🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: HUGE releases by @DNIGabbard - Declassified Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory

What will happen to Obama if found guilty?

  • Nothing

    Votes: 26 86.7%
  • It depends if Trump pardons him.

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Donald Trump, during his presidency, did revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, who served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under President Barack Obama.
 
Look, asshole, any jury that is made from this lie will be one handpicked by Trump. Gabbard has lied to stay in her spot. If Obama is sent to prison because of this charade, expect MAGATS to get hurt. You're a member of a twisted cult of fascists who will make things up to stop opposition and to stay in power. DO NOT even try this gasighting bullshit with me *****.

The jury will be handpicked by Trump? Are you smoking meth?

We get it. You have no respect for the law. You only respect violence like a Democrat.
 
Trump was correct in all his assessments.

Then why didn't he prosecute then?

Answer: He didn't have a case.

Gabbard has lawyers within the DNI who most likely have verified all the documents before she released them.

:rolleyes:

Right. The timing just happens to be right now as the White House is in a mad scramble to cover its ass over a predator list that the AG claimed she had on her desk but now says never existed.

Stop drinking Trump's piss. It's not champagne.
 
How about a criminal conspiracy that last for years?
For most federal conspiracy cases, the statute of limitations is five years from the date of the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This means that the government has five years from that date to initiate prosecution.
 
For most federal conspiracy cases, the statute of limitations is five years from the date of the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This means that the government has five years from that date to initiate prosecution.

The key point being the last overt act. When did the Democrat Party's last overt act to deny Trump of his civil rights take place? Jack Smith's prosecution or the prosecution in NY?
 
The OP doesnt have any idea what they’re talking about, just like you.

The declassified stuff doesn’t amount to anything.
Well not according to the Director of National Intel

It’s clear you haven’t read it since you didn’t even know what was in the OP and the topic of the thread

I will say it confirmed what we already knew
 
Democrats say no one is above the law so slap the cuffs on criminal Obama and all his lawless cronies. Prosecute to the full extent of the law and lock them all up!
 
No need to, you already proved how dumb you are in front of the whole forum.

And how pointless it is for anyone to even try to have a meaningful discussion with you.
If you read something you don't like, even if it is true? This is your stand on that;
iu


I posted a NYT article that was clearly based on false intelligence, as we see from the now revealed evidence by Tulsi. . .

Evidence we ALL can now read, but clearly you refuse to.

and?

a0r9g1.jpg


Clearly your attitude is to keep on believing false narratives rather than the truth.
 
The key point being the last overt act. When did the Democrat Party's last overt act to deny Trump of his civil rights take place? Jack Smith's prosecution or the prosecution in NY?
Then go after Jack Smith.
He wasn't part of the conspiracy you said happened before 2016, and would therefore be a whole new conspiracy.
 
But Trump’s your daddy despite trying to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and take away the people’s will to vote him out of office.
lmao :lmao:

Democrats = 20% approval rating

Because of stuff like THIS ^^^

Everyone and I mean EVERYONE knows Biden didn't get no 18 million extra votes.

He didn't get more black votes than Obama either. Biden is a known racist in the black community. It doesn't motivate black folks to get out and vote.

Democrats are so completely full of shit... you'd think they'd learn by now but NO, they're still stuck on stupid.
 
15th post
This was a nit-pick because the intelligent estimate said “high confidence” and the Obama administration acted like it was true.

That’s really pathetic.

Gabbard’s bombshell is pretty much bullshit. As far as I can tell, she’s conflating the idea that Russia hacked election infrastructure to change votes (which the administration never said) and the idea that Russia used internet hacking to influence the election, which is true and we all know it (unless you’re a total hack).
1752970590494.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom