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

[buckeye]

Now you’re just making shit up.

There already was a preexisting FBI investigation and they had already determined with high confidence that Russia was helping Trump, a finding that was confirmed by Mueller.

What did that FBI investigation find? Tulsi told us by revealing the original ICA.

The original ICA told us what they found...that Russia did not prefer either candidate but wanted to sew disorder and chaos during our elections.

Obama and Brennan scrapped it in order to start the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax perpetuated by the democrats in trying to enact a coup which they failed at but succeeded at disrupting Trump's first term.

Time will tell what this leads to. Now I'm signing off.

Your refusal to answer questions you are afraid of is disheartening. I may ignore you in the future.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then what did they say exactly.

Official acts

 

[Marener]

That is true and here's a source that actually rated RCI and it rated them center right and mostly factual. I am not a fan of the Bias rating source because I've never found them to be unbiased but that rating is good enough to be called objective.

All Sides, which is my go to unbiased bias rater, did not rate RCI.

Real Clear Investigations - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Now go read the article I linked, coward.

“Mostly factual”, but the real problem is they leave out facts.

This excerpt is problematic:
Henry’s 2017 testimony that there was no “concrete evidence” that the emails were stolen electronically suggests that Mueller may have been misleading in his 2019 final report. The report stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data" and agents "appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments" from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and DNC servers, respectively. It also suggests that the DNC emails were transferred to a server in Illinois controlled by the Russian intelligence service GRU. But in addition to including the qualifier "appear," Mueller's source for the Illinois server claim is redacted. That leaves CrowdStrike, to date, as U.S. intelligence officials’ primary, publicly known source for its confident claims about Russian hacking.

Uh, not it doesn’t suggest any such thing. It would suggest that if this man was describing the sole means by which Russia could be identified as the culprit, but that’s obviously not the case and if the reporter wasn’t a hack, they’d admit it.

Does this article anywhere mention that the House report concluded Russia hacked the DNC?

That’s some pretty serious bias if you ask me.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_russia_investigation_report.pdf

Literally they take ONE answer from ONE persons testimony and ignore every other piece of evidence.

 

[Marener]

Official acts

Producing a national intelligence estimate is an official act.

That was easy.

 

[Marener]

What did that FBI investigation find? Tulsi told us by revealing the original ICA.

The original ICA told us what they found...that Russia did not prefer either candidate but wanted to sew disorder and chaos during our elections.

Obama and Brennan scrapped it in order to start the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax perpetuated by the democrats in trying to enact a coup which they failed at but succeeded at disrupting Trump's first term.

Time will tell what this leads to. Now I'm signing off.

Your refusal to answer questions you are afraid of is disheartening. I may ignore you in the future.

The FBI investigation ultimately produced the Mueller report which confirmed that Russia tried to help Trump.

Sorry for not being able to read your mind. You don’t ask honest questions.

 

[buckeye]

You don’t ask honest questions.

There is nothing dishonest about asking why Russia never ran with the "Hillary is a psycho and needs to be on heavy tranquilizers" and "Hillary attempted to bribe religious leaders with State Dept funds so that they would endorse her" facts found in the DNC emails prior to the election if they preferred Trump as democrats keep falsely claiming.

I asked you four times why Russia never used this information to boost Trump's campaign. You ignored it 4 times. You're the dishonest one. And now you're on ignore.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marener

No. I'm saying the Supreme Court made it immaterial if he did anything wrong. He' immune anyway.

Does this not mean that Trump is immune from any Epstein allegations, also?

 

[shockedcanadian]

The exposure for historical accuracy is what is important and this point. Also, those around Obama are not immune from prosecution if the DOJ finds it is a valid criminal case.

 

[Marener]

I asked you four times why Russia never used this information to boost Trump's campaign.

I literally answered it hours ago.

Because it’s insane and no one would believe it.

You’re a child.

 

[OKTexas]

Obama has total immunity.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. No one is immune if they intentionally enter into a conspiracy to violate the law.

.

 

[Marener]

Marener

Does this not mean that Trump is immune from any Epstein allegations, also?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. No one is immune if they intentionally enter into a conspiracy to violate the law.

.

The president is, according to SCOTUS.

As long as that conspiracy involves official actions.

 

[OKTexas]

The president is, according to SCOTUS.

As long as that conspiracy involves official actions.

You might want to read that decision again. Presidents have "limited immunity".

.

 

[Marener]

You might want to read that decision again. Presidents have "limited immunity".

.

They have total immunity when it comes to official actions within their core responsibilities.

National security and intelligence is a core responsibility.

They have presumed immunity with all other official actions.

Obviously everything Gabbard is referencing is part of their official actions.

Even if you disagree, you’d have to PROVE that it wasn’t and when you want to prove it before a judge, you can’t use any documentation or communications from any government officials in the executive branch. So good ******* luck with that.

 

[OKTexas]

They have total immunity when it comes to official actions within their core responsibilities.

National security and intelligence is a core responsibility.

They have presumed immunity with all other official actions.

Obviously everything Gabbard is referencing is part of their official actions.

Even if you disagree, you’d have to PROVE that it wasn’t and when you want to prove it before a judge, you can’t use any documentation or communications from any government officials in the executive branch. So good ******* luck with that.

They already have proved it, they have the memos and emails regarding the fabrication of a false intel assessment and the withholding of the original. And you can bet when the lackeys are facing long prison terms, they'll start singing little birdies.

.

 

[Marener]

They already have proved it, they have the memos and emails regarding the fabrication of a false intel assessment and the withholding of the original. And you can bet when the lackeys are facing long prison terms, they'll start singing little birdies.

.

Those memos and emails show official acts. Obviously.

The president instructing his national security team about production of intelligence products is 100% official.

And you have to prove it before a judge, not on Fox News. The prosecution cannot use any of those communications in court to prove they weren’t official acts.

 

[OKTexas]

Those memos and emails show official acts. Obviously.

The president instructing his national security team about production of intelligence products is 100% official.

And you have to prove it before a judge, not on Fox News. The prosecution cannot use any of those communications in court to prove they weren’t official acts.

Not when his instructions are to create an assessment that is knowingly FALSE and meant to undermine his political opposition. At minimum it would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a fraud against the US.

.

 

[Marener]

Not when his instructions are to create an assessment that is knowingly FALSE and meant to undermine his political opposition. At minimum it would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a fraud against the US.

.

Funny enough that’s exactly what the Trump v US decision discussed.

SCOTUS gave Trump immunity specifically for the time when he went to the DoJ and instructed them to create a knowingly false assessment that the election was corrupt.

 

[BULLDOG]

Marener

Does this not mean that Trump is immune from any Epstein allegations, also?

No. The Epstein files deal mostly with trump before he became president.

 

[Chuz Life]

No. The Epstein files deal mostly with trump before he became president.

What about crimes "after" presidency?

 

[Chuz Life]

Funny enough that’s exactly what the Trump v US decision discussed.

SCOTUS gave Trump immunity specifically for the time when he went to the DoJ and instructed them to create a knowingly false assessment that the election was corrupt.

Link needed.