Let's indict Obama and Hillary

[Robert W]

Sounds like you’re making shit up.

I agree but it is what Obama did weeks ahead of Trump being sworn into office. Truth is out my friend.

 

[Marener]

I agree but it is what Obama did weeks ahead of Trump being sworn into office. Truth is out my friend.

You have no idea what Obama did and no one backs up your wild claim.

 

[ActionJackson]

Townhall Larry O'Connor | Aug 14, 2020

Today's news that former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty in the Obamagate/Spygate scandal will be tough news for journalists like Jim Acosta.

Just this week, he haughtily intoned on his "network" that President Trump's charge that the Obama campaign spied on his campaign in 2016 was "just not true. That did not happen; it has not been proven."

Well, today's guilty plea from Clinesmith proves it did.

The spying began in early 2016 as a robust opposition research tactic of the Hillary Clinton campaign and transformed into an "insurance policy" to handicap the Trump Administration after his unpredictable victory.

Clinesmith was so intent on spying on Carter Page, an unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign, that he lied to the secret FISA court and doctored an official document to misrepresent that Page had not cooperated with the CIA in past investigations involving Russian espionage.

Page, a retired intelligence officer from the United States Navy and a graduate of the US Naval Academy, had fully cooperated with an earlier investigation involving Russian bad guys. That information surely would have thrown a wrench into the attempts to tap Page's phones, his emails, his text messages, and the phones, emails, and text messages of everyone he corresponded with and everyone they corresponded with.

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Comment:
If Trump can be indicted on BS charges, then Obama can be indicted on some real charges.
If this is how the Democrats are going to operate, then make them play by their own rules.
Can you imagine all of the grinding of teeth and caterwauling from the Hollywood/Media hate machine.
And how about Hillary Clinton destroying subpoenaed evidence and her illegal e-mail server?
Why should she be allowed to get away with crimes that other people have gone to prison for?
And how about Col. Yevgeny Vindman who eavesdropped on Trump's phone calls and then reported to Adam Schiff so that Pelosi could have her bogus impeachment.
Make the Dems play by their own rules.

They have more than an idictment coming:

Followed by:

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Both you and your thread are worthless.

wake-up
The Democrat Party is a criminal organization.
They lie about everything all of the time.
They are turning our country into banana republic neo-marxist police state.
Don't be a sucker.
Stop trying to defend them.

 

[Wry-Catcher]

wake-up
The Democrat Party is a criminal organization.
They lie about everything all of the time.
They are turning our country into banana republic neo-marxist police state.
Don't be a sucker.
Stop trying to defend them.

Huh? I'm awake, and your posts are lost in the eye of Bizarro World: A world where everything is the exact opposite. Up is down, first is last, good is bad, wrong is right, white is black, logical is illogical, ...

 

[Robert W]

You have no idea what Obama did and no one backs up your wild claim.

So you are ashamed of Obama and feel obliged to defend him. No shock on my part.

The Buck stops on the president's desk.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This proves that Obama authorized the release of the report above.

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent USElections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highlyclassified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by thePresident.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Huh? I'm awake, and your posts are lost in the eye of Bizarro World: A world where everything is the exact opposite. Up is down, first is last, good is bad, wrong is right, white is black, logical is illogical, ...

Well blind left wing crackpots see the world upside down.
It's impossible for them to see Obama's corruption.
The Democrat Party is destroying our country with their corruption, hate, racism, recessive culture, and failed left wing economics.

 

[AveMarica]

Kool, then when Trump is not found guilty, you will be happy with the outcome.

I never said that.

I said I would respect their "not guilty" verdict and not automatically assume it meant the judge and jury must be corrupted. Would you do the same if the verdict doesn't go the way you're hoping?

 

[AveMarica]

That is why they have the jury who presumes him innocent. Charges jailed and executed blacks who are alleged to have been innocent. But you approve. Imagine that.

The grand jury doesn't presume anything, they just decide if the evidence warrants charges.

I made no comment about executed blacks, so you're attacking a strawman there.

 

[Mac1958]

We also need to indict this guy for his really bad rug. Whoever he is. He's in Congress somewhere.

 

[Robert W]

The grand jury doesn't presume anything, they just decide if the evidence warrants charges.

I made no comment about executed blacks, so you're attacking a strawman there.

You can also be put on trial by a grand jury.

 

[Robert W]

I never said that.

I said I would respect their "not guilty" verdict and not automatically assume it meant the judge and jury must be corrupted. Would you do the same if the verdict doesn't go the way you're hoping?

I am not hoping. I have reviewed the alleged evidence.

 

[Wry-Catcher]

Well blind left wing crackpots see the world upside down.
It's impossible for them to see Obama's corruption.
The Democrat Party is destroying our country with their corruption, hate, racism, recessive culture, and failed left wing economics.

You're insane, i.e. paranoia schizophrenia:

The paranoia in paranoid schizophrenia stems from delusions—firmly held beliefs that persist despite evidence to the contrary—and hallucinations—seeing or hearing things that others do not. Both of these experiences can be persecutory;

Persecutory: People with this type of delusional disorder believe someone or something is mistreating, spying on or attempting to harm them (or someone close to them). People with this type of delusional disorder may make repeated complaints.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

You're insane, i.e. paranoia schizophrenia:

The paranoia in paranoid schizophrenia stems from delusions—firmly held beliefs that persist despite evidence to the contrary—and hallucinations—seeing or hearing things that others do not. Both of these experiences can be persecutory;

Persecutory: People with this type of delusional disorder believe someone or something is mistreating, spying on or attempting to harm them (or someone close to them). People with this type of delusional disorder may make repeated complaints.

Democrat Voters are brainwashed crackpot fanatic shit fed sheep.
Obama illegally used the FISA court to spy on Trump's campaign.
You are fighting against reality and losing.

Warrants to Spy on Trump Campaign Lacked Probable …​

Jan 30, 2020 · In a 2018 memo titled “Correcting the Record: The Russia Investigation” and sent to all House members when Democrats were in the minority, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asserted: “FBI and DOJ...

 

[AveMarica]

I am not hoping. I have reviewed the alleged evidence.

So has a grand jury, except they have seen the actual evidence not just what has been dripped into the press.

I can assure you that what you are doing is "hoping", or at the very least self-delusion if you think you have somehow figured out things that the grand jury did not to allow you to state with such conviction that the trials will go away.

You're basically doing exactly what I expected, pretending your superior knowledge of the law and evidence allows you insight that you will then use to justify claims of the trial, judge, or jury being crooked or tainted. The very definition of a biased worldview going into this thing.

So a straight up question for you = will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty?

 

[AveMarica]

You can also be put on trial by a grand jury.

Trump was not put on trial by a grand jury, they just said there is sufficient evidence for him to be put on trial. So this is an irrelevant red herring.

 

[Robert W]

Trump was not put on trial by a grand jury, they just said there is sufficient evidence for him to be put on trial. So this is an irrelevant red herring.

Read the case. You admit they said there is sufficient evidence. I tell you that they got it wrong. It is more common than you understand for grand juries to get it wrong.

 

[Robert W]

So has a grand jury, except they have seen the actual evidence not just what has been dripped into the press.

I can assure you that what you are doing is "hoping", or at the very least self-delusion if you think you have somehow figured out things that the grand jury did not to allow you to state with such conviction that the trials will go away.

You're basically doing exactly what I expected, pretending your superior knowledge of the law and evidence allows you insight that you will then use to justify claims of the trial, judge, or jury being crooked or tainted. The very definition of a biased worldview going into this thing.

So a straight up question for you = will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty?

No, though I do have a most unusual background in law, what it is, how it works and more, my main thrust of innocence comes from the structure of the accused, they are innocent unless convicted. Trump has not been convicted. More than that, esteemed lawyers have spoken on this very issue and it is they who persuaded me that Trump will not be found to be guilty. Trump has the appeals process that is there to solve wrong findings by juries.

 

[AveMarica]

Read the case. You admit they said there is sufficient evidence. I tell you that they got it wrong. It is more common than you understand for grand juries to get it wrong.

Them saying there was sufficient evidence was not a trial.

You didn't see the evidence they saw.

 

[Robert W]

Them saying there was sufficient evidence was not a trial.

You didn't see the evidence they saw.

A good case study for you and the doubting gang is the one against Tom DeLay of TX who had been attacked by several grand juries on the same matter and found to be innocent.