That 2019 impeachment

[markef]

The Trump DNI is biased against Obama. They're massaging the facts.

That is why we get all the claims out here to examine them for evidence of truthfulness. We have already examined the democrat claims about Brennan's intelligence assessment and found them to be false.

 

[markef]

Obama didn't insist a change to the intel assessment.

You're being misled by a biased DNI who is massaging the facts to mislead you.

Nobody should believe Brennan took it upon himself without Obama's knowledge to create the fake intelligence report almost the entire Obama administration knew was false.

 

[Delldude]

Notice how it doesn't say anything about changing the assessment.

You're the victim of a biased DNI who is massaging the facts.

'Create a new assessment'

Create means he didn't like the original.

You're quite adept at getting your ass handled to you three days in a row.

 

[markef]

Go ahead and let us know when you have the part of the report that says Trump and Russia were a team.

I predict that nothing will come of this, just like all those pointless referrals to the DoJ from Gabbard.

Chuck Schumer all but admitted that democrats have appointed enough bent leftist judges to all but ensure that no democrat will ever be found guilty of political crimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Impeachment is a legal process

You can even impeach over a blow job if you want to

 

[markef]

Nothing has been "proven". You're accepting the conclusions from biased people who were massaging the facts.

Obama never ordered a change to the assessment. You going to admit you lied about that?

What element in the democrat-commissioned Steele dossier used by Comey and Boasberg to issue illegal warrants to spy on Trump do you claim was not entirely fabricated and untruthful?

 

[markef]

The report didn't say shit about Trump.

It was about Russia.

The report failed to mention that Russia agents and influencers had donated more than $100 million to the Clintons prior to the 2016 election.

 

[Marener]

'Create a new assessment'

Create means he didn't like the original.

You're quite adept at getting your ass handled to you three days in a row.

Did you see the original or find out what he didn't like about it?

Of course not. Those are facts that the biased DNI doesn't want you to know because it gets in the way of massaging the story.

 

[Delldude]

Did you see the original or find out what he didn't like about it?

Yes it was published via DNI.

 

[Marener]

Yes it was published via DNI.

Provide the link then.

 

[Delldude]

Provide the link then.

Link to these massaged facts?

 

[Marener]

Link to these massaged facts?

From Russian Interference to Revisionist Innuendo: What the Gabbard Files Actually Say

Tulsi Gabbard’s latest “revelations” are being spun as proof of a deep state conspiracy. The documents themselves tell a much duller story.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The claim that the facts in the ICA assessment were "known to be false" is bullshit.

Now when are you going to show us the "original" assessment and proof that Obama wanted the conclusions to be changed?

 

[Robert W]

Did you see the original or find out what he didn't like about it?

Of course not. Those are facts that the biased DNI doesn't want you to know because it gets in the way of massaging the story.

All it takes to get your devotion is to tell us all that the politician is a Democrat. You will spring up like a spider to defend any Democrat. Now you defend Obama. Even when evidence is shown, you defend him. You know he did not like the actual intelligence report. Yet you defend Obama.

 

[Marener]

All it takes to get your devotion is to tell us all that the politician is a Democrat. You will spring up like a spider to defend any Democrat. Now you defend Obama. Even when evidence is shown, you defend him. You know he did not like the actual intelligence report. Yet you defend Obama.

You say lots of shit without ever backing it up.

 

[Robert W]

You say lots of shit without ever backing it up.

Try this to get you to understand. Say Hillary had won the election. And reports commissioned by a Republican stated Russia wanted her to win.

Would you accept that Russia wanted Hillary to win? Because the report ordered by Obama states that Russia wanted Hillary to fail. And the evidence is secret and only mentioned.

 

[Robert W]

You say lots of shit without ever backing it up.

The irony.

 

[Robert W]

You say lots of shit without ever backing it up.

As I recall, the vital part of the report you claim to have read is page 8.

 

[Marener]

Try this to get you to understand. Say Hillary had won the election. And reports commissioned by a Republican stated Russia wanted her to win.

Would you accept that Russia wanted Hillary to win? Because the report ordered by Obama states that Russia wanted Hillary to fail. And the evidence is secret and only mentioned.

Why would I believe a report that said Russia wanted Hillary to win when Russia spent so much time trying to hurt her campaign?

 

[Robert W]

The report didn't say shit about Trump.

It was about Russia.

Who did Russia favor? (I happen to know) And this was not a Russian report, it was a report commissioned by Obama.

 

[Robert W]

Why would I believe a report that said Russia wanted Hillary to win when Russia spent so much time trying to hurt her campaign?

Notice the so-called report, commissioned by Obama never gave any examples of Russia saying shit. You still believe Russia said what the report said.