Obama referred to DOJ for criminal charges

[iluvatar5150]

Have any evidence? Surely you do considering how important it is to you.

Since other posters seem unwilling or unable, would you care to take a stab at explaining what the theory is here? If they were set aside to be burned during the Biden administration, then there's no evidence tampering. If it was set aside after the investigation started, then it was during the Trump administration, which means it was one of your guys.

And how do any of you know this wasn't just a routine (attempt at) destroying unneeded hard copies. What makes you think these aren't stored on a server somewhere? One of the documents that was named was part of John Durham's report that was submitted several years ago. It was classified and not released to the public, but it wasn't unknown to government officials.

 

[Bradskii]

Pictured a server, actually a series of servers that contain terabytes of terabytes of information all encrypted files all different locations. Tell me how you’re gonna find 100 documents within that system?

It would be like trying to find this discussion within the whole of the internet. But if you put 'Christian Forums' and the first 6 words of your first post into Google, this thread is the first hit. And hey, I've never worked in counter intelligence!

 

[Always in His Presence]

New Evidence Uncovers Obama-Directed Creation of False Intelligence Report Used to Launch Years-long Coup to Undermine President Trump and the American People

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

President Obama directed the creation of this January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment after President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and it served as the basis for what was essentially a years-long coup against the duly elected President of the United States, subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.

Below are key findings from the HPSCI oversight report:

• Putin’s principal interests relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate.
• Putin chose not to leak the most damaging and compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election; instead planning to release it after the election to weaken what Moscow viewed would be an inevitable Clinton presidency. If Russia wanted to help Donald Trump get elected, they would have released this material prior to the election to harm the Clinton campaign.
• The material about Hilliary Clinton that Putin chose not to release before the election, included possible criminal acts, including:
  • “Details of secret meetings with multiple named US religious organizations, in which State Department representatives offered – in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton – “significant increases in financing” from Department funds and “the patronage” of State in dealing with ‘post-Soviet countries.”
  • DNC emails detailing that Hillary Clinton suffered from “psycho-emotional problems,” “uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers,” and while she was afraid of losing, she remained “obsessed with a thirst for power.”

 

[Always in His Presence]

Cont’d

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

 

[wing2000]

• Putin’s principal interests relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate.

Russian Leadership Intentions

The ICA states that:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.[2]

• The Committee found that the ICA provided a range of all-source reporting to support these assessments.
• The Committee concurs with intelligence and open-source assessments that this influence campaign was approved by President Putin.
• Further, a body of reporting, to include different intelligence disciplines, open source reporting on Russian leadership policy preferences, and Russian media content, showed that Moscow sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
• The ICA relies on public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples of where Russian interests would have aligned with candidates’ policy statements, and a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.[3]

• The Committee found that the ICA provided intelligence and open source reporting to support this assessment, and information obtained subsequent to publication of the ICA provides further support.
• This is the only assessment in the ICA that had different confidence levels between the participating agencies—the CIA and FBI assessed with “high confidence” and the NSA assessed with “moderate confidence”—so the Committee gave this section additional attention.

The Committee found that the analytical disagreement was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers, and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions.

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

And Putin himself confirmed it:


Updated: 07/16/2018 03:08 PM EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believed Trump’s policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486

 

[wing2000]

Senate Intelligence Committee:


"The Committee finds that the Intelligence Community met President Obama’s tasking and that the ICA is a sound intelligence product. While the Committee had to rely on agencies that the sensitive information and accesses had been accurately reported, as part of our inquiry the Committee reviewed analytic procedures, interviewed senior intelligence officers well-versed with the information, and based our findings on the entire body of intelligence reporting included in the ICA.

The Committee finds the difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process.

......

Conclusion

Finally, the Committee notes that, as is the case with all intelligence questions, information continues to be gathered and analyzed. The Committee believes the conclusions of the ICA are sound, and notes that collection and analysis subsequent to the ICA’s publication continue to reinforce its assessments. The Committee will remain vigilant in its oversight of the ongoing challenges presented by foreign nations attempting to secretly influence U.S. affairs."

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

 

[Always in His Presence]

Russian Leadership Intentions

The ICA states that:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.[2]

• The Committee found that the ICA provided a range of all-source reporting to support these assessments.
• The Committee concurs with intelligence and open-source assessments that this influence campaign was approved by President Putin.
• Further, a body of reporting, to include different intelligence disciplines, open source reporting on Russian leadership policy preferences, and Russian media content, showed that Moscow sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
• The ICA relies on public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples of where Russian interests would have aligned with candidates’ policy statements, and a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.[3]

• The Committee found that the ICA provided intelligence and open source reporting to support this assessment, and information obtained subsequent to publication of the ICA provides further support.
• This is the only assessment in the ICA that had different confidence levels between the participating agencies—the CIA and FBI assessed with “high confidence” and the NSA assessed with “moderate confidence”—so the Committee gave this section additional attention.

The Committee found that the analytical disagreement was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers, and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions.

Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

And Putin himself confirmed it:


Updated: 07/16/2018 03:08 PM EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believed Trump’s policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486

All of that was a result of this action:

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All of that was a result of this action:

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

Even if this were true, this is not a crime.

 

[wing2000]

All of that was a result of this action:

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

No, Gabbard is distoring the IC's findings.

The kicker is Putin himself confirmed his preference for Trump in 2018.

 

[wing2000]

..excerpt from a July 31 interview with the lead CIA analyst, Michal Van Landingham, who was the lead author of the report Gabbard is distorting:

"For us, the primary evidence to get to Putin's mind-set was a clandestine source that said, essentially, when Putin realized that Clinton would win the election, he ordered an influence campaign against Hillary Clinton because Trump, on whose victory he was counting, seemed less likely to win.

Then we saw a series of events that happened with the hacked U.S. materials by the Russian special services or intelligence services to leak those materials similar to the information a clandestine source had provided.

At the same time, we saw lots of members of the Russian media portraying Donald Trump in a more positive light.

Putin also had very negative things to say about Hillary Clinton from his experience with her as secretary of state.

And, along with that, there was other information that was collected by the U.S. intelligence community that gave us more confidence in that.

So, over time, looking at those things, having a high-quality, clandestine source telling you that Putin was counting on Trump's victory, having members of the Russian state saying Trump would be better to work with because of his views on Russia that don't represent the U.S. establishment, all of those things gave us high confidence that Putin wanted Trump to win, as did his comments in Helsinki in 2018 in July, where, when asked, he said: "Yes, I wanted him to win."

PBS News Hour | Ex‑CIA analyst slams Trump’s effort to deny Russia probe | Season 2025

Ex-CIA analyst challenges Trump's attempt to discredit Russian election interference probe

www.pbs.org

 

[wing2000]

....more from the interview referenced in the preceeding post:


GEOFF BENNETT: Looking back now, what's your assessment of the intelligence community assessment?
This is a document that has been scrutinized, politicized, investigated for nearly a decade.
Would you change anything?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: I don't think so.
The people I worked with at all three agencies, the NSA, FBI and the CIA, did their best work.
And I think the reason why the paper has withstood seven or so investigations, whether criminal, like the Durham investigation, or political, like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, or, most recently technical, the CIA's tradecraft review, all of those things have affirmed the quality of the paper.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Even if this were true, this is not a crime.

it is true and it is a crime

....more from the interview referenced in the preceding post:


GEOFF BENNETT: Looking back now, what's your assessment of the intelligence community assessment?
This is a document that has been scrutinized, politicized, investigated for nearly a decade.
Would you change anything?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: I don't think so.
The people I worked with at all three agencies, the NSA, FBI and the CIA, did their best work.
And I think the reason why the paper has withstood seven or so investigations, whether criminal, like the Durham investigation, or political, like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, or, most recently technical, the CIA's tradecraft review, all of those things have affirmed the quality of the paper.

December 8th - intelligence said - nothing worth looking at - December 9 - Obama meets with heads of agencies - now there is something worth looking at.

Everything from that point went on the misinformation and purposed targeting of a sitting President.

Not my words -
Not the words from a right wing source _
From the words of the people involved.

Again:

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

 

[wing2000]

Not my words -
Not the words from a right wing source _
From the words of the people involved.

Right. The words of a politicized DNI seeking favor in the eyes of her boss. He rewarded her by calling her "hot."

 

[Say it aint so]

it is true and it is a crime

December 8th - intelligence said - nothing worth looking at - December 9 - Obama meets with heads of agencies - now there is something worth looking at.

Everything from that point went on the misinformation and purposed targeting of a sitting President.

Not my words -
Not the words from a right wing source _
From the words of the people involved.

Again:

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

Your problem is Brennan's narrative was correct and Putin did have a preference for Trump.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Right. The words of a politicized DNI seeking favor in the eyes of her boss. He rewarded her by calling her "hot."

Releasing the actual communications from Obama and his leaders is being completely ignored and replaced with the tribe speak - the issue is - yes, the Republicans declassified the information - but the words in the information are not Republicans - but literally from Democratic leadership including former President Obama.

How about addressing the 6,000 pound elephant in the room instead of complaining who let it out??

Your problem is Brennan's narrative was correct and Putin did have a preference for Trump.

Not according to Brennan's private conversations

• CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
• CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
• The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
• The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.

:

 

[Say it aint so]

Releasing the actual communications from Obama and his leaders is being completely ignored and replaced with the tribe speak - the issue is - yes, the Republicans declassified the information - but the words in the information are not Republicans - but literally from Democratic leadership including former President Obama.

How about addressing the 6,000 pound elephant in the room instead of complaining who let it out??

Not according to Brennan's private conversations


:

According to the Mueller report. The Senate Report. The IG report, yes, he was in fact correct.

 

[Always in His Presence]

According to the Mueller report. The Senate Report. The IG report, yes, he was in fact correct.

And once again - the Mueller report was a result of the meeting between Obama and leaders who chose to change the narrative that the intelligence community rejected the day before. -If you read the released documentation - it spell it out. not with anyone elses words - but theirs.

 

[wing2000]

Releasing the actual communications from Obama and his leaders is being completely ignored and replaced with the tribe speak - the issue is - yes, the Republicans declassified the information - but the words in the information are not Republicans - but literally from Democratic leadership including former President Obama.

Noting that you have yet to cite a single word of the "actual communications".

 

[wing2000]

And once again - the Mueller report was a result of the meeting between Obama and leaders who chose to change the narrative that the intelligence community rejected the day before. -If you read the released documentation - it spell it out. not with anyone elses words - but theirs.

Oh, the conspiracy hole is getting deeper!

 

[Always in His Presence]

No, Gabbard is distoring the IC's findings.

The kicker is Putin himself confirmed his preference for Trump in 2018.

Not according to their own words - do I have to post it again? Will you read it this time?

Right. The words of a politicized DNI seeking favor in the eyes of her boss. He rewarded her by calling her "hot."

Are You are a mind reader now?

Noting that you have yet to cite a single word of the "actual communications".

I've posted the links - easy for you to read yourself - when you do, then you cannot argue "that is not what it says"