I am curious what the upcoming investigation into the beginnings of the Russia hoax will show in regards to Obama. We already know about the text from Page to Stzok that said "“Potus wants to know everything we’re doing”. What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Obama was 1/1000th the corrupt politician Trump is. Trump invited the Russian to hack our elections and gleefully met and learned what they were doing. He's a traitor. And yet you support him, because you'd rather support a tyrant that would stop brown people from getting in than the constitution.
It appears the new strategy is just too pretend the Mueller report doesn't show a biography of corruption and impeachable offenses.
The "Russians" have been meddling since they were Soviets, but what do you do when you know something is happening, but it's inconsequential? Limit some potentials risks, but nothing much more, and that's what Obama did. Russian meddling only became a thing in the wake of Trump's election for political convenience, never because it was actually a thing. If they really did believe it, they'd hold Obama accountable for it, but they never did, so they won't.
If I was someone like you or a few other emotionally charged people here, I would report you. But i will instead encourage you to revisit and review the rules of this forum. Be less like BobbyTheGreat. I hope you have a happy Easter, @Sweet Lou 4 2
What a complete, 100% lie. Obama was the President that led the corruption and destruction of the reputation of our Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Until Obama, these agencies were considered trustworthy. Now, thanks to Obama and his henchmen, the reputations of our highest government agencies for justice have been destroyed. This was as a result of Obama and the Democrat weaponizing the top law and justice agencies in our government in a scheme to undermine first their political adversary in the 2016 presidential election contest, and then after he was elected, to attempt to overthrow a duly elected President of the United States. This scandal created and almost certainly directed by Barack Obama is hands-down the worst and most extreme acts of corruption that our country has ever seen, and there is not another episode or another president that is even close. And this report clarifies who was responsible for this mess here, once and for all. It was Obama and the Democrats, working with their supporters at the DOJ, FBI and the CIA. Pull your head out.
That is a two part question: Do I believe Russia tried to influence our election? Yes, I have never questioned that happened. It is actually common for this sort of thing to happen in this day and age. The good old USA has also tried to influence foreign elections. Was Trump involved with the Russian interference? No he was not. Even people on the left have to admit that now after the Mueller report. This is also the part where my "hoax" statement comes into play. I fully believe there were a lot of shenanigans going on within the Obama DOJ, the FBI, and other intelligence agencies. This is why I am very glad there is going to be an investigation into the beginnings of the whole scenario. I feel quite sure that there will be a lot of nefarious things uncovered. There is a reason many people in the leadership roles of the DOJ and FBI have been fired, quit, or were demoted. Whether you believe that at this time is no concern to me so I will not argue about it. The investigations will uncover the truth and if they show what I believe they will show, you will have to admit it.
He and his campaign was clearly involved. He clearly obstructed the investigation. The report was narrow on what is collusion legally and left caveat about their conclusion due to gaps in their finding. There is no need to admit or deny anything - it's right there in black and white in the report. "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." "Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." "The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign-deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."
Do you realize that you are calling me an alcoholic and Bobbythegreat in one sentence and then quoting forum rules and talking about reporting me in the next? Maybe something for you to reflect on this happy Easter?
Obama looked bad in this whole thing way back in 2016. Not sure if the Mueller Report changes things much. My interpretation is still that he essentially betted that the interference wouldn't move the election, but if he told the public about it he'd be (rightfully) accused of trying to interfere himself. I'd humbly suggest you call it the "conspiracy hoax" or "collusion hoax" if you need a shorthand. "Russia hoax" connotes things to liberals that you apparently don't intend to communicate. It's seen as casting doubt on whether Russia did anything bad at all.
It's Obama's fault that McGahn was forced to do some crazy ass **** and also Obama is to blame for McGahn not carrying that crazy ass **** out!
