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

[Marener]

And what does it matter after it resulted in tying up a country for 2 years and beating down a newly elected POTUS?

It matters if you’re going to start accusing people of leading a coup. It appears Gabbard is fabricating a hoax by claiming it. Shouldn’t we prosecute her for that?

It also lead to Impeachment I. You're delusional that it didn't matter.

No, it didn’t lead to impeachment. The first impeachment was because Trump abused his office to try and get Zelensky to create a hoax against Biden. The second one was because Trump tried to change the outcome of an election through his hoax about election fraud.

Both of those are okay with you, but you lose you’re minds when a moderate confidence finding is listed as high confidence.

 

[Crepitus]

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

You won't get one. reasoning is as foreign to tRumplings as breathing water and just as likely. They operate on feelings, nothing more

 

[Marener]

That committee was headed by notorious liar, Adam Schiff. Enough said.

You want to say you don't trust the results, say it. But you haven't even read it and know next to nothing about it.

The report that was declassified came from the Republicans in 2017. Dems didn’t take over Congress until 2019.

You don’t have independent sources.

Gabbard would actually be known for lying. Just ask her about her trip to Syria and you’ll get nothing but lies.

 

[buckeye]

It’ll never be proven if you’re so closed minded to ignore all evidence.

Mueller’s team did extensive forensics and identified how the files were extracted and to where.

There’s never been any credible evidence to the contrary even after Fox News tried to hype the Seth Rich hoax.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.

Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Again, you live in a bubble and are sadly uninformed, like most followers, aka, leftists.

 

[buckeye]

Ratcliffe ordered a review of the assessment after the fact and the assessment found that the conclusion should have been moderate and not high confidence.

That’s the scandal.

Retconning ‘Russiagate’

The CIA director encourages the rewriting of history.

www.lawfaremedia.org

That's not what I asked.

Why did Brennan throw their investigated conclusions (from the original ICA) out the window?

 

[buckeye]

It matters if you’re going to start accusing people of leading a coup.

Why?

 

[Marener]

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.

Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Again, you live in a bubble and are sadly uninformed, like most followers, aka, leftists.

Again, it really doesn’t. Just because Crowdstrike didn’t witness firsthand the exultation of files doesn’t mean no one else could find evidence of it.

Mueller’s investigation tracked multiple extiltrarions to an AWS server in Arizona (maybe Nevada? It’s been a while since I read the report).

Republicans and Real Clear Investigation's never give you the whole story, just the tiny sliver that supports their narrative. This focuses solely on one answer to one question, and ignores basically everything else.

 

[Marener]

Why?

Because if there is no coup, you shouldn’t accuse people of engaging in a coup.

It makes Gabbard a liar.

 

[buckeye]

The first impeachment was because Trump abused his office to try and get Zelensky to create a hoax against Biden

LOL. And who was Zelensky's arch enemy?

 

[Marener]

LOL. And who was Zelensky's arch enemy?

Has absolutely nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election or collusion.

That’s some real weak shit. There’s no correlation other than Trump could lean on Zelensky by withholding weapons.

 

[buckeye]

Because if there is no coup, you shouldn’t accuse people of engaging in a coup.

That Trump wasn't convicted but was impeached and our country was forced to endure two years of Russia, Russia, Russia! matters.

All of that was an attempted coup based on lies.

 

[OKTexas]

Accusations aren't evidence. If Gabbard had the irrefutable evidence that Trump claims she does of sedition, coups and treason, she would have presented it. If Gabbard had the evidence that Obama ordered the intelligence community to push a false narrative, she would have presented it.

Instead, she presented a monotonous series of accusations backed by no actual evidence.

You've watched her press conference. You already know this. You just hope we don't.

Run along, OK. This is about the extent of your capacity to contribute.

Yeah, all backed up with memos and emails. Go figure.

.

 

[buckeye]

Has absolutely nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election or collusion.

Oh, really???? lol

You set up a straw man, "Putin loves Trump and wants him elected over Hillary. Trump colluded with Putin to get elected (even though Mueller clearly states he didn't)."

Then you take a Trump phone call with Putin's intended victim and an insider masking as a whistleblower and show that Trump bullied Zelensky and tried to get dirt on his political opponent.

It's all part of an intended narrative that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with an intended coup.

 

[Rambunctious]

Let us address first, your nickname Rambunctious:

rambunctious​

adjective as in boisterous; noisy

• boisterous
• raucous
• rowdy
• unruly
• loud
• noisyrough
• rude
• termagant
• tumultuous
• turbulent

You are sure all of the above.

Secondly, let us talk about promises kept.

Obama 47%
Trump 24%

This stat proves that Obama was more faithful to the "will of the people" than Trump.

Last but not least, here is more proof that Obama fulfilled the will of the people

AI Overview

President Barack Obama's "will of the people" during his presidency, from 2009 to 2017, can be understood through the policy priorities of his two terms. While interpreting the "will of the people" is complex and can be debated, key areas of focus that emerged from the 2008 and 2012 elections, as well as prevailing concerns at the time, include:

1. Economic recovery

• Addressing the Great Recession: Coming into office during a severe economic crisis, Obama's initial priority was to stimulate the economy, save jobs, and stabilize the financial system.
• Measures such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: According to the National Archives (.gov), this act aimed to stimulate the economy through investments in infrastructure, energy efficiency, education, healthcare, and tax relief.
• Wall Street Reform: Legislation like the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act aimed to regulate financial institutions and prevent future crises. According to The Obama Foundation, it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from financial fraud.

2. Healthcare reform

• Expanding Access to Affordable Healthcare: A central focus was passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aiming to ensure access to affordable health insurance for all Americans and regulate the insurance industry. Britannica explains the ACA made the attainment of health insurance mandatory for all citizens and included subsidies for families earning less than $88,000 per year. The Affordable Care Act included provisions like prohibiting coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions and expanding Medicaid.

3. Climate change

• Addressing Environmental Concerns: Obama's administration emphasized the need to combat climate change through initiatives like the Climate Action Plan, setting standards to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, promoting clean energy, and preparing for the impacts of climate change.

Obstacles faced in accomplishing goals

• Republican Opposition: Obama faced significant opposition from Republicans in Congress, particularly after the 2010 midterm elections when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives. This limited his ability to pass further legislative initiatives.
• Filibuster: The routine use of the filibuster in the Senate by Republicans posed a significant hurdle to passing legislation, requiring a 60-vote majority to overcome.
• Economic Headwinds: The slow economic recovery and persistent unemployment also presented challenges, fueling public disillusionment and contributing to the difficult political landscape.

In essence, while Obama successfully enacted major reforms in healthcare and financial regulation during his initial term, his subsequent years in office were marked by significant political obstacles and a slower economic recovery, hindering his ability to fulfill all aspects of his agenda.

Having said all of the above and PROVEN that your statement is pure and utter BS, I am 100% sure that you are not "man enough" to admit you're biased and have an incorrect point of view.

View attachment 1140408

I've explained my screen name many times here before...

 

[Rambunctious]

So now you're offeirng us imaginary FUTURE evidence that you don't have, can't establish exists or ever existed, have no idea what it contains or could contain, that you insist will show us that you were right all along.

Somehow.

All while having jack shit to back your claims that Obama committed any crime.

There are a lot of wishing wells in MAGA, aren't there?

You will see...

 

[Marener]

That Trump wasn't convicted but was impeached and our country was forced to endure two years of Russia, Russia, Russia! matters.

All of that was an attempted coup based on lies.

That’s totally delusional. It’s like the word “coup” means “made us upset” to you.

A coup is when they attempt to illegally remove someone from office. That didn’t happen here.

Trump came way closer to a coup in his attempt to keep Biden out of office, but somehow that’s okay with you because you’re a hack.

 

[Marener]

Oh, really???? lol

You set up a straw man, "Putin loves Trump and wants him elected over Hillary. Trump colluded with Putin to get elected (even though Mueller clearly states he didn't)."

Then you take a Trump phone call with Putin's intended victim, an insider masking as a whistleblower and show that Trump bullied Zelensky and tried to get dirt on his political opponent.

It's all part of an intended narrative that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with an intended coup.

Uh no. It was pretty clear that Putin preferred Trump because he used his intelligence agencies to go after Clinton.

No one in the Obama administration made any report that there was collusion. You’re making shit up.

As for the Zelensky whistleblower, they were proven to be accurate. Just like the intelligence that Putin favored Trump.

You guys have a problem with people accurately reporting about things Trump doesn’t like.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.




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.

First off, Scotus has been clear the president has immunity only for official acts and not for unofficial acts while in office. Whenever the president engages in any political campaign, he is acting as a private citizen and not as president and is subject to all the laws other citizens are.

If there were no crime, then Obama supporters would not be arguing so hard that he has immunity, so it is at least plausible to everyone that

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.




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.

You raise two questions here; does the president have immunity for actions he takes in election campaigns and have any criminal acts been alleged.

When the president takes part in a political campaign, he does so as a private citizen so no immunity applies to his actions, and if he did, as alleged, have the intelligence agencies publish false information to advance Clinton's campaign, he and anyone else in the federal government who took part in this is guilty at a minimum of violations of the Hatch Act and probably of suborning violations of the Hatch Act.

If Obama is guilty as alleged, do his actions rise to the level of sedition? Is illegally using government resources to campaign for a candidate an attempt to overthrow the government? That is a question for the Supreme Court to decide.

 

[OKTexas]

~~~~~~
I found this bit of legal goop that may be counter to your statement:
Read more:

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed | Tenth Amendment Center

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

"Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.​

Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, because they already existed."​

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:
George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed”. Â He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:

“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”​

So, Although Obama may be immune from his decisions as president from 2009 to 2017, his acolytes and cabinet members do not have the same protections.
Additionally, any conspiracies that Obama continued or entered into after his presidency are not covered by presidential immunity...

maobama is not immune if he indeed violated the law intentionally, the Constitution tasked him to make sure the laws are enforced, "he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,". The word shall, means it's not optional.

.

 

[Marener]

maobama is not immune if he indeed violated the law intentionally, the Constitution tasked him to make sure the laws are enforced, "he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,". The word shall, means it's not optional.

.

Obama has total immunity.