Russia Gate

If the Trump Administration believes there was actual wrongdoing by the Obama administration, they have treated it with none of the seriousness it would deserve and presented it to the public in the worst way possible. I mean, when Trump was asked point blank by a reporter recently what 'Obamagate' was, Trump replied "I don't need to tell you".
That says it all really.
 
So you cant bring yourself to answer that ?

I dont know the answer, I do know an est 2000 weapons were sold under F&F

It was a botched attempt to stop illegal weapons smuggling not Obama arming a drug cartel
Trump is now publicly supporting the restart of the civil war in Libya, US javelins are turning up in Libya, How are you failing to connect the dots suddenly ?

It was illegal weapons smuggling and your article says the UAE supplied the weapons in Libya.

Those weapons were sold to UAE in 2008

https://af.reuters.com/article/idAFKCN1U50TS-OZATP

France also had Javelins in Libya, we've been selling them a long time.
 
Last edited:

Deep state” holdovers from the Obama administration allegedly spearheaded the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as part of a broader scheme to undermine the Trump presidency.

And this is false, why? Had Clinton won in '16 do you think the FBI would have been asking her advisers questions about conversations they had with foreign diplomats? If Clinton's "Flynn" talked with Kislyak, would Obama's FBI gone after them... and her?

His point, like mine, is that reporting on deliberately misleading stories in ostensibly objective ways serves only to reward the bad-faith actors spreading the nonsense in the first place.

Sounds like 3 years of Russia Gate... And I do believe Vox played a role in promoting that lie.

The role of “gatekeeping” institutions has also changed significantly. Before the internet and social media, most people got their news from a handful of newspapers and TV networks. These institutions functioned like referees, calling out lies, fact-checking claims, and so on. And they had the ability to control the flow of information and set the terms of the conversation.

And this is why the MSM is upset, they have less control over the flow of information.
 
And this is false, why? Had Clinton won in '16 do you think the FBI would have been asking her advisers questions about conversations they had with foreign diplomats? If Clinton's "Flynn" talked with Kislyak, would Obama's FBI gone after them... and her?



Sounds like 3 years of Russia Gate... And I do believe Vox played a role in promoting that lie.



And this is why the MSM is upset, they have less control over the flow of information.

As Vox says, "There’s no point in unpacking this theory here because it’s [bullcrap] and everyone knows it."
 
Yeah, I noticed they didn't offer a rebuttal... But do you think Obama's FBI would have gone after Clinton's national security adviser for talking to Kislyak? I mean, its pretty damn obvious they went after Flynn for partisan reasons.
 
It was illegal weapons smuggling and your article says the UAE supplied the weapons in Libya.
Those weapons were sold to UAE in 2008
France also had Javelins in Libya, we've been selling them a long time.

Trump supports, Libya faction in the civil war, and US made weapons turn up
Obama supports, Syrian faction in the civil war, and US made weapons turn up

You are the dot connector, connecting every dot when it comes to Obama or Clinton but you never connect the dots when it comes to Trump. Just judge them with the same rules that you have set out.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I noticed they didn't offer a rebuttal... But do you think Obama's FBI would have gone after Clinton's national security adviser for talking to Kislyak? I mean, its pretty damn obvious they went after Flynn for partisan reasons.

The point is sophistication. Hillary Clinton‘s people would have known how to phrase their answer to the Russian ambassador in a way that is non-commital. They of course wouldn‘t have aimed for a policy correction and so not have had the need to commit to anything, but that is not the point. A say policy advisor for Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have known these techniques as well. Trump choosing to employ unexperienced operatives is what lead to all these scandals: They break a lot of stuff because they don‘t know the rules of the game. Which is what Trump wants of course, but implies that some eggs are broken when making the omelette (= he sacrifices people like Flynn for his goals).

Also, I still don‘t know what Obamagate or Russiagate is supposed to be and I read this thread fully.
 
Last edited:
He's not off yet. The judge has appointed a fellow retired judge to argue the government's case that it is refusing to make because of how transparently corrupt the DoJ is acting.
 
The "But, what if Clinton had been elected..." argument/dialogue is stupidity at its finest. She wasn't and no one knows. Deal with reality.
 
You can click on a link they offer to a comprehensive rebuttal.

Would that be this:

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/15/21257299/obamagate-trump-flynn-unmasking-conspiracy

I dont see a rebuttal there either, just a recap. Will you post it?

Trump supports, Libya faction in the civil war, and US made weapons turn up. Obama supports, Syrian faction in the civil war, and US made weapons turn up.

You are the dot connector, connecting every dot when it comes to Obama or Clinton but you never connect the dots when it comes to Trump. Just judge them with the same rules that you have set out.

The weapons were sold to UAE long ago, even before Obama. So where is your proof Trump sold Javelins to a Libyan faction? Obama started or promoted both civil wars in Libya and Syria, then he sent weapons from the former to fuel the war in the latter. I dont see Trump taking sides in Libya, the neighbors are feeding that war and many of them are allies who've been buying our weapons for decades. You might as well accuse Trump of running Fast & Furious.

The point is sophistication. Hillary Clinton‘s people would have known how to phrase their answer to the Russian ambassador in a way that is non-commital. They of course wouldn‘t have aimed for a policy correction and so not have had the need to commit to anything, but that is not the point. A say policy advisor for Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would have known these techniques as well. Trump choosing to employ unexperienced operatives is what lead to all these scandals: They break a lot of stuff because they don‘t know the rules of the game. Which is what Trump wants of course, but implies that some eggs are broken when making the omelette (= he sacrifices people like Flynn for his goals).

Also, I still don‘t know what Obamagate or Russiagate is supposed to be and I read this thread fully.

I gave a description of Russia Gate to Hygro on the 1st page, Obama Gate is a spin off relating specifically to Flynn and if Obama and Biden knew the FBI was going after him. They did... So did Obama approve the plan?

The short version of Russia Gate: The Clinton campaign bought Russian disinformation about Trump, sent it to Obama's FBI who used it to lie to a Fisa court to spy on Trump. The spying continued after Trump was in office in an effort to bring him down. The Democrats got caught rigging their election and blamed the Russians for stealing the proof and the media ran with the Trump colluding with Putin narrative. Now it turns out the owner of Crowdstrike said they had no evidence Russia stole the emails and made that admission back in 2017. Democrats like Adam Schiff spent the 3+ years lying about it.

The "But, what if Clinton had been elected..." argument/dialogue is stupidity at its finest. She wasn't and no one knows. Deal with reality.

Do you believe Obama's FBI would have taken Trump's opposition research and lie to a Fisa court to spy on the Clinton campaign and presidency? Do you think Obama's FBI would have cared if her adviser was talking about sanctions with the Russian ambassador? The reality is we know what happened - The Obama administration used Clinton's opposition research, a bunch of lies, to spy on Trump. Asking if that would have happened if the shoe was on the other foot is not stupid, just inconvenient for Democrats who dont care the DoJ became a political weapon for their side.
 
Obamagate the greatest crime
what crime did Obama comitt ?
You know what crime he did
????

 
Politico said:
Why must we fetch every bone that Trump hurls into the high, prickly brush? Well, he’s the president, and he wouldn’t make such an extreme charge if it weren’t true, would he? But he does, and he does all the time. This tidy list from Business Insider demonstrates his historic capacity for making baseless but grotesque claims of criminality and deception: implicating Ted Cruz’s father in the Kennedy assassination; claiming that Obama wasn’t born in the United States; surmising that Justice Antonin Scalia did not die of natural causes; accusing Joe Scarborough of complicity in the death of an intern; asserting massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election; saying windmills cause cancer; connecting the Clintons to Jeffrey Epstein’s death; and the Bidens-in-Ukraine baloney.

Now it could be that Obama did commit the biggest political crime in the history of the USA. If there’s a shred of evidence, I want Obama investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, I want him to have a fair trial. If he’s found guilty, I want him punished. But show me that shred of evidence first or I’m going back to bed.

At the three-and-a-half-year mark of his presidency, we have ample proof that Trump’s barking about the criminality of others—almost always his opponents—is routinely groundless. As many have written, he is a terrible source of investigative leads and he routinely spins nonsense to reset the conversation in hopes that it will deflect the press from his political problems. And he’s doing it again. As a serial and unreliable accuser, Trump is like that cocoa puff who loves to phone reporters with evidence of massive wrong-doing but when interviewed only has a shopping bag full of unrelated, yellowing news clips. The biggest difference between the cocoa puffs and the orange one, of course, is that the cocoa puffs only want to be heard while the orange one hopes his hogwash will get enough play to influence voters in November.
...
Of Trump’s favorite baseless accusations, his favorite must be the charge of treason. He’s uncorked it dozens of times, most recently against Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Seeing as treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution, you’d think that if he had a case against Schiff, Trump would have—for the protection of the United States—pressed for serious investigations and arrests in the past three years. Instead, Trump has dropped all of his treason allegations like a toy that no longer interests him. If the past is any guide, Trump will push “Obamagate” with the same bombast and flummery to keep the press chasing their own tails, leaving less time to report more fruitful stories.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/15/how-not-to-listen-to-donald-trump-260938
 
I guess Trump will be looking to get rid of Barr now.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/william-barr-obama-biden-investigation-durham/index.html
Barr doesn't expect review of Russia probe will 'lead to a criminal investigation' of Obama and Biden
Doubt it honestly. Barr is really good at taking heat off Trump by saying stuff like this even as he continues to do his bidding. He 'pushed back' at Trump after Trump chided him for not doing more to free his cronies like Flynn, Manafort and Stone, and then continued quietly working to do exactly that.
 
Doubt it honestly. Barr is really good at taking heat off Trump by saying stuff like this even as he continues to do his bidding. He 'pushed back' at Trump after Trump chided him for not doing more to free his cronies like Flynn, Manafort and Stone, and then continued quietly working to do exactly that.

This is a legit point. He is much better at dealing with all the nonsense swirling around Trump then most of the others and that is most disconcerting.
 
Top Bottom