acted as an individual when entering into the conspiracy and so no presidential immunity would apply. The charge would not be treason, but it might be sedition.

Got it all worked out, don't you? Get back with me when you have proof.

 

[Skylar]

If, in fact, Obama did enter into a conspiracy with Clinton to include false information in official intelligence reports with the aim of subverting the election,

Nope.

Revising a ICA document isn't war against the United States. That's hyperbolic dipshit nonsense.

Revising a ICA document isn't an attempt to overthrow or destroy the US governement. That's hyperbolic dipshit nonsense.

Revising a ICA document isn't 'subverting an election'. There's no attempt to disqualify any votes. There's no disruption of voting. The election was already over, 2 months before the ICA doc was revised. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 2 months.

Again, these hysteric, pseudo-legal arguments don't make the slightest sense and aren't serious legal arguments. This is just theater for morons, an attempted distraction from the Epstein fiasco.

And nothing will come of it.

he could not be prosecuted for given the order to include that false information to intelligence officials because as President he has the power to do so, but he might be indicted for entering into a conspiracy with Clinton to do so because such an act lies outside of his official powers as president. In other words, he acted as an individual when entering into the conspiracy and so no presidential immunity would apply.

Of course presidential immunity would apply. First, because there are literally no crimes. Second, because there is literally no evidence that Obama ordered any of the contested changes. Nor any evidence it would be a crime if he did. Third, because every single meeting that Gabbard desribes was an official duty of the President of the United States.

Providing Obama perfect immunity from any of these accusations. You couldn't get the man on a parking ticket.

 

[postman]

Got it all worked out, don't you? Get back with me when you have proof.

What they forgot is that by law, once Trump was president elect, he got the same briefing as the president.

And Trump was famous for rejecting their conclusions.

Despite those briefings, Trump continued to doubt the US intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia orchestrated a series of hacks aimed at Democratic Party officials and organizations in the midst of the US election.

 

[Mac-7]

Where did I mention Bush.
I said Cheney, and Rumsfeld cooked the intelligence books. And then Bush made Colin Powell present those lies to the UN.

Cheney may have been in on the scam along with the intelligence community but bush bears the ultimate responsibility

 

[Marener]

I think as this story unfolds you will have to tell even bigger whoppers in defense of obama

Jesus, if I had a nickel every time you guys claimed the real story was coming.

It never does. You guys just move onto the next bullshit story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

wrong as usual perhaps you should stick with your buddies claim no evidence is needed in an impeachment.

 

[Skylar]

No, not the team. Part of the team. And whistleblowers are coming forth now that were on the team that lost.

The decision makers in the intelligence community, the people whose job it is to make these make these calls, came to the conclusion that Russia's unambiguous help for the Trump campaign constituted a preference by Russia to elect to Trump over Hillary.

That some lower ranking officials may have disagreed with them is irrelevant. Its the job of the intel leadership to make that assessment and apply their best judgment on the evidence they have before them.

The argument being offered by Gabbard and Trrump is LITERALLY if Trump or Gabbard diagreee with the assessment of intel leadership from 2016, that they can EXECUTE the intel leadership from 2016.

Laughing.........no. No they can't.

Trump ex post facto disagreeing with a previous administration's intel assessments does not magically transform that assessment into a capital crime. Or any crime.

This will go nowhere. Its just theater for morons to distract them Epstein and isn't a serious legal argument.

 

[AntonToo]

Did you even watch the press conference???

Obama's intelligence team rejected a briefing showing that Russia had tried to sew chaos and confusion in the 2016 election but did not favor either candidate the day before it was to be published.

Putin PUBLICLY ADMITED that he supported Trump over Clinton.

I mean how stupid do you have to be to belive that Russians wanted to sew chaos, yet supppsedly didn't favor THE CHAOS CANDIDATE, who happened to constantly defend and talk nice about Putin, running on a platform against sanctions on Russia and was trying to secure a Trump Tower project in Moscow?

What was Russian state TV showing to the populace? Anti-Clinton drivel while handling Trump with white gloves.

What did Russians do when Trump won in 2016? They CELEBRATED IT AT EVERY LEVEL. Our intelligence intercepted high level Russian officials congratulating each other on getting Trump elected.


Russians assisting Trump's election was not some controversial finding, it's an obvious fact.

Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details in 2020 how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.


To now make hay of what Obama administration GOT EXACTLY RIGHT is somewhere between a pretense and straight stupid.

 

[Mac-7]

Revising a ICA document isn't war against the United States. That's hyperbolic dipshit nonsense.

Revising a ICA document isn't an attempt to overthrow or destroy the US governement. That's hyperbolic dipshit nonsense.

Maybe obama should hire you as one of his defense lawyers

Because as my old friend Eyebrows who was constantly in trouble with the law used to say “As long as you dont admit it they cant prove a thing”

 

[Skylar]

And what did that revision lead to?

For the purpose of this discussion, its far quicker to describe what it didn't lead to.

It didn't lead to sedition, or a coup, or treason or election rigging.

If you have an argument to make about the revision, make it.

 

[Marener]

Obama's intelligence team rejected a briefing showing that Russia had tried to sew chaos and confusion in the 2016 election but did not favor either candidate the day before it was to be published.

They all knew Russia intended to weaken Clinton’s candidacy, which could only help Trump. They clearly favored Trump because they never tried to weaken his campaign. This was a finding that was confirmed over and over again including the unanimous report from the Senate intelligence committee.

They actually held back intel they had about Hillary during the 2016 campaign and intended to use it against her before her inauguration.

What do you mean “held back”? It’s not Obama’s job to perpetuate the bullshit intelligence from Kremlin that was intent on weakening Clinton. The fact that Bondi is promoting Russian bullshit makes her equal to those who claim that there’s a pee tape for Trump.

Obama instructed them to rewrite the briefing which they did and used the Steele Dossier, which they all knew had already been discredited, as proof that the Russians favored Trump and tried to get him elected. That briefing was published.

Not sure what “briefing” you’re referring to exactly because the ODNI report from Jan 2017 was perfectly accurate and had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

Tulsi provided the paper trail, a timeline and details about all of this.

Too bad none of it amounts to a hill of beans let alone a “coup” which is just absolutely delusional.

The ODNI report published in 2017 was perfectly accurate. Her complaining that it didn’t include a finding that Russia didn’t change votes is just whining.