Obama referred to DOJ for criminal charges

[Larniavc]

From Grok

Summary of Whistleblower Reports and Allegations

1. Clinton Annex (July 2025):

• Context: On July 20, 2025, Senator Grassley, as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, released a declassified appendix to the DOJ Inspector General’s 2018 report, known as the “Clinton Annex.” This document critiqued the FBI’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s private email server investigation but also touched on broader investigative failures during the Obama administration.

• Whistleblower Claims: The annex, supported by whistleblower disclosures, revealed that the FBI failed to investigate thumb drives containing sensitive emails, including potential communications involving Obama, related to Clinton’s server. These thumb drives were allegedly exfiltrated from U.S. government agencies, raising questions about oversight and potential cover-ups.

• Link to Russian Collusion: While the annex primarily addresses the Clinton email probe, X posts (e.g., @holonabove, July 21, 2025) and some sources suggest it implies Obama’s complicity in a broader “Deep State” effort to shield Clinton and target Trump, including through the Russian collusion narrative. However, the annex itself does not directly tie Obama to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or explicitly allege his involvement in manufacturing collusion evidence.

2. Tulsi Gabbard’s Declassified Documents (July 2025):

• Context: On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents claiming “overwhelming evidence” that Obama and his national security team, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to create the Trump-Russia collusion narrative after Trump’s 2016 election win. These documents were turned over to the DOJ for criminal referral.

• Whistleblower and Intelligence Claims:

• The documents, reportedly supported by whistleblower accounts, allege that pre-election intelligence assessments (e.g., December 7, 2016, talking points for Clapper) stated Russia was “probably not trying” to influence the 2016 election via cyberattacks. Post-election, Obama allegedly ordered a new Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on December 6, 2016, to be completed before Trump’s inauguration, claiming Russia favored Trump. This ICA relied on unverified sources like the Steele dossier, a Clinton campaign-funded opposition research project.

• Gabbard claimed this was a “treasonous conspiracy” to “usurp” Trump and subvert the American electorate, accusing Obama of directing the effort. The documents suggest Obama’s team ignored earlier intelligence, rushed the ICA, and sidelined standard interagency review processes, raising concerns about politicization.

• Specific Allegations Against Obama:

• A December 9, 2016, meeting, convened by Obama with Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, allegedly ordered a new ICA to perpetuate the collusion narrative, contradicting a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that found no evidence of Russian vote manipulation.

• A January 5, 2017, meeting, memorialized by Susan Rice in an inauguration-day email, reportedly involved Obama directing officials to withhold information from the Trump transition team, ensuring the collusion probe continued.

• Supporting Whistleblower Evidence: While Gabbard’s release cites “over 100 documents,” specific whistleblower identities or their direct testimonies remain classified or undisclosed. The claims rely on internal intelligence community reviews and declassified memos, such as a CIA report ordered by Director John Ratcliffe, which criticized the 2017 ICA’s rushed timeline and reliance on the Steele dossier.

3. CIA Report by John Ratcliffe (July 2025):

• Context: A declassified CIA memo, released July 2, 2025, under CIA Director John Ratcliffe, reviewed the 2017 ICA on Russian interference. It criticized the assessment’s rushed timeline and inclusion of the Steele dossier, which analysts knew was unverified.

• Whistleblower Input: The report, based partly on whistleblower accounts, alleged that Obama’s directive for a rapid ICA completion before Trump’s inauguration created a “politically charged environment.” It claimed Brennan and Clapper pressured analysts to elevate the dossier’s credibility, though it was only included as an appendix with caveats. The report does not directly state Obama ordered falsification but implies his timeline and oversight influenced the process.

• Obama’s Role: X posts (e.g., @ProfMJCleveland, July 7, 2025) and sources like The Federalist assert Obama was the “ringleader,” directing Brennan, Clapper, and Comey to push a false narrative. However, the CIA report itself focuses on procedural flaws and does not provide direct evidence of Obama’s intent to fabricate collusion.

Critical Examination

• Evidence and Limitations:

• The whistleblower reports, as cited in Gabbard’s and Ratcliffe’s documents, provide circumstantial evidence of Obama’s involvement through meeting records and directives (e.g., December 6, 2016, ICA order). However, they lack direct proof, such as communications from Obama explicitly instructing fabrication of evidence.

• The Steele dossier’s inclusion in the ICA, even as an appendix, is a key point of contention. Critics argue it was known to be unreliable, yet FBI leadership pushed for its use, potentially under Obama’s broader directive. However, the dossier did not initiate Crossfire Hurricane, which began in July 2016 based on Trump aide George Papadopoulos’s contacts with Russian intermediaries.

MechaHitler says what?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Because they were concealed.

What was the purpose of creating these documents?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The released documents are available on the relevant DNI page here, under the link erroneously labeled "report":

Declassified Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

It's not a report. It's just a bunch of emails and other docs concatenated into a single pdf.

well , you may think that , but after reading this email I finally came to the conclusion that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[Say it aint so]

Which has more credibility, the Russian Collusion (which proved to be a hoax) or this documentation? It's interesting to see that those who were so ready to buy into the Russian Collusion Hoax are now poo-pooing this release of information.

Paul Manafort admits he passed Trump campaign data to a suspected Russian asset.​

Trump admits son met Russian for information on opponent​

George Papadopoulos pleads guilty of lying to FBI agents about Russian interactions.​

You can't get more colluding than that.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What was the purpose of creating these documents?

That would be for you to research and decide for yourself. -

 

[Always in His Presence]

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome."​

​

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.​

 

[Say it aint so]

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome."​

​

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.​

What here warrants a criminal referral?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

That would be for you to research and decide for yourself. -

I see.

So we live in a country where citizens interpret actions of others in their own way and reach different conclusions, while the head of the National Intelligence Service refers these actions without any probable cause to the highest judiciary for prosecution. Even a fictitious banana republic wouldn’t propose such an idea.

If I a privet citizen conducting the research and determining the motive, it appears that neither the DNI head nor the DOJ has reached a conclusion; they seem primarily focused on targeting those who dissent.

If this reflects our country's law and order, we truly live in a banana republic.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I see.

So we live in a country where citizens interpret actions of others in their own way and reach different conclusions, while the head of the National Intelligence Service refers these actions without any probable cause to the highest judiciary for prosecution. Even a fictitious banana republic wouldn’t propose such an idea.

If I a privet citizen conducting the research and determining the motive, it appears that neither the DNI head nor the DOJ has reached a conclusion; they seem primarily focused on targeting those who dissent.

If this reflects our country's law and order, we truly live in a banana republic.

Thanks for your opinion - best to you.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome."​

​

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.​

Which part of the statement “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome” do you disagree with?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Which part of the statement “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome” do you disagree with?

You really are not following along with it are you? Are you just looking to quarrel - or do you not realize that the very same man who made the statement above, shortly after helped start the Russian collusion fiasco saying the exact opposite.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Thanks for your opinion - best to you.

This was not my opinion; rather, it was your suggestion that the head of the Intelligence Service is accusing the former head. However, as a private citizen, I am expected to provide the motive.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This was not my opinion; rather, it was your suggestion that the head of the Intelligence Service is accusing the former head.

Not a suggestion - established fact with links and direct quotes -

However, as a private citizen, I am expected to provide the motive.

You present NO facts - but ASSUME a point of view and draw an opinion from it. Just let it go - everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you want to have more than one - present facts - make your argument. Do your own research then talk about it.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You really are not following along with it are you? Are you just looking to quarrel - or do you not realize that the very same man who made the statement above, shortly after helped start the Russian collusion fiasco saying the exact opposite.

Is it considered a crime to make a statement to the media that contradicts a previous statement?

 

[Hans Blaster]

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome."​

​

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.​

How is this new or nefarious? This has been common knowledge for years. Perhaps this is the first time you've been informed, but many of us already knew this.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Is it considered a crime to make a statement to the media that contradicts a previous statement?

I give up - you just want to fight.

 

[Always in His Presence]

How is this new or nefarious? This has been common knowledge for years. Perhaps this is the first time you've been informed, but many of us already knew this.

Really? Because it was classified information until three days ago - how did you know?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Not a suggestion - established fact with links and direct quotes -

You present NO facts - but ASSUME a point of view and draw an opinion from it. Just let it go - everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you want to have more than one - present facts - make your argument. Do your own research then talk about it.

Facts about what?

Could you specify the alleged crimes for which these individuals have been referred to the Department of Justice for investigation?

Your response to the above question was: I should conduct the research independently. Is this country we live in, where the Department of Justice initiates investigations into private citizens without any crime being committed?

 

[Say it aint so]

Really? Because it was classified information until three days ago - how did you know?

The findings in the idea Russia did not or weren't successful in hacking into our voting was known a long time ago.

And again, what part of this warrants a criminal investigation?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I give up - you just want to fight.

I see you don’t want to debate. That’s fine.

I am sure we will debate and disagree or agree on other thread!



Have a blessed day!