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

[Toddsterpatriot]

That isn't the issue, as you know. The issue is selecting the people he chose to make sure illegal/unethical requests of them he makes are not objected to.

Like Eric Holder.

 

[Delldude]

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

Yes and I analyzed it for you in post #1234.

Why do you keep lying?

This wasn't in it:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The intelligence assessment was correct. The only difference was that it was listed as high confidence and the CIA thought it should be moderate confidence.

Trump didn’t even want us to know that Russia hacked the DNC. He was trying to blame anyone else.

Exposing DNC corruption should be illegal.

 

[Marener]

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

Okay. But back to the point, Russia preferred Trump.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A flat out lie. Do you really want to compare the qualifications of Biden's cabinet picks with trump's? Or perhaps you'd like to cite an example of Biden nominating someone to sit on a federal appeals court bench who told members of the DoJ to ignore a court order.

Or to the Supreme Court, who doesn't know what a woman is.....DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay. But back to the point, Russia preferred Trump.

Obviously.
That's why they hid Hillary's mental issues and drug use.

 

[postman]

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.

If they wanted to answer constitutional questions, they wouldn't narrowly tailor the case before them.
They would get all the constitutional issues out of the way at the same time.
Instead of answering if the case before them crossed the line. They should tell us where the line is drawn.

Remember, they never drew a line, so we don't know where using seal team 6 to assassinate political rivals has presidential immunity.

 

[Marener]

Yes and I analyzed it for you in post #1234.



This wasn't in it:

View attachment 1141619

You’re very confused. Even the intelligence review agrees with the assessment in the ICA, but only disagrees with the confidence level.

Multiple subsequent reports back it up, including the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

Gabbard is lying when she tries to claim that anything was false or fabricated. That didn’t happen and the intelligence review confirms that.

 

[Delldude]

But back to the point, Russia preferred Trump.

Not according to your link.

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.

Ambivalent means he really didn't care.

 

[Marener]

Not according to your link.


Ambivalent means he really didn't care.

A small body of intelligence does not outweigh the information coming from highly placed reliable sources.

If Russia had been ambivalent, they would have denigrated both candidates. But that didn’t happen.

 

[postman]

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.

As I said, give am example. The last one you gave were rulings BEFORE the supreme court ruling came out.

Give an example of one that happened AFTER the supreme court ruling.

 

[Lisa558]

Okay. But back to the point, Russia preferred Trump.

If they preferred Trump, they would have released the dirt they had on Hillary. They wanted Hillary, due to all the blackmail material they had on her.

 

[Marener]

If they preferred Trump, they would have released the dirt they had on Hillary. They wanted Hillary, due to all the blackmail material they had on her.

Did you forget that they hacked the DNC and released the emails?

Or do you believe the hoax that it was Seth Rich or someone else?

 

[postman]

If they preferred Trump, they would have released the dirt they had on Hillary. They wanted Hillary, due to all the blackmail material they had on her.

You have to be kidding.
FSB files say the KGB had been grooming Trump since he held the beauty pageant in Moscow.

 

[BackAgain]

If they wanted to answer constitutional questions, they wouldn't narrowly tailor the case before them.
They would get all the constitutional issues out of the way at the same time.
Instead of answering if the case before them crossed the line. They should tell us where the line is drawn.

Remember, they never drew a line, so we don't know where using seal team 6 to assassinate political rivals has presidential immunity.

You’re babbling, now. Litigants being the cases. The courts are free to narrow the issues. Sure. But that doesn’t mean that they are actually supposed to accept a case premised on a political question.

They need to stay in their lane.

 

[Delldude]

Even the intelligence review agrees with the assessment in the ICA, but only disagrees with the confidence level.

Not according to your article. It cited issues during the whole process which made the entire assessment questionable.

Multiple subsequent reports back it up, including the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

Well your Senate intel committee report was based on the rush to judgement flawed ICA, without the Obama Brennan doctoring.

A small body of intelligence does not outweigh the information coming from highly placed reliable sources.

And your article said these sources weren't corroborated thoroughly in the rush to judgement, via alternate methods.

Gabbard is lying when she tries to claim that anything was false or fabricated. That didn’t happen and the intelligence review confirms that.

The intel review you supplied doesn't delve into that.

 

[Delldude]

A small body of intelligence does not outweigh the information coming from highly placed reliable sources.

 

[Marener]

Not according to your article. It cited issues during the whole process which made the entire assessment questionable.

Actually the intelligence review says that basically the entire report was done appropriately but that this one point was problematic.

Well your Senate intel committee report was based on the rush to judgement flawed ICA, without the Obama Brennan doctoring.

That's a lie. It was based on years of investigation, testimony and access to intelligence.

And your article said these sources weren't corroborated thoroughly in the rush to judgement, via alternate methods.

Not at the time, but it doesn't mean it's incorrect. Further investigation only strengthened the assessment.

The intel review you supplied doesn't delve into that.

Gabbard is saying the intelligence was false and fabricated. What is she talking about? Everything she provides shows that it wasn't fabricated at all.

 

[Delldude]

Actually the intelligence review says that basically the entire report was done appropriately but that this one point was problematic.

Nope. Whole thing was a rush to judgement.

Try post #1257 for openers.

 

[Marener]

Nope. Whole thing was a rush to judgement.

The only tradecraft concerns were about the one point. Everything else was solid.

With more time, the ICA's conclusions were only further confirmed.