• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamagate

JustHanging said:
I'm sure Trump heard from another "extremely credible source."


"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."
Click to expand...

Many people are saying!!!
 
Let’s cut through the bull**** here. “Obamagate” is that a black man was President for eight years.
 
Grand Mal said:
Any idea what it is? I hear It's the " biggest political crime in American history" but don't know what exactly the crime is.
Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Chris Christie saith, "Prosecutorial misconduct."

There ya go, wrapped up the whole thread for ya.
 
JustHanging said:
It's not that complicated, we already know how it works for roughly 1/3 of America: White guy does it fine. Black guy does it bad.

For example, remember the weeks of calling Obama Un-American for not wearing a flag pin? I don't remember hearing a peep when this below happened. But maybe you can show me the outrage on FOX news?

NEWS_170129979_AR_0_NSEYIUGCOSBG.jpg
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, did I give the impression that I needed my posts to go full on racial/racist trash? You do get that this board is about debating and not about who wore a pledge flag pin, Jesus, the stupidity in this thread is just agonizingly eye bleed to read.
 
Geoist said:
It's the greatest scam of all time! The greatest hoax! They should have 50 year sentences for... something the Washington Post just isn't writing about!
Click to expand...

It's almost as big as Russiagate!!
 
GDViking said:
Well we are in the middle of the worst epidemic in one hundred years and it's all trump can talk about.

When is he going to stop campaing and do his ****ing job?!?

He started campaing the day of his egnageration, and has done nothing for the country...
Click to expand...

The Durham investigation began in April of last year.

It's just dumb luck that the chickens are coming home to roost during the pandemic.
 
Grim17 said:
First, you need to clarify what it was in my post you deemed to be nonsense. You might have different definitions of what is, and what is not a conspiracy. Here's what I said again:

Conspiracy theories lack actual evidence and are nothing but conjecture (Trump/Russia collusion), while accusations that are backed up with sworn testimony and documented evidence are not...​

Now, do you agree with those definitions? If so, we can move on to your question... If not, then we might be at an impass.
Click to expand...

I guess we are at an impasse, I will not accept your conclusions to Trump and Russia.

Nor will I play your game while you rather cowardly hide.
 
adm120 said:
We can talk about lots of "crimes", as Mr. Horowitz has outlined

For Obama, in particular, and I don't advocate going after any ex POTUS, we can point to all hiss interactions with Hillary and her unsecure email and phone

She sent him classified info over an unsecure network. Even if he never replied this is the law he broke
.
"Anyone finding classified information out of proper control shall, if possible, take custody
of and safeguard the material and immediately notify the appropriate security authorities. Secure
communications should be used for notification whenever possible."

Directives Division

So he and ANYONE in gov. that got emails from this fking moron Hillary , was obliged to report it immediately. No one did

“How is this not classified?”
“So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”
She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”
Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.evel security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.”
Obama Email Alias to Clinton Is Why FBI Didn’t Prosecute Hillary | National Review
Click to expand...


You ar aware trump uses a personal phone, not a government secure phone right???

Anyway no laws we're broken, every SOC did exactly the same, it was a brand new policy...

Anyway it's nothing compared to blackmail, collusion, lying, excepting favors, selling nuclear technology, pulling strings with china to get your families business approved and on and on and on...
 
Ouroboros said:
The Durham investigation began in April of last year.

It's just dumb luck that the chickens are coming home to roost during the pandemic.
Click to expand...

Funny, the other investigation, started at the same time found nothing a d moved on.

This is a campaign ploy, and only a fool will believe anything he says.

It may as well be the ninth bengazi hearing...
 
Mr Person said:
OH? Is that so?

Then how is it that Trump's DOJ hasn't obtained any indictments for that perjury? We're over three years in. You can't cry "deep state." Trump could straight-up order Barr to convene a grand jury to consider whether anything they said was perjury, and he would have to.

You can indict a ham sandwich. So how can Barr be unable to indict people who so obviously committed perjury that random internet poster woodsman can *just know* it.*

(Note: this is an example of the lack of sourcing I just referred to. You don't say "this sentence right here is false, and here is how each element of perjury is established" followed by quotes, citations, and even just one case. You just say it and act like that fills in for argument.

That's not arguing. That's playing show and tell. This is a debate site. Shape up).



*I'm being too generous. woodsman did not sit down and sift through all the testimony, compare it to documents, examine the caselaw, and determine that they committed perjury. He listened to a lying asshole on Fox say it. That's it, and all it ever is with these people.









Same question for you, Attorney and FBI Agent eohrnberger: You can indict a ham sandwich. So how can Trump's FBI be unable to find out who these people are and what the nefarious things they did are, and how can Barr's DOJ be unable to obtain indictment?

Do any of you realize how unbelievably stupid, hyperpartisan, dishonest, and did I say STUPID it is for you to act like somehow there's this big great Democrat conspiracy that Fox knows all about.....

....but Trump's FBI and Trump's DOJ can't do anything about it?




God damn. It's so stupid it hurts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing.
 
Ouroboros said:
Chris Christie saith, "Prosecutorial misconduct."

There ya go, wrapped up the whole thread for ya.
Click to expand...

Ooooh the coordinator of Bridgewater, who told trump not to hire Flynn in the first place.

He knows that's complete bull****...
 
woodsman said:
Were are the last Administrations stats for comparison? The below statement by you is interesting in a sad partisan way.

“Materiality was demonstrated by the FBI and the NSA agreed. Now, what exactly was the false pretense?”

The text of the requests haven’t been made public at this point, but come on, Comey, Clapper and others already committed perjury in open hearings and that’s a hard fact.

Also, with point of fact, regarding unmasking, I didn’t say there was documented pretense with the unmasking. With that, I sure hope the applications become public so they can be judged. Lets also know those agencies were corrupted.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
OH? Is that so?

Then how is it that Trump's DOJ hasn't obtained any indictments for that perjury? We're over three years in. You can't cry "deep state." Trump could straight-up order Barr to convene a grand jury to consider whether anything they said was perjury, and he would have to.

You can indict a ham sandwich. So how can Barr be unable to indict people who so obviously committed perjury that random internet poster woodsman can *just know* it.*

(Note: this is an example of the lack of sourcing I just referred to. You don't say "this sentence right here is false, and here is how each element of perjury is established" followed by quotes, citations, and even just one case. You just say it and act like that fills in for argument.

That's not arguing. That's playing show and tell. This is a debate site. Shape up).



*I'm being too generous. woodsman did not sit down and sift through all the testimony, compare it to documents, examine the caselaw, and determine that they committed perjury. He listened to a lying asshole on Fox say it. That's it, and all it ever is with these people.
Click to expand...

woodsman said:
Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

How brave of you.

:lamo

Well, if you get over your fear of debating with words, the substance is right there for you to address. It would be interesting to just one of you debate, rather than simply repeating the lies Fox ordered you to repeat.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Which had to do with the astonishing situation in which a candidate for the American presidency invited ("joked"... ... ) a foreign rival his party called "our greatest geopolitical foe" to interfere in our election on his behalf, knew that it was attempting to do so in various ways, and refused to tell the authorities? Even mocked the idea of contacting authorities?

As explained elsewhere by RV, nothing was wrong with the unmasking and the unmasking didn't become a crime because of right wing conspiracy theories and - wait for it - look where he shows that there have been MORE unmasking requests by Team Trump in each year since 2016 than there was in 2016, the year your idiotic Obama conspiracy supposedly took place:


_____________________________
Former National Security Officials: The “Unmasking” List Could Be Bad News for Mike Flynn | Vanity Fair

<>

"Obamagate" is Trumps 2020 version of his "Birtherism conspiracy" or Trumps 2018 conspiracy that Joe Biden did something illegal in Ukraine (he did not). What Trump is relying on here is that most Americans do not understand the nature of unmasking. Let us suppose that the NSA is monitoring the communications of a highly placed Russian official working in the United States. If they detect something out of the ordinary, they will send a transcript of a conversation(s) to the FBI. The Russian official is identified, but if who he is talking to is a US citizen, this person will only be identified as (USP) - "United States Person". This is what happened when Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak and (USP) were communicating. The conversation indicated to the FBI that whoever (USP) was, this individual had a very high degree of influence with the Kremlin. Influence to a degree that (USP) convinced the Kremlin to do something it had never before done in the many decades since the end of WWII. In the interest of national security, the FBI considered it essential to find out who the influential (USP) could be. This process is known as satisfying "materiality". They submitted requests to the NSA to unmask (USP). Lo and behold, (USP) was Micheal Flynn, an insider in the 2016 election campaign of Donald Trump. The gist is that what Flynn had accomplished as (USP) was so beyond the pale that an unusual number of officials across government were interested in unmasking this (USP).

What happened next is that a highly placed government official (unknown), leaked this unmasking to the Washington Post and journalist David Ignatius published the Flynn/Kislyak story. While I agree that whoever leaked the identity of (USP)/Flynn to David Ignatius should be identified and charged, there was nothing illegal or uncommon in the unmasking process of Michael Flynn. The US government does this all the time. As an example, SIGINT unmasking requests per year since Donald Trump has been in office.....
2016 - 9,200 / 2017 - 9,500 / 2018 - 17,000 / 2019 - 10,000

Flynn was subsequently interviewed by the FBI and he lied during this FBI interview and was charged with lying to the FBI which is a felony. Flynn had also acted as a foreign agent (FARA violation) for Turkey. Flynn plead guilty to these charges in court. However, he now says he wants to retract his guilty plea. But if so, then Flynn committed perjury when he swore in court that he committed the crimes he was pleading guilty to.


_____________________________

I haven't seen anyone actually explain how any of that was nefarious. I have seen a lot of stupid right wing flailing, lying, and denying about it. People keep insisting that there's more, that unidentified "documents" they never manage to cite prove it, or anything else.

To the extent any of you provide any sources, they never show anything nefarious themselves. You only get there with a hyperpartisan assumption that if left or if Obama, then bad.

Try carefully thinking through something for once.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing so many type strokes and post efforts.
 
GDViking said:
Ooooh the coordinator of Bridgewater, who told trump not to hire Flynn in the first place.

He knows that's complete bull****...
Click to expand...

I suspect that Christie's capable of not liking a given person for some reason, but still not believing said person should be railroaded by entrenched political interests.
 
woodsman said:
Thank you for sharing so many type strokes and post efforts.
Click to expand...

I figured you would not be able to back up a single thing you said. At least, I hope it's that and not that you are literally afraid to debate. If it's the latter and you get over it, the substance of the post is right there for you to address.
 
Ouroboros said:
Chris Christie saith, "Prosecutorial misconduct."

There ya go, wrapped up the whole thread for ya.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest political crime in US history? I was hoping for more.
 
By 2016, the Obama administration’s intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate, with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist, shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters, which the news organization called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” And though it’s been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.

What makes anyone believe these people wouldn’t create a pretext to spy on the opposition party? If anyone does, they shouldn’t, because on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama was keenly interested in the Russian-collusion investigation’s progress.
. . . .
Skeptics like to point out that the Obama administration had no motive to engage in abuse, because Democrats were sure they were going to win. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. His cronies had no need to break into the DNC’s offices and touch off Watergate. But as the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an “insurance policy” if the unthinkable happened.

In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we’re still dealing with the fallout four years later. We don’t know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/trump-russia-investigation-obamagate-not-conspiracy-theory/
Click to expand...

ObamaGate a CT? Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

This nation cannot afford to have a sitting president unleash the federal intel and law enforcement agencies on political jihads against that sitting president's perceived political enemies.
 
Last edited:
woodsman said:
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the astonishing number of unmasking requests by the Obama administration (post) election. That in itself isn’t a crime unless the request was asked for under false pretense. What is a crime is leaking the information and names, which happen in the Flynn case. I’m also sure it has nothing to do with the Obama Administration weaponizing the intelligence services and the FBI as political tools to undermined the incoming Admin, nothing odd there.
Click to expand...

YouTube
 
JustHanging said:
I'm sure Trump heard from another "extremely credible source."


"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."
Click to expand...

In all fairness, that comment about his "extremely credible source" appealed to the ignorant right wing racists back then. He saw how well it worked, so it's been the goal of his Presidency to continue to appeal to the ignorant right wing racists. When he's in trouble, as he is now, all he has to do is conjure up the image of the black man who had the office before he did, and the racists come out of the word work with their pitchforks and idiocy, spreading conspiracy theories like "Obamagate".

I have to hand it to Trump. Nobody has manipulated the easily manipulated morons this well since Jim Jones in 1978.
 
tres borrachos said:
In all fairness, that comment about his "extremely credible source" appealed to the ignorant right wing racists back then. He saw how well it worked, so it's been the goal of his Presidency to continue to appeal to the ignorant right wing racists. When he's in trouble, as he is now, all he has to do is conjure up the image of the black man who had the office before he did, and the racists come out of the word work with their pitchforks and idiocy, spreading conspiracy theories like "Obamagate".

I have to hand it to Trump. Nobody has manipulated the easily manipulated morons this well since Jim Jones in 1978.
Click to expand...

P. T. Barnum would be proud.
 
Attributing others of being 'easily manipulated' from those who believed the 'Russian Collusion' hoax?
That believed that the legally and legitimately elected president was 'a Russian asset'?

:lamo

Yeah. OK. Sure.

Freaking unbelievable.

P. T. Barnum would be proud of the DNC Pravda mainstream media, so called 'news' sources.
 
woodsman said:
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the astonishing number of unmasking requests by the Obama administration (post) election. That in itself isn’t a crime unless the request was asked for under false pretense. What is a crime is leaking the information and names, which happen in the Flynn case. I’m also sure it has nothing to do with the Obama Administration weaponizing the intelligence services and the FBI as political tools to undermined the incoming Admin, nothing odd there.
Click to expand...
What a stinking pile of bull****. You probably had to peck at the keyboard with one hand because your other hand was occupied pinching your nose closed.

Of the approximately 3 dozen unmasking requests (far below “astonishing” and fewer than Trump’s administration requested last year) submitted by the Obama administration, post-election, many were made regarding the unknown person who turned out to be Michael Flynn.

That Flynn was prominent in many of the unmaskings was entirely his own doing, or should it be undoing.

The FBI was surveilling the (Russian) ambassador and heard when he made contact with Flynn. So the FBI also knew that Flynn asked Russia's then-ambassador to ask the Kremlin not to retaliate against the punitive measures the outgoing Obama administration was imposing.

But when Flynn talked about that conversation after it was revealed by The Post, he said he hadn't discussed sanctions. Vice President Pence repeated as much.

The FBI and Justice Department knew that wasn't true and worried Flynn could be opening himself up to blackmail, because the Russians could threaten to expose what really had been said.”
What You Need To Know About The Flynn, Biden And 'Unmasking' Story : NPR

“Obama administration officials in several agencies would have had justified national-security reasons to unmask Mr. Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador, including ensuring that it wasn’t someone from within the administration who was undermining President Obama’s decision on the sanctions.

“What this indicates is he was in communication with people who were foreign intelligence targets,” said April Doss, a former NSA lawyer under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama who served as a Democratic counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ms. Doss said presidential transitions are sensitive counterintelligence periods because foreign adversaries are seeking to gain any possible influence with people who might hold power in an incoming administration.”
More Than a Dozen Obama Officials Requested ‘Unmasking’ That Identified Michael Flynn in Intelligence Reports - WSJ

Can you be specific in your accusations of how Obama supposedly “weaponized” the FBI and intelligence agencies against the incoming Trump administration? Debating vague assertions is a waste of time.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Where? In the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum?
Click to expand...

No... That's where the Trump/Russia collusion and the Ukrainian boogaloo topics are located.... This topic has real documented evidence and congressional testimony backing it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom