Obamagate

[MaryAnne]

Reporter: “What crime are you accusing Obama of?”

Trump: “Obamagate.”

Reporter: “But what is the crime?”

Trump: “You know what it is”

And here's the answer:


Jacob T. Levy
@jtlevy
Trump is right: everyone knows what Obamagate is. It’s the fact that the FBI & intelligence agencies learned that Putin was attempting to interfere in the US election to Trump’s benefit, correctly thought Russian interests would try to infiltrate his campaign, investigated...

7:23 PM · May 11, 2020

For reference, see Mueller Report.

Dear Lord, this site came up by mistake, but I finally found a Liberal here!.

Everyone in the family OK?

Never thought I would give DeWine a pat on the back, but he is smart enough to listen to Doctor Acton!

Hi Julie!

 

[MaryAnne]

I guess this officially makes Barack Obama "Not exonerated"....:>)

Zam, you know only God can do that,or Christ,if you wish.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Dear Lord, this site came up by mistake, but I finally found a Liberal here!.

Everyone in the family OK?

Never thought I would give DeWine a pat on the back, but he is smart enough to listen to Doctor Acton!

Hi Julie!

Gov DeWine is doing us proud. He's the last of a dying breed of Republican, believing in science, accepting advice from experts, is compassionate, respects the role of the free press.
My immediate family and I are good. My niece's brother-in-law came down with COVID. He's a chef at a nursing home. He didn't need to be hospitalized, thankfully.
Hope you and yours are well.

 

[Jack4freedom]

Well we certainly know who unmasked Flynn - the list was released this week and it contains a bunch of politicians and a couple of "intel" people, which calls their motivations into question. The question of why is an important one, because of the implications of a political administration being able to wiretap its opposition, legally, based on flimsy predicate. What it should be is a valid national security concern, and by that I mean genuine evidence of corruption and/or fealty to the foreign entity. By all accounts, there was none of that in the Flynn surveillance, but rather the fact that he merely asked the Russians to not retaliate after the late term Obama sanctions were imposed until after they were in office and could take a look into it. Maybe you think that indicates a genuine national security concern, but most reasonable people would not.

So was Russia trying to "help Trump win" when they gave all that made up dirt to Steele to fuel Hillary's oppo research project? Because if you think someone in the Kremlin would do that against Putin's wishes, you really don't understand how the Kremlin works at all. So all we know for a fact is that they did some things that appeared to be pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) but you have to evaluate their efforts in totality if you don't want to be seen as a political hack. You can look at all the "reports" you want, but as long as a major underpinning of their conclusions is that the "Russians" stole the DNC emails and provided them to Wikileaks, that story has so many holes in it that no serious person should accept their findings. We now know that, Mueller's indictments notwithstanding, there is exactly zero evidence to support that, beyond the fact that they had access to the DNC network when the emails were taken. I think if we are going to accuse a nuclear power of a crime, we should have something more to go on than (basically) guilt by association.

The "you guys did it too" defense doesn't work with me, because I voted for Clinton and did not vote for Trump. What's right is right, regardless of who is in office.

All of that is very interesting Raoul but even if it’s true, I don’t see any crimes there. Several people who had worked under both Republican and Democratic Presidents were wary of Flynn long before he ever was involved with Trump and before Trump ever was a candidate.

For whatever reason, Obama’s administration decided not to reknew Flynn’s contract in 2014 some say because of his cozy relationships with people tied closely to Russian intel. Flynn was in the private sector from 2014 when he retired until he became a foreign affairs advisor to the Trump administration.

I would assume that those same career intel officers saw Flynn as a threat to national security and acted accordingly. Obama, as the outgoing President warned Trump that Flynn was a loose cannon and advised him not to hire him. My take is that several high ranking career counterespionage agents acted in defense of our country in this matter.

I do not go for the narrative that he was “set up” in an attempt to get Trump. Also, I certainly do not buy into the “deep state, witch hunt, soft coup” garbage regarding the investigation into Russian interference regarding the 2016 election. I believe that our law enforcement and intel personnel were acting in good faith in the investigations as were the US Senate Intel committee.

I tend to believe what was written in Muellers report and what will come out in the Senate Intel repotr rather than far fetched conspiracy theories hatched by Sean Hannity, Breitbart, Washington Examiner and other whacky sources. The sleazy tactics and methods which are being revealed by Barr’s unprecedented declassification of inter agency communication doesn’t surprise me at all.

As an informed person who has dealt with cases involving many of these alphabet agencies I know that the tactics used by them are standard procedure and used against US citizens daily. That includes leveraging family members to get guilty pleas and using underhanded tactics to get incriminating statements. Good for the goose, good for the gander. If Barr is so upset about all this he should move to change agency and DOJ policy.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson:

"Obamagate is a “slogan in search of a scandal."

“What we’re seeing right now is another example of the Trump-Fox ecosystem trying to rev up his base with accusations of this deep state conspiracy which they are incredibly fond of … This segment of their base that is into the whole ‘QAnon’ conspiracy world, believe there’s some nefarious plot against Donald Trump, and not that of course that Michael Flynn was talking out of school to the Russians and was doing things that were flagging the national security system,” Wilson said.

Rick Wilson, author of Everything Trump Touches Dies.

Exactly. Trump is the P.T.Barnum of the modern era, and he has an army of suckers.

He just concocted a “scandal” from whole cloth, branded it “Obamagate,” and started selling it. Within hours, his gullible rubes were repeating it.

;-)

 

[Zam-Zam]

When Trump sends a message, his supporters embrace it 100%.

Trump's message: "look over there (at Obama) and not at my handling of the pandemic."

You, Zammy, are a 100%er. You should try to drop down to 75%.

I didn't say a word about Trump.

Your topic, as defined by you, was "Obamagate"....So that's what I commented on.

Are you having difficulty following your own thread topic?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

I didn't say a word about Trump.

Your topic, as defined by you, was "Obamagate"....So that's what I commented on.

Are you having difficulty following your own thread topic?

You believe Trump's claim of an Obamagate, the topic of this thread, is real.

Trump supporters who believe him 100% without question have "fallen for the con."

Trump supporters who believe him 75% would show some independent-thinking, healthy skepticism.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Exactly. Trump is the P.T.Barnum of the modern era, and he has an army of suckers.

He just concocted a “scandal” from whole cloth, branded it “Obamagate,” and started selling it. Within hours, his gullible rubes were repeating it.

;-)

Suckers, cultists, zombies, rubes or lacking in values and morals....just like Trump.

 

[Zam-Zam]

You believe Trump's claim of an Obamagate, the topic of this thread, is real.

Trump supporters who believe him 100% without question have "fallen for the con."

Trump supporters who believe him 75% would show some independent-thinking, healthy skepticism.

The topic of Obamagate was introduced by you.

By your logic, that makes you a "Trumpie", whatever that is.

Who knew? Nice self-reveal.

 

[EatTheRich]

Well we certainly know who unmasked Flynn - the list was released this week and it contains a bunch of politicians and a couple of "intel" people, which calls their motivations into question. The question of why is an important one, because of the implications of a political administration being able to wiretap its opposition, legally, based on flimsy predicate. What it should be is a valid national security concern, and by that I mean genuine evidence of corruption and/or fealty to the foreign entity. By all accounts, there was none of that in the Flynn surveillance, but rather the fact that he merely asked the Russians to not retaliate after the late term Obama sanctions were imposed until after they were in office and could take a look into it. Maybe you think that indicates a genuine national security concern, but most reasonable people would not.

So was Russia trying to "help Trump win" when they gave all that made up dirt to Steele to fuel Hillary's oppo research project? Because if you think someone in the Kremlin would do that against Putin's wishes, you really don't understand how the Kremlin works at all. So all we know for a fact is that they did some things that appeared to be pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) but you have to evaluate their efforts in totality if you don't want to be seen as a political hack. You can look at all the "reports" you want, but as long as a major underpinning of their conclusions is that the "Russians" stole the DNC emails and provided them to Wikileaks, that story has so many holes in it that no serious person should accept their findings. We now know that, Mueller's indictments notwithstanding, there is exactly zero evidence to support that, beyond the fact that they had access to the DNC network when the emails were taken. I think if we are going to accuse a nuclear power of a crime, we should have something more to go on than (basically) guilt by association.

The "you guys did it too" defense doesn't work with me, because I voted for Clinton and did not vote for Trump. What's right is right, regardless of who is in office.

Presumably Steele was fed misinformation in order to undermine his opposition research project

 

[EatTheRich]

Well we certainly know who unmasked Flynn - the list was released this week and it contains a bunch of politicians and a couple of "intel" people, which calls their motivations into question. The question of why is an important one, because of the implications of a political administration being able to wiretap its opposition, legally, based on flimsy predicate. What it should be is a valid national security concern, and by that I mean genuine evidence of corruption and/or fealty to the foreign entity. By all accounts, there was none of that in the Flynn surveillance, but rather the fact that he merely asked the Russians to not retaliate after the late term Obama sanctions were imposed until after they were in office and could take a look into it. Maybe you think that indicates a genuine national security concern, but most reasonable people would not.

So was Russia trying to "help Trump win" when they gave all that made up dirt to Steele to fuel Hillary's oppo research project? Because if you think someone in the Kremlin would do that against Putin's wishes, you really don't understand how the Kremlin works at all. So all we know for a fact is that they did some things that appeared to be pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) but you have to evaluate their efforts in totality if you don't want to be seen as a political hack. You can look at all the "reports" you want, but as long as a major underpinning of their conclusions is that the "Russians" stole the DNC emails and provided them to Wikileaks, that story has so many holes in it that no serious person should accept their findings. We now know that, Mueller's indictments notwithstanding, there is exactly zero evidence to support that, beyond the fact that they had access to the DNC network when the emails were taken. I think if we are going to accuse a nuclear power of a crime, we should have something more to go on than (basically) guilt by association.

The "you guys did it too" defense doesn't work with me, because I voted for Clinton and did not vote for Trump. What's right is right, regardless of who is in office.

But you’re right, Obamagate is real. Whether we like Trump or not, whether we like Obama or not, we should all agree that administrations should not spy on their political opposition and concoct baseless charges against them based on groundless imputations of disloyalty.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Presumably Steele was fed misinformation in order to undermine his opposition research project

That only makes sense if there was actual derogatory information that was withheld, If you have any proof of that, I'd love to see it.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

All of that is very interesting Raoul but even if it’s true, I don’t see any crimes there. Several people who had worked under both Republican and Democratic Presidents were wary of Flynn long before he ever was involved with Trump and before Trump ever was a candidate.

For whatever reason, Obama’s administration decided not to reknew Flynn’s contract in 2014 some say because of his cozy relationships with people tied closely to Russian intel. Flynn was in the private sector from 2014 when he retired until he became a foreign affairs advisor to the Trump administration.

I would assume that those same career intel officers saw Flynn as a threat to national security and acted accordingly. Obama, as the outgoing President warned Trump that Flynn was a loose cannon and advised him not to hire him. My take is that several high ranking career counterespionage agents acted in defense of our country in this matter.

I do not go for the narrative that he was “set up” in an attempt to get Trump. Also, I certainly do not buy into the “deep state, witch hunt, soft coup” garbage regarding the investigation into Russian interference regarding the 2016 election. I believe that our law enforcement and intel personnel were acting in good faith in the investigations as were the US Senate Intel committee.

I tend to believe what was written in Muellers report and what will come out in the Senate Intel repotr rather than far fetched conspiracy theories hatched by Sean Hannity, Breitbart, Washington Examiner and other whacky sources. The sleazy tactics and methods which are being revealed by Barr’s unprecedented declassification of inter agency communication doesn’t surprise me at all.

As an informed person who has dealt with cases involving many of these alphabet agencies I know that the tactics used by them are standard procedure and used against US citizens daily. That includes leveraging family members to get guilty pleas and using underhanded tactics to get incriminating statements. Good for the goose, good for the gander. If Barr is so upset about all this he should move to change agency and DOJ policy.

If you have evidence of illicit behavior by Flynn, you should be forthcoming and post it. Lots of military and political people (from both parties) get jobs after they retire that involves contact with foreign people. 99.9% of their work is legal, but can easily be twisted by demagogues into apparent "disloyalty." Making vague and unsubstantiated accusations is no way to present a coherent argument. Remember, the FBI looked into Flynn for months both before and after he became Trump's designee for NSA, and they found "no derogatory information" in deciding to close down the investigation (and remember, this was after they tapped the Kislyak call). The only "crime" you can find any actual evidence of is his refusal to play ball with Obama in gaslighting the American people that he had "al Queda on the run" and then going on to participate in the "lock her up" chant at the Republican convention.

The unmasking (apparently) is not illegal, in and of itself. The illegality was in leaking his name to the WaPo to further the "collusion" conspiracy by implying the call was in some way an indication of a treasonous "repayment" for Russian "assistance" for helping Trump get elected. Answer me this - if the "law enforcement and intel personnel were acting in good faith," why did they all go on TV in a seemingly coordinated effort to boldly state that they "had the evidence" of "collusion," but then, when put under oath in congress, each and every one of them stated that they really had none? It's easy to "trust" these people if you ignore their seeming corruption in this matter.

So it's okay that they railroaded a 33 year military veteran who was appointed national security adviser to a duly elected POTUS simply because they do it all the time? Answer me this - did you believe Mueller when he said Iraq possessed WMDs?

Are you aware of his less than stellar record?

As he investigates Trump's aides, Robert Mueller's record shows surprising flaws

When he was named special counsel in May, Robert S.

www.latimes.com

Neither Mueller nor the sleaze bags at the top of the FBI (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, et al) are people I want to stand with (nor are people like Brennan and Clapper who had front row seats to the politicization of the intelligence apparatus).

And in case you haven't noticed, Barr is attempting to change DOJ policy, so why don't you support him?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

The topic of Obamagate was introduced by you.

By your logic, that makes you a "Trumpie", whatever that is.

Who knew? Nice self-reveal.

Obamagate IS the topic of this thread.

 

[middleview]

That's being called into question:

President Trump's spy chief is reportedly declassifying information that shows CIA Director John Brennan "suppressed" intelligence on Russia wanting Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election.

Trump spy chief declassifying documents showing CIA Director John Brennan ‘suppressed’ Russia intelligence: Report - Washington Examiner

President Trump's spy chief is reportedly declassifying information that shows CIA Director John Brennan "suppressed" intelligence on Russia wanting Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election.Fox News chief White House correspondent Ed Henry said Tuesday evening that "it could get sticky" for...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Try to keep up...

Washington Examiner rates the rumor that Russia wanted Hillary as high quality intel and the intel that they wanted Trump as low quality. How funny.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Obamagate IS the topic of this thread.
View attachment 51911

It's simple.

According to you, Trump wants people to talk about 'Obamagate'.

So, you introduce a thread called 'Obamagate', in effect doing the President's bidding.

And I am only too happy to bump it for you.

You're welcome.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

It's simple.

According to you, Trump wants people to talk about 'Obamagate'.

So, you introduce a thread called 'Obamagate', in effect doing the President's bidding.

And I am only too happy to bump it for you.

You're welcome.

And you're doing Trump's bidding with this:

I guess this officially makes Barack Obama "Not exonerated"....:>)

So in your mind, you've already identified Obama's crimes, charged him, tried him and convicted him. Or don't you know what "exonerate" means?

 

[Zam-Zam]

And you're doing Trump's bidding with this:

I guess this officially makes Barack Obama "Not exonerated"....:>)

So in your mind, you've already identified Obama's crimes, charged him, tried him and convicted him. Or don't you know what "exonerate" means?

No mention of Trump anywhere.

But then, I'm not obsessed.

Obamagate, as per your thread topic moniker.

Bump. :>)

 

[EatTheRich]

That only makes sense if there was actual derogatory information that was withheld, If you have any proof of that, I'd love to see it.

Trump Tower meeting

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Jim Carrey does Obamagate. Watch the video.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261722745978490882