re: If He Needs to, Can Obama Successfully Claim "Presidential Immunity" For His Crimes?

JFC lmao. You can’t even read IMAGES?? There is an entire table of contents section on Manafort. Why do you think he is in the senate report?

And the quote is NBC news says it right there. Head of DHS cybersecurity. If I give you the reporter’s name you’ll ask for their grandma’s name next. fricking clown

quote:

---

Also, you just going to ignore the fact that your “breaking news” was public knowledge & part of this 4 year old report?

---

quote:

---

JFC lmao. You can’t even read IMAGES?? There is an entire table of contents section on Manafort. Why do you think he is in the senate report?

---

Are you denying the first several images you posted are about influencing the ukraine? You need me to snip the exact quotes for you? Please tell me you do.

quote:

---

And it’s fricking NBC news

---

There it is. You are trusting NBC news’ editorializing. Risky move, counselor.

quote:

---

There it is. You are trusting NBC news’ editorializing. Risky move, counselor.

---

It’s a direct quote from the head of cybersecurity in DHS, who is named — and the source and names are stated in the original quote from like 4 pages ago.

Are you trying to broadcast being an idiot?

quote:

---

Also, you just going to ignore the fact that your “breaking news” was public knowledge & part of this 4 year old report?

---

quote:

---

would be hilarious if he got indicted and Trump, the merciful, pardoned him.

---

Would be a major mind frick for those afflicted with TDS

quote:

---

Explaining Russiagate: Why the December 9th, 2016 Meeting Mattered

It's not just what the Intelligence Community planned to say about Russian interference, it's who would have seen the text

Partisan wrangling over Russiagate continued over the weekend, with Democrats continuing harsh critiques of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her release of documents about Russian interference from Barack Obama’s last presidential days. Connecticut congressman Jim Himes went on Face the Nation to say “when you start throwing around language like sedition and treason, somebody is going to get hurt,” adding, “The mouth-breathers on MAGA online are just going out of their minds based on a lie.”

Donald Trump responded last night with a Truth Social post that cast Russiagate as a V for Vendetta trailer, promising an upcoming political blockbuster. This president is a lot of things, but boring isn’t one of them.

In between all this, an important detail is being lost. Democrats are hammering an “apples and oranges” argument, saying documents showing intelligence officials planned a Presidential Daily Briefing on December 9th, 2016 that would say “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome” and “We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results” were meaningless.

As Himes put it, the fact that “Russians could not use cyber tools to mess with the voting infrastructure, the machines that tally our votes” was “true then, and it is true now.” Two things about this statement, disingenuous in multiple ways:

One is a crucial fact left out of Saturday’s Racket article on the DNI releases. Had the intelligence community gone forward with a Presidential Daily Briefing that said Russia had not attacked infrastructure in a way “intended to alter results,” it would have been seen by a key audience: Donald Trump. Presidents-elect are entitled to read Presidential Daily Briefings. During the transition, Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was already being read in, and would have seen the planned December 9th text downplaying Russian interference.

“I would have seen it,” Flynn says now. “I was reading the PDBs at that point.” Asked yesterday if he thought that might have been a reason for holding the planned draft, Flynn said, “Very likely.”

Second, the notion that Russia interfered with actual vote tallies was no fringe conspiracy theory then. It was widely believed by Democratic voters. This was almost certainly a consequence of a two stage process that began with the flood of news stories based on leaks from intelligence sources beginning on December 9th, 2016. These not only alleged Russia interfered to help Donald Trump in an aburpt about-face from pre-election stories, but focused heavily on Russian hacking.

Within a week — by December 16th, 2016 — Hillary Clinton was publicly calling the election “unfair, not free, illegitimate,” adding, “Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyberattacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.” The New York Times ran the audio:


An Economist/YouGov survey taken immediately after these remarks, on December 17th-20th, 2016, showed 50% of Clinton’s voters believed Russia “tampered with vote tallies”:

Notwithstanding either the Himes comments (“This is Epstein all over again”) or Trump’s apocalyptic Guy Fawkes-themed Truth Social post, the meeting on December 9th that switched out a tepid PDB for a dramatic narrative about Russian interference to help Trump was hugely meaningful. It positioned Steele Dossier conclusions as mainstream news, set up Trump to be investigated by his own incoming FBI Director, and made sure the incoming administration did not see dissenting intelligence about Russian meddling. More to come.

---

LINK

I think you're conflating "what did Russia do?" with "What did Obama do?" and making a false equivalency that "because Russia did all this X, it means Obama is off the hook".

Also I think you're trying to tell us that you don't think Obama broke any laws as they appear to us. If you recall, at one time "you can't indict a former president" was almost as solemn and revered as "you can't make up laws to indict a former president" but they sure as heck did that to Trump in New York.

quote:

---

I think you're conflating "what did Russia do?" with "What did Obama do?" and making a false equivalency that "because Russia did all this X, it means Obama is off the hook".

Also I think you're trying to tell us that you don't think Obama broke any laws as they appear to us.

---

Closer to the point than most. The idea is that the FBI’s investigation as a national security concern is legitimized.

Obama / other officials would need to be implicated as knowingly using false info from the Steele dossier for there to be a crime. If true, would be very difficult to prove. Key word is knowingly. Doesn’t help the argument that the Mueller report found no evidence of Steele tapes & more or less cleared Trump of any wrongdoing.

Most contrary arguments I have seen here are semantic. They’re saying because “Russia didn’t alter the outcome of the election” (intelligence does not attempt to speculate on this) or “Russia didn’t manipulate vote counts”, the entire investigation had no merit.

The problem with this is that these conclusions don’t contradict any of the intelligence reports or conclusions of investigations. Vote manipulation was never part of the “interference” cited in those reports. One of the sections of the senate review was called “Russia didn’t manipulate vote counts”, so the idea that is new information is just incorrect.

Did Clinton, democratic voters, and media make that claim? Sure. That is not the same thing as the admin or an intelligence agency making the claim.

My life does not materially change in any way if Obama lives the rest of his life on a mountainside or in a prison — just calling balls & strikes here.

The foundational truth is that there was no legal predicate to open an investigation of Trump concerning Russia. Therefore, everything that transpired with Russiagate was illegal. Obama and his cabal took a dirty political campaign smear and weaponized it utilizing not only domestic intelligence agencies but also foreign agencies.

They also leaked lies to the media who willingly spread them because they hated Trump. SCOTUS has already ruled that immunity of the president isn't absolute. If Barry Obama had shot Trump when he was president his azz would have been arrested. When you step outside of the law the immunity ends. What Obamna did wasn't an official act. It was a criminal act by a government official.

Sorry Boyd but since the ruling in Thrump, all he had to do is say he was performing an official state act, which he clearly was and thus immunity will be applied. I told everyone that this will be a two sided sword and it is. This will go nowhere

Not if he conspired with the CCP...