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

[RetiredGySgt]

It's funny, when they didn't have a problem with them under Clinton, Obama or Biden.

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election retard. But I see he is a Good President so support his actions now. I didn't vote for Harris even a 5-year-old could see she was worthless.

 

[postman]

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election retard. But I see he is a Good President so support his actions now. I didn't vote for Harris even a 5-year-old could see she was worthless.

That doesn't answer the question.
Did you object to nation wide injunctions, like district judges ruling that Obamacare was unconstitutional

 

[postman]

The first judge to rule the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) unconstitutional was Judge Henry E. Hudson in a U.S. District Court in Virginia,

his ruling, in December 2010, struck down the individual mandate, a key provision of the law. The case, filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, challenged the mandate that required all Americans to have health insurance. Judge Hudson's decision was the first to find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

 

[postman]

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Friday the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional due to a recent change in federal tax law. The ruling came a day before the December 15 deadline to sign up for 2019 health coverage through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace.

People can still sign up for coverage through Saturday.

"Court's decision does not affect this season's open enrollment," reads a notice on HealthCare.gov, where people can sign up for coverage.

The Trump White House has said that the law will remain in place for now. The ruling is certain to be appealed.

"We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

 

[Delldude]

Did the January 2017 ICA affect the November 2016 election?

Cmon man.

LOL...........not what I was responding to.

 

[BackAgain]

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Friday the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional due to a recent change in federal tax law. The ruling came a day before the December 15 deadline to sign up for 2019 health coverage through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace.

People can still sign up for coverage through Saturday.

"Court's decision does not affect this season's open enrollment," reads a notice on HealthCare.gov, where people can sign up for coverage.

The Trump White House has said that the law will remain in place for now. The ruling is certain to be appealed.

"We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

Right up to the minute. Except that you’re off by a few years.

 

[postman]

Right up to the minute. Except that you’re off by a few years.

The recent USSC decision would have invalidated that judges ruling.

But it's clearly the case that even though the ACA was upheld by the supreme court. That nationwide injunctions served a purpose.

 

[BackAgain]

The recent USSC decision would have invalidated that judges ruling.

But it's clearly the case that even though the ACA was upheld by the supreme court. That nationwide injunctions served a purpose.

Under proper circumstances, a ruling in one district can impact the entire nation. But, ordinarily, the scope of a strict court decision binds only the parties in that district — oftentimes pending a likely appeal.

Did you understand what SCOTUS actually said?

Personally, I don’t want some liberal district court judge in Oregon (or wherever) attempting to exercise Presidential authority over the entire nation.

 

[MagicMike]

and you can't explain why the previous admin didn't release them if he was in them in a bad way.

Because the previous admin didn't want to maybe?

 

[postman]

Under proper circumstances, a ruling in one district can impact the entire nation. But, ordinarily, the scope of a strict court decision binds only the parties in that district — oftentimes pending a likely appeal.

Did you understand what SCOTUS actually said?

Personally, I don’t want some liberal district court judge in Oregon (or wherever) attempting to exercise Presidential authority over the entire nation.

As you said, such injunctions are always appealed, with appropriate stays attached to their overturning a law or action.

 

[BackAgain]

As you said, such injunctions are always appealed, with appropriate stays attached to their overturning a law or action.

I didn’t say “always.”

My view is that, as a matter of course, these unelected jurists are frequently busy attending to “political questions”, not actual Constitutional ones.

There are exceptions. But for the most part, they need to abide by the rule of staying in their lane.

 

[Delldude]

Are you saying a president can't order his troops to surrender?

That's not treason. That would be an informed decision from His JCS group.

No , it killed thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqi's, and cost the nation around $2 trillion.

And has jack shit to do with this topic.

 

[Lisa558]

Biden said it best.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

An African-American who’s clean!! And articulate!!

….and the Dems call Trump the racist.

 

[Delldude]

The report I gave you is the recently declassified intel document that shows what was portrayed was high confidence and they think it should have been moderate confidence.

Sorry I didn't notice your link, my apologies.

So Brennan colluded with the White House. They went with shakey intel. They violated established trade craft practices. It was produced in a rush, obviously to please Obama and Brennan. And Putin wasn't concerned who won the election.

Supports DNI Gabbards release of declassified documents.

However, before work on the assessment
even began, media leaks suggesting that the IC
had already reached definitive conclusions
risked creating an anchoring bias.

On 9 December, both the Washington
Post and New York Times reported the IC had
concluded with high confidence that Russia had
intervened specifically to help Trump win the
election. The Post cited an unnamed US official
describing this as the IC’s “consensus view.”
__________________
The NIO for Russia, who only received the
final draft for review hours before it was
published, noted that with more time, “they
could have done more” to bolster the judgments
and “make the presentation more elegant.”
__________________
From the outset, agency heads chose to
marginalize the National Intelligence Council
(NIC), departing significantly from standard
procedures for formal IC assessments.
Typically, the NIC maintains control over
drafting assignments, coordination, and review
processes. In his book Undaunted, Brennan
reveals that he established crucial elements of
the process with the White House before NIC
involvement, stating he informed them that
CIA would “take the lead drafting the report”
and that coordination would be limited to
“ODNI, CIA, FBI, and NSA.
_________________
It also was markedly unconventional to have
Agency heads review and sign off on a draft before
it was submitted to the NIC for review. The NIC did
not receive or even see the final draft until just
hours before the ICA was due to be published.
_________________
The decision by agency heads to include
the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to
fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately
undermined the credibility of a key judgment. The
ICA authors first learned of the Dossier, and FBI
leadership’s insistence on its inclusion, on 20
December—the same day the largely coordinated
draft was entering the review process at CIA. FBI
leadership made it clear that their participation in
the ICA hinged on the Dossier’s inclusion and, over
the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave
references to it throughout the main body of the
ICA
________________
The ICA authors and multiple senior CIA
managers—including the two senior leaders of
the CIA mission center responsible for Russia—
strongly opposed including the Dossier,
asserting that it did not meet even the most
basic tradecraft standards. CIA’s Deputy
Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email
to Brennan on 29 December that including it in
any form risked “the credibility of the entire
paper.
________________
Ultimately, agency heads decided to
include a two-page summary of the Dossier as
an annex to the ICA, with a disclaimer that the
material was not used “to reach the analytic
conclusions.” However, by placing a reference
to the annex material in the main body of the
ICA as the fourth supporting bullet for the
judgment that Putin “aspired” to help Trump
win, the ICA implicitly elevated
unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible
supporting evidence, compromising the
analytical integrity of the judgment.
________________
The DA Review identified multiple specific
concerns, including: a higher confidence level
than was justified; insufficient exploration of
alternative scenarios; lack of transparency on
source uncertainty; uneven argumentation;
and the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele
Dossier material
________________
As a result, the authors agreed to
separate out the “aspired” judgment, and NSA
eventually settled on ascribing it a “moderate
confidence” level—which the DA Review found
more consistent with ICD 203 standards. As
explained in Annex H, “moderate confidence
generally means that the information is
credibly sourced and plausible but not . . .
corroborated sufficiently.”
________________
In one instance, the authors cited part
of a credibly sourced report that supported the
“high confidence” assessment on the first two
goals of the Putin-directed campaign—
undermining the US democratic process and
denigrating Clinton—but omitted information
that conflicted with the “aspired” judgment.
The omitted information, as well as a small
body of other credibly sourced reporting that
also was not cited in the ICA, suggested Putin
was more ambivalent about which candidate
won the election.
_________________
Once the “aspire” judgment was
separated from the other two findings on
Putin's intentions, it struggled to stand on its
own. As noted earlier, the subsequent decision
to bolster this judgment by referencing the
unsubstantiated Steele Dossier material only
further weakened its analytic foundation. This
raised the question of whether the “aspire”
judgment was even needed, as its inclusion
risked distracting readers from the more well-
documented findings on Putin’s strategic
objectives.
________________

Nice link by the way.

 

[Marener]

Sorry I didn't notice your link, my apologies.

So Brennan colluded with the White House. They went with shakey intel. They violated established trade craft practices. It was produced in a rush, obviously to please Obama and Brennan. And Putin wasn't concerned who won the election.

Supports DNI Gabbards release of declassified documents.

However, before work on the assessment
even began, media leaks suggesting that the IC
had already reached definitive conclusions
risked creating an anchoring bias.

On 9 December, both the Washington
Post and New York Times reported the IC had
concluded with high confidence that Russia had
intervened specifically to help Trump win the
election. The Post cited an unnamed US official
describing this as the IC’s “consensus view.”
__________________
The NIO for Russia, who only received the
final draft for review hours before it was
published, noted that with more time, “they
could have done more” to bolster the judgments
and “make the presentation more elegant.”
__________________
From the outset, agency heads chose to
marginalize the National Intelligence Council
(NIC), departing significantly from standard
procedures for formal IC assessments.
Typically, the NIC maintains control over
drafting assignments, coordination, and review
processes. In his book Undaunted, Brennan
reveals that he established crucial elements of
the process with the White House before NIC
involvement, stating he informed them that
CIA would “take the lead drafting the report”
and that coordination would be limited to
“ODNI, CIA, FBI, and NSA.
_________________
It also was markedly unconventional to have
Agency heads review and sign off on a draft before
it was submitted to the NIC for review. The NIC did
not receive or even see the final draft until just
hours before the ICA was due to be published.
_________________
The decision by agency heads to include
the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to
fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately
undermined the credibility of a key judgment. The
ICA authors first learned of the Dossier, and FBI
leadership’s insistence on its inclusion, on 20
December—the same day the largely coordinated
draft was entering the review process at CIA. FBI
leadership made it clear that their participation in
the ICA hinged on the Dossier’s inclusion and, over
the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave
references to it throughout the main body of the
ICA
________________
The ICA authors and multiple senior CIA
managers—including the two senior leaders of
the CIA mission center responsible for Russia—
strongly opposed including the Dossier,
asserting that it did not meet even the most
basic tradecraft standards. CIA’s Deputy
Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email
to Brennan on 29 December that including it in
any form risked “the credibility of the entire
paper.
________________
Ultimately, agency heads decided to
include a two-page summary of the Dossier as
an annex to the ICA, with a disclaimer that the
material was not used “to reach the analytic
conclusions.” However, by placing a reference
to the annex material in the main body of the
ICA as the fourth supporting bullet for the
judgment that Putin “aspired” to help Trump
win, the ICA implicitly elevated
unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible
supporting evidence, compromising the
analytical integrity of the judgment.
________________
The DA Review identified multiple specific
concerns, including: a higher confidence level
than was justified; insufficient exploration of
alternative scenarios; lack of transparency on
source uncertainty; uneven argumentation;
and the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele
Dossier material
________________
As a result, the authors agreed to
separate out the “aspired” judgment, and NSA
eventually settled on ascribing it a “moderate
confidence” level—which the DA Review found
more consistent with ICD 203 standards. As
explained in Annex H, “moderate confidence
generally means that the information is
credibly sourced and plausible but not . . .
corroborated sufficiently.”
________________
In one instance, the authors cited part
of a credibly sourced report that supported the
“high confidence” assessment on the first two
goals of the Putin-directed campaign—
undermining the US democratic process and
denigrating Clinton—but omitted information
that conflicted with the “aspired” judgment.
The omitted information, as well as a small
body of other credibly sourced reporting that
also was not cited in the ICA, suggested Putin
was more ambivalent about which candidate
won the election.
_________________
Once the “aspire” judgment was
separated from the other two findings on
Putin's intentions, it struggled to stand on its
own. As noted earlier, the subsequent decision
to bolster this judgment by referencing the
unsubstantiated Steele Dossier material only
further weakened its analytic foundation. This
raised the question of whether the “aspire”
judgment was even needed, as its inclusion
risked distracting readers from the more well-
documented findings on Putin’s strategic
objectives.
________________

Nice link by the way.

So you were lying when you claimed this:

It says absolutely nothing to what you're trying to claim

Gotcha.

Calling the intel “shaky” is an overstatement. They had a high level source in the Kremlin and further investigation only proved Brennan’s assessment to be more accurate, not less.

Gabbard is lying when she says it’s fabricated or falsified. She’s doing far worse than Brennan or Clapper ever could be accused of doing.

Including the dossier is an appendix that was classified and not publicly released is a non-issue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That doesn't answer the question.
Did you object to nation wide injunctions, like district judges ruling that Obamacare was unconstitutional

doesn't matter when the court rules on a law whether in the past or now it is the law and Biden and Obama judges are violating the ruling all because they don't like Trump.

 

[Delldude]

So you were lying when you claimed this:

You posted some unsourced Mueller BS which wasn't in the info I just analyzed for you.

Calling the intel “shaky” is an overstatement. They had a high level source in the Kremlin and further investigation only proved Brennan’s assessment to be more accurate, not less.

There is nothing in that report that mentions a high level source in the Kremlin.

moderate confidence
generally means that the information is
credibly sourced and plausible but not . . .
corroborated sufficiently.”

Including the dossier is an appendix that was classified and not publicly released is a non-issue.

There was a two page condensed version to please the FBI.

 

[BackAgain]

Thread update:

The thread headline is still false.

That is all.

 

[Marener]

You posted some unsourced Mueller BS which wasn't in the info I just analyzed for you.

I posted a link to a CIA tradecraft review. It says so at the top of the document.

Why do you keep lying?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump didn’t want people to know the truth about Russia meddling in the election. Obama is the only reason we known the truth.

Nothing more powerful than Russian memes on Facebook.
Stronger than Hillary's $1 billion in campaign ads.