Action on Gabbard Evidence, Ex-Obama officials face federal grand jury probe into whether they promoted false Trump-Russia ties

Valletta · Tuesday at 3:17 AM

“Following the compelling case outlined by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, which exposed clear and blatant weaponization by corrupt intelligence officials acting at the behest of the Democrat Party and likely former President Obama, the Administration remains committed to conducting a thorough investigation,” said White House spokesman Harrison Fields.
“This effort aims to provide the American people with the truth about the extent to which former government officials worked to sabotage the Trump administration and undermine the will of the American people in a clear attempt to subvert our Constitutional Republic.”

Ex-Obama officials face federal grand jury probe into whether they promoted false Trump-Russia ties

The major legal development opens the door to criminal charges against prominent Cabinet members who served then-President Barack Obama, including former Director of National Intelligence James Cla…

nypost.com

This is the correct path, it's time to put everything out into the open.

ozso · Tuesday at 4:13 AM

Here, I'll be first. This is just a distraction from Epstein!

Valletta · Tuesday at 5:14 AM

ozso said:
Here, I'll be first. This is just a distraction from Epstein!

Good one. There is so much misuse of government agencies and organizations, there has been for a long long time. And individuals are not held accountable. With no accountability they continue to do more damage to our republic. For example, there was a memo about James Clapper threatening the job of a staffer on loan to Congress when Clapper was head of DIA back in the 1990s. It appeared to be true, and if so he should have been booted from public service. He wasn't, and he eventually became head of all U.S. intelligence.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 7:14 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
The world doesnt revolve around Epstine.

Then why do so many people want it to go away?

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 8:23 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
The world doesn't revolve around Epstein.

A plurality of people would disagree with your assessment on that...

Over 80% of all Americans want a full release of the data (including 86% of democrats and 77% of republicans)

Given that he had several high-profile "pals" (some of which may or many not have been linked to intelligence agencies), it's fair for people to be concerned about the prospect that there could be "compromised" people (susceptible to blackmail) working within high profile positions.

The small contingent of the Trump super-loyalists (who spent a couple years making "Epstein didn't kill himself" memes ad nauseum, and demanding disclosure when they thought it could implicate Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, now suddenly saying "we should just move on" because Trump said so, are indeed, a small minority (even among the MAGA base).

And it is a bit of comedic irony that some in the Trump sphere are are suggesting that "it's time to let the Epstein thing go and move on", and then immediately pivoting to drudging up an event that's even older, and that didn't end up even impacting the outcome of the 2016 election.

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 10:04 AM

Bradskii said:
Then why do so many people want it to go away?

I dont know. I dont want it to go away. But just because it appears to be the MOST important topic for you doesn't mean there cannot be other topics of discussion. If you feel that this thread is a "distraction" away from the topics you wish to discuss, leave this thread and go there rather than trying to shut this thread down with off topic comments. Bottom line, I am politely asking you to either stay on topic or go elsewhere. I am not saying we should move on, but people should not be held hostage because others seem incapable of caring about multiple issues at the same time.

Belk · Tuesday at 10:22 AM

Valletta said:
“Following the compelling case outlined by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, which exposed clear and blatant weaponization by corrupt intelligence officials acting at the behest of the Democrat Party and likely former President Obama, the Administration remains committed to conducting a thorough investigation,” said White House spokesman Harrison Fields.
“This effort aims to provide the American people with the truth about the extent to which former government officials worked to sabotage the Trump administration and undermine the will of the American people in a clear attempt to subvert our Constitutional Republic.”

Ex-Obama officials face federal grand jury probe into whether they promoted false Trump-Russia ties

The major legal development opens the door to criminal charges against prominent Cabinet members who served then-President Barack Obama, including former Director of National Intelligence James Cla…

nypost.com

This is the correct path, it's time to put everything out into the open.

And the weaponizing continues with the well worn track of using the government to punish the administrations grievances all while claiming to be fighting against weaponized government. What an utter crock.

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 10:55 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
A plurality of people would disagree with your assessment on that...

An a plurality of people want to end world hunger. But that doesnt mean the world stops moving and we need to shut down all other discussions because kids are starving in Africa. The world does not revolve around Epstine and I guarantee this will be old news in less than a year. Now, do you have anything to say about the op topic?

A New Dawn · Tuesday at 11:05 AM

ozso said:
Here, I'll be first. This is just a distraction from Epstein!

Who really cares about Epstein? The amount of drama built up around something that is such a nothingburger is ridiculous. THIS, however, is the biggest presidential scandal in our history that could be considered treason (done for the purposeful intention of undermining the Constitutional Republic.)

A New Dawn · Tuesday at 11:13 AM

Belk said:
And the weaponizing continues with the well worn track of using the government to punish the administrations grievances all while claiming to be fighting against weaponized government. What an utter crock.

Wow. I bet that’s not what you said when Biden was weaponizing the government.

The difference between these situations is that Trump WAS a concurrent political contender to Hillary AND Biden, and to weaponize the power the government against him when no crimes had been committed is what’s called treason. Trump is looking at crimes that have been committed by a previous president that is NOT a political adversary at this time to see how it impacted the course of the election and trying to overturn his first term.

Oompa Loompa · Tuesday at 11:23 AM

Belk said:
And the weaponizing continues with the well worn track of using the government to punish the administrations grievances all while claiming to be fighting against weaponized government. What an utter crock.

It appears dems all of a sudden don't like witch hunts when the shoe is on the other foot.

DaisyDay · Tuesday at 11:29 AM

A New Dawn said:
Who really cares about Epstein? The amount of drama built up around something that is such a nothingburger is ridiculous. THIS, however, is the biggest presidential scandal in our history that could be considered treason (done for the purposeful intention of undermining the Constitutional Republic.)

For the better part of a decade, certain right-wing operatives have been making hay off the Epstein/pedophile scandal. Part of Donald's campaign was declaring that he would release the files and punish the guilty. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino gained a lot of their followings going on and on about it, but now, suddenly, it is no longer an issue.

The scandal here is the Trump administration going after Democratic politicians, weaponizing the DOJ far beyond anything in modern American history. This is authoritarian.

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 12:09 PM

A New Dawn said:
Who really cares about Epstein? The amount of drama built up around something that is such a nothingburger is ridiculous. THIS, however, is the biggest presidential scandal in our history that could be considered treason (done for the purposeful intention of undermining the Constitutional Republic.)

lol

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 12:14 PM

A New Dawn said:
Wow. I bet that’s not what you said when Biden was weaponizing the government.

The difference between these situations is that Trump WAS a concurrent political contender to Hillary AND Biden, and to weaponize the power the government against him when no crimes had been committed is what’s called treason.

No it’s not. Even granting this fantasy for the sake of argument, that is definitionally not treason. Treason is when you help an enemy nation we are currently at war with.

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 12:21 PM

Valletta said:
This is the correct path, it's time to put everything out into the open.

Or into a closed grand jury room.

A New Dawn · Tuesday at 12:22 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
No it’s not. Even granting this fantasy for the sake of argument, that is definitionally not treason. Treason is when you help an enemy nation we are currently at war with.

Actually, that’s NOT the definition of treason. The definition of treason is, according to the Oxford dictionary, the act of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign (leader) or overthrow the government.

Or, according to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of TREASON

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family; the betrayal of a trust : treachery… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or according to dictionary.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

It has only been used once in our history, and that was during wartime, but its use is not limited to wartime according to the definition.

Belk · Tuesday at 12:25 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
It appears dems all of a sudden don't like witch hunts when the shoe is on the other foot.

So you admit this is nothing but retaliation for perceived sleights?

Belk · Tuesday at 12:26 PM

A New Dawn said:
Wow. I bet that’s not what you said when Biden was weaponizing the government.

The difference between these situations is that Trump WAS a concurrent political contender to Hillary AND Biden, and to weaponize the power the government against him when no crimes had been committed is what’s called treason. Trump is looking at crimes that have been committed by a previous president that is NOT a political adversary at this time to see how it impacted the course of the election and trying to overturn his first term.

I do not find this claim in any way credible. The idea that Biden "weaponized the government" but only went after one person? Come on.

comana · Tuesday at 12:28 PM

A New Dawn said:
Actually, that’s NOT the definition of treason. The definition of treason is, according to the Oxford dictionary, the act of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign (leader) or overthrow the government.

It has only been used once in our history, and that was during wartime, but its use is not limited to wartime according to the definition.

The only relevant definition is found in the Constitution and US code 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Allegations agains Obama do not meet requirements for treason In US law.

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 12:32 PM

A New Dawn said:
Actually, that’s NOT the definition of treason. The definition of treason is, according to the Oxford dictionary, the act of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign (leader) or overthrow the government.

It has only been used once in our history, and that was during wartime, but its use is not limited to wartime according to the definition.

Who cares what Oxford has to say? We go by the constitution and it gives a specific definition.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html#:~:text=its%20modern%20understanding.-,Levying%20War%20Against%20the%20United%20States,and%20the%20Federalists%20shunned%20him.

No matter your feelings about Obama or what Tulsi Gabbard finds in her fishing expedition, he simply did not commit treason by any stretch of the prosecutable, constitutional definition.

It makes for a good brief distraction, though.

Action on Gabbard Evidence, Ex-Obama officials face federal grand jury probe into whether they promoted false Trump-Russia ties

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

Fact-Based Lifeform

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

We're Still Here

Similar threads