The Did Obama Commit Treason Thread and Poll

[Marener]

So it comes down to either Gabbard or Obama as the liar. Let’s find out.

Trusting Tulsi Gabbard is pretty foolish.

For instance:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/30/gabbard-hearing-syria-suicide-bombers/

 

[BlindBoo]

HOLY IRONIC PROJECTION, BATMAN.

More of the obvious stupidity of the MAGANUTS. The last thing the Novell Fascist GOP want is a fair trial for their King and Party faithful's crimes against the Constitution.

 

[AntonToo]

Obama framed Trump. Sedition.

I can admit truth

Why doesn't it even occur for you to ask why administration says it's treason, when it clearly isn't?

Are they stupid or are they trying to bullshit you?

 

[AntonToo]

And what are you going to say when no one is charged with sedition?

He will say it's a big bad conspiracy by the deep state.

 

[SeaMajor7]

More of the obvious stupidity of the MAGANUTS. The last thing the Novell Fascist GOP want is a fair trial for their King and Party faithful's crimes against the Constitution.

Nice NARRATIVE CONCENTRATE.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Treason or not, this needs to be investigated and if crimes were committed by the key principals mentioned, they need to be exposed for their corruption.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trusting Tulsi Gabbard is pretty foolish.

For instance:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/30/gabbard-hearing-syria-suicide-bombers/

Discrediting those that challenge Democrats is predictable. Let’s let the process play out. You people should want that as it could confirm Gabbard as a liar or it will put the biggest shit stain on a Presidency that will make Watergate look like a joke.

 

[Marener]

It's been investigated multiple times. There are like 4 reports out there detailing the whole story, including Brennan's book.

This is now being looked into by the Department of Dead Horses.

 

[Marener]

Discrediting those that challenge Democrats is predictable. Let’s let the process play out. You people should want that as it could confirm Gabbard as a liar or it will put the biggest shit stain on a Presidency that will make Watergate look like a joke.

Gabbard is already a liar, no investigation will change that.

Gabbard has demonstrated that the truth does not matter to MAGA. All that matters is narrative. You guys are literally arguing over a single point in an ICA that was further confirmed after thorough investigation in several nonpartisan and bipartisan investigations.

 

[SeaMajor7]

It's been investigated multiple times. There are like 4 reports out there detailing the whole story, including Brennan's book.

This is now being looked into by the Department of Dead Horses.

The swamp investigation of the swamp seems legit.

 

[Marener]

The swamp investigation of the swamp seems legit.

And the investigation by Trump's political hacks in the DoJ is legit?

 

[ColonelAngus]

And what are you going to say when no one is charged with sedition?

I will say I wish they were.

Are we caught up on the word. Will any indictment suffice?

Point to any post of yours that you engaged someone from the other side without insulting Trump or the administration?

Was the Vax SAFE AND EFFECTIVE?

 

[SeaMajor7]

And the investigation by Trump's political hacks in the DoJ is legit?

You're God damned right!

 

[Marener]

I will say I wish they were.

Are we caught up on the word. Will any indictment suffice?

And how will you explain why they weren't indicted?

Are you going to use a conspiracy theory? Are you going to complain about the DC jury pool? Are you going to pretend as though Trump has something else to focus on?

Or are you going to consider the possibility that there's simply no way this could be ever be distorted enough to even attempt to be consistent with sedition?

 

[Correll]

Discrediting those that challenge Democrats is predictable. Let’s let the process play out. You people should want that as it could confirm Gabbard as a liar or it will put the biggest shit stain on a Presidency that will make Watergate look like a joke.

They immediately assumed it was true, adn support it anyways.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Gabbard is already a liar, no investigation will change that.

Gabbard has demonstrated that the truth does not matter to MAGA. All that matters is narrative. You guys are literally arguing over a single point in an ICA that was further confirmed after thorough investigation in several nonpartisan and bipartisan investigations.

“thorough investigation in several nonpartisan and bipartisan investigations”.

When were these investigations? Timelines? Who was involved? Names? What are the documented findings?

 

[Marener]

“thorough investigation in several nonpartisan and bipartisan investigations”.

When were these investigations? Timelines? Who was involved? Names? What are the documented findings?

Well, you can start with the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, chaired by Marco Rubio. It's 160 pages long with the summary on page 6.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-documents-report-volume4.pdf

(U) The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On the analytic lines of the ICA, the Committee concludes that all analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, although with varying substantiation. The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the ICA.

(U) The ICA reflects proper analytic tradecraft despite being tasked and completed within a compressed timeframe. The compact timeframe was a contributing factor for not conducting formal analysis of competing hypotheses.

(U) The differing confidence levels on one analytic judgment are justified and properly represented. Those in disagreement all stated that they had the opportunity to express differing points of view. Tlie decision regarding the presentation of differing confidence levels was the responsibility of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan and the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Admiral Michael Rogers, both of whom independently expressed to the Committee that they reached the final wording openly and with sufficient exchanges of views.

(U) Multiple intelligence disciplines are used and identified throughout the ICA. Where the Committee noted concerns about die use of specific sources, in no case did the Committee conclude any analytic line was compromised as a result.

(U) In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is noniial and proper for the analytic process

 

[LeftofLeft]

Well, you can start with the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, chaired by Marco Rubio. It's 160 pages long with the summary on page 6.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-documents-report-volume4.pdf

(U) The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On the analytic lines of the ICA, the Committee concludes that all analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, although with varying substantiation. The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the ICA.

(U) The ICA reflects proper analytic tradecraft despite being tasked and completed within a compressed timeframe. The compact timeframe was a contributing factor for not conducting formal analysis of competing hypotheses.

(U) The differing confidence levels on one analytic judgment are justified and properly represented. Those in disagreement all stated that they had the opportunity to express differing points of view. Tlie decision regarding the presentation of differing confidence levels was the responsibility of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan and the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Admiral Michael Rogers, both of whom independently expressed to the Committee that they reached the final wording openly and with sufficient exchanges of views.

(U) Multiple intelligence disciplines are used and identified throughout the ICA. Where the Committee noted concerns about die use of specific sources, in no case did the Committee conclude any analytic line was compromised as a result.

(U) In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is noniial and proper for the analytic process

Where is the part about Trump colluding with the Russians?

 

[Marener]

Where is the part about Trump colluding with the Russians?

Sorry, but what does that have to do with anything? Collusion was never alleged in the intelligence report that is the source of Gabbard's accusation.

Again, the ICA from January 2017 did not say anything about Trump colluding with the Russians, so it's not part of any investigation into the ICA.

 

[Moonglow]

Tulsi laid out a compelling case for charging many of the top people in the "Crime Free" Obama Administration with Treason.

A brief portion of her presentation below, with receipts

Up to you USMB, did he do it or not?

Unlimited choices or add your own

Why no arrest?