- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What Crime did Tulsi accuse Obama of committing?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:22 am to Wednesday
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:22 am to Wednesday
Start with Brennan.
Aid and comfort. Treason.
Sure looks like a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. If this doesn't warrant charges, we need to change definitions like the Democrats did.
ETA
https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/25/john-brennans-5-lies-that-set-russiagate-in-motion/
quote:
The New York Times has now confirmed, without explicitly naming him, what had long been an open secret among Russiagate researchers that Brennan’s supposed super source was Oleg Smolenkov. According to Dmitry Peskov, press secretary to the Russian president, Smolenkov was a low-level staffer in the presidential administration until 2016 or 2017 and had no direct contact with Putin. Yet for feeding Brennan a vague snippet suggesting Putin’s supposed preference for Trump, Smolenkov appears to have been rewarded with a U.S. green card and a comfortable home in Northern Virginia — where he allegedly lived openly, under his real name, and apparently without much fear of Russian retaliation.
Aid and comfort. Treason.
quote:
Just as with his other three supposed intelligence leads, career intelligence officials urged Brennan not to include it. One CIA officer recalled Brennan brushing aside concerns about the dossier’s complete lack of verification: “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” After overruling their objections, Brennan lied to Congress about the dossier’s use in the ICA, first in 2017, then again in 2023.
quote:
According to the HPSCI report, Comey later lied to the White House in February 2017, specifically to then–Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, when asked about the ICA. He claimed that all three agencies had agreed to include the dossier (false), that Christopher Steele was a credible source (false), and that the dossier’s claims were corroborated by other intelligence (also false).
quote:
“CIA officers also said that DCIA [Brennan] personally directed that two of the most important reports not be formally disseminated …...This isn’t run-of-the-mill fudging. It’s a calculated abuse of power. ......There’s little doubt that DOJ officials handling the Brennan criminal referrals will now zero in on this footnote, which stands as prima facie evidence of deliberate deception.
quote:
Brennan, aided by Comey, engineered the fraudulent core of the ICA — but it was Obama who set the wheels in motion by ordering it in advance, placing him at the foundation of the deception and no less accountable than those who executed it.
Sure looks like a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. If this doesn't warrant charges, we need to change definitions like the Democrats did.
ETA
https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/25/john-brennans-5-lies-that-set-russiagate-in-motion/
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 1:24 am
2
Posted on 7/26/25 at 1:36 am to Wednesday
Giving Michelle a reach around in the Lincoln bedroom.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 3:37 am to Wednesday
quote:
I really need to know this. I need the elements of the crime.
When DNI, FBI, CIA, etc… brings the President a memo or report does he have to take it as 100% or believe it? Can he tell them go find me more info, because I am hearing “this”? That is a problem that needs to be answered
Trump didn’t listen to his people or trust the info that he was given after 2020 election. Obama kept his investigations and his doubt quiet and Trump and his lawyers tweeted and gave speeches. Both wanted info that they believed to be true and didn’t trust the investigations and reports that they were given.
I didn’t see in any of the reports where Obama told someone to makeup false information. There are a lot of opinions that say that is what he did starting with Gabbard. It doesn’t mean Obama didn’t have somebody makeup the information.
Where some of this starts hurting Gabbard’s credibility is when republicans didn’t say anything for over 6 years. It wasn’t Top Secret it was Classified, so almost every member of the Senate and House had this information.
When Marco Rubio was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he had this information he didn’t think it was important enough to put in his report. Instead his report said Russia meddled in the election, but it didn’t effect the outcome and there was no collusion.
This type of information would have been leaked by dozens of sources in the last 8 years.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 4:27 am
Posted on 7/26/25 at 4:02 am to Wednesday
quote:
was Russia, Russia, Russia a crime
Yes.
I appreciate your concern. I mean, you seem VERY concerned, and my hats off to you.
Such concern is so brave.
But, yes it is a crime.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 6:47 am to LSUbest
quote:
Aid and comfort. Treason.
Which enemy state was aided? Which agent of that enemy state was comforted?
quote:
Sure looks like a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States
What steps were taken to "overthrow" the government?
No impeachment was even entertained for Russiagate.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 6:53 am to MizzouBS
quote:
When DNI, FBI, CIA, etc… brings the President a memo or report does he have to take it as 100% or believe it? Can he tell them go find me more info, because I am hearing “this”? That is a problem that needs to be answered
THIS is one of the main points I've been making.
The combination of intelligence being subjective and opinion-based and the powers of the executive (strengthened since January 2025) covers a lot of the Russiagate behaviors, legally.
quote:
Trump didn’t listen to his people or trust the info that he was given after 2020 election. Obama kept his investigations and his doubt quiet and Trump and his lawyers tweeted and gave speeches. Both wanted info that they believed to be true and didn’t trust the investigations and reports that they were given.
Outside of the DC case, Trump and his agents acted outside of executive functions. That was their problem. The legitimate lawsuits? Totally legal. They just lost all of those. The follow up tomfoolery and shenanigans? That's where they got into trouble. And those were state cases (GA and AZ).
None of those "follow up tomfoolery and shenanigans" occurred with the Obama admin with Russiagate. It was always 100% in house as core executive functions.
quote:
There are a lot of opinions that say that is what he did starting with Gabbard. It doesn’t mean Obama didn’t have somebody makeup the information.
Exactly. Opinions v. Opinions makes this very murky.
quote:
When Marco Rubio was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he had this information he didn’t think it was important enough to put in his report. Instead his report said Russia meddled in the election, but it didn’t effect the outcome and there was no collusion.
Correct. This stuff is nothing new, especially for people like Marco Rubio.
He has to feel like the world's biggest idiot with the way the admin is indirectly running him through the mud.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 6:56 am to LSUbest
quote:
Treason
This word is thrown around on here and people don’t even know what it means. Obama would be charged with Sedition if anything but he’s not going to be charged or perp walked it’s a MAGA fantasy. Trump didn’t even have Hillary charged back in 2017 when he had the chance. Remember the “I don’t want to harm The Clinton’s” quote?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 6:59 am to Wednesday
quote:
I believe Obama continued to orchestrate this after he left office, and I think that's what should be investigated.
True and because of that, the statute of limitations is interrupted, meaning Brennan, Clapper and Comey (to a lesser extent), could be prosecuted for sedition. The normal SOL is 5 years to being charges.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 6:59 am to CrimsonFever
quote:
The man hasn’t been president for almost 9 years now and he still owns a huge piece of real estate in the MAGA brain.
Says the poster that worships “Black Jesus.”
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:03 am to Tigergreg
quote:
True and because of that, the statute of limitations is interrupted, meaning Brennan, Clapper and Comey (to a lesser extent), could be prosecuted for sedition. The normal SOL is 5 years to being charges.
I believe that a pathway exists to use the UCMJ as opposed to the civil / criminal court system.
SFP disagrees.
He is most likely correct.
Time will tell.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:12 am to LSUbest
The Durham report cited a literal KGB agent that was on the take at the Brookings Institute, DC. for buying classified information/documents.
He was instrumental in the dossier, living in DC. when Obama faked his sudden Russian shunning, kicking out all Russians to frame Trump. Saying that the Russians hacked the DNC and wanted Trump.
At the direction of Obama Brennan- their personal gestapo in the FBI (Comey) Hired the KGB spy under the umbrella of the FBI Under the premise of caccooning and shielding him.
If he was a confidential human resource he was safe from scrutiny. Much like Ray Epps as a mole.
Sounds like actionable seditious treason, aided and abetting a KGB Spy. Paying him an FBI paycheck nonetheless.
He was instrumental in the dossier, living in DC. when Obama faked his sudden Russian shunning, kicking out all Russians to frame Trump. Saying that the Russians hacked the DNC and wanted Trump.
At the direction of Obama Brennan- their personal gestapo in the FBI (Comey) Hired the KGB spy under the umbrella of the FBI Under the premise of caccooning and shielding him.
If he was a confidential human resource he was safe from scrutiny. Much like Ray Epps as a mole.
Sounds like actionable seditious treason, aided and abetting a KGB Spy. Paying him an FBI paycheck nonetheless.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 7:17 am
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:13 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
I believe that a pathway exists to use the UCMJ a
You're wrong, and have been shown why many times.
quote:
SFP disagrees.
He is most likely correct.
No. I am correct.
The people involved are all civilians and there was no active war involved with any of these incidents. There is no jurisdiction for the UCMJ.
This is echo chamber fantasy stuff like the MAL raid being a continuance of the conspiracy and restarting the 5-year SOL clock AND providing a Florida venue for the prosecution.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 7:14 am
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're wrong, and have been shown why many times.
It’s actually the reverse.
quote:
The people involved are all civilians and there was no active war involved with any of these incidents.
There doesn’t need to be.
Again, you are most likely correct in stating that the UCMJ won’t be used, but a pathway exists (multiple actually), you just choose to ignore them.
You do you.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
The UCMJ could be a pathway regarding Mattis, Kelly, others in DoD.
Milley got a pardon for what? Is his pardon solid as he was colluding with CIC Biden? Seditious treason.
There is a long list of UCMJ violations of many at the DoD/Pentagon--of siding with China and publicly disparaging the CIC Trump, are at minimum in a long list of charges a smart JAG could pile on.
Milley got a pardon for what? Is his pardon solid as he was colluding with CIC Biden? Seditious treason.
There is a long list of UCMJ violations of many at the DoD/Pentagon--of siding with China and publicly disparaging the CIC Trump, are at minimum in a long list of charges a smart JAG could pile on.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:31 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
There doesn’t need to be.
The portions of the UCMJ you cited to get civilians required it.
quote:
but a pathway exists (multiple actually),
You've yet to show your work on how, exactly, the UCMJ has jurisdiction.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 7:32 am
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:33 am to cajunangelle
quote:
The UCMJ could be a pathway regarding Mattis, Kelly, others in DoD.
What do they have to do with Russiagate?
Mattis wasn't even appointed when Russiagate occurred.
quote:
There is a long list of UCMJ violations of many at the DoD/Pentagon--of siding with China and publicly disparaging the CIC Trump
Even if true, what does this have to do with Russiagate?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The portions of the UCMJ you cited to get civilians required it.
A portion - yes.
quote:
You've yet to show your work on how, exactly, the UCMJ has jurisdiction.
That has been done repeatedly.
quote:
Just because you say it doesn't make it true
Irony much?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:38 am to CrimsonFever
quote:
Being black and president.
I guess we should expect nothing less than this response from anyone that still willingly votes for a democrat.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:40 am to SlowFlowPro
You were 100% w r o n g regarding your premise that Judge Cannon could not throw out the case against Trump.
As she essentially properly rendered Jack Smith null and void-to return to the Hague and crawl back under his shameful rock.
Your stubborn denial of lawfare against team Trump shows your weakness in bias. As well as your findings and opinions matching the hack Andrew Weissman and other Democrat lawyers.
As she essentially properly rendered Jack Smith null and void-to return to the Hague and crawl back under his shameful rock.
Your stubborn denial of lawfare against team Trump shows your weakness in bias. As well as your findings and opinions matching the hack Andrew Weissman and other Democrat lawyers.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:43 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
That has been done repeatedly.
No. You posted a section about war, which is inapplicable.
I'll give you the AI overview to help you
quote:
Generally, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not apply to civilians. However, there are specific exceptions where civilians can be subject to the UCMJ, primarily when they have a close connection to the military.
Here's a breakdown of when the UCMJ can apply to civilians:
Civilians accompanying the armed forces:
During times of war or contingency operations, civilians serving with or accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces in the field may be subject to the UCMJ. This includes civilians deployed with the military, such as contractors or employees of the Department of Defense.
Civilians on military installations:
Civilians who commit crimes on military installations are generally subject to federal civilian laws, but the military may investigate and may refer the case to civilian authorities.
Retirees:
Retired members of the armed forces may be subject to the UCMJ under certain circumstances, such as when receiving hospitalization from the armed forces.
Certain Department of Defense employees and contractors:
Civilians employed by the Department of Defense, including contractors, may be subject to the UCMJ when serving with or accompanying the armed forces overseas.
In essence, while the UCMJ primarily governs military personnel, it can extend to civilians in specific situations where their actions or relationship with the military warrants it
ChatGPT:
quote:
When Civilians Can Be Subject to the UCMJ
During a Declared War or Contingency Operation
Article 2(a)(10) UCMJ authorizes jurisdiction over:
"In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."
This has historically applied to:
Civilian contractors
Civilian government employees
Embedded journalists
Civilian dependents accompanying military personnel overseas
Example: During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, DoD contractors supporting military missions could fall under UCMJ in theory (though rarely prosecuted that way).
Retired Members of the Armed Forces Receiving Pay
Article 2(a)(4)-(6) allows for UCMJ jurisdiction over military retirees drawing pay, especially if they commit offenses related to military service or national security.
Military Prisoners or POWs
Civilians who are detained and held by the military in contexts such as espionage during wartime could potentially face UCMJ proceedings.
?? Legal Challenges and Limitations
Supreme Court Rulings Limit Civilian Application
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that using the UCMJ for civilians in peacetime violates constitutional protections, especially the right to a jury trial.
Key cases:
Reid v. Covert (1957) – UCMJ cannot be applied to civilian spouses of service members overseas during peacetime.
McElroy v. United States (1957) – Reinforced Reid and rejected military trial of civilian contractors during peacetime.
Constitutional Protections
Civilians are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections (grand jury, public trial by jury, etc.), which military courts do not fully provide.
And, remember, Obama exclusively gets to decide the status of war and how that would apply to his group. That's at least the argument of the Trump admin with the AEA litigations going on right now.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News