DNI's Gabbard identifies Obama IC crimes

18,849 Views | 413 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by movielover
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 6:19a, 8/11/25
It's correct there's no such thing as absolute presidential immunity. The test from SCOTUS ties immunity to the execution of official Presidential duties.

Obama's actions appear to be in the sphere of official duties - foreign affairs, guarding against election interference, etc. The question of whether or not Obama acted outside official duties would likely be a fact based assessment, meaning it would be determined by the lower courts not SCOTUS. Obama isn't going to be charged / convicted.
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 6:56a, 8/11/25
No one is. It is all an Epstein diversion/trolling combo (like the suggestion of taking over Canada and Greenland) and even if felonies were actually committed, the DOJ couldn't muster a single prosecutor competent enough to secure a conviction.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
5
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:59a, 8/11/25
Imagine anyone still listening to Rudy Giuliani.
Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 10:39a, 8/11/25
Trump may pardon Obama.

Trump shoots a 68 average? Even w 3 or 4 illegal nudges, that's still a solid game.

Idea: Trump - Obama televised golf match for charity.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:47a, 8/11/25
sycasey said:
Imagine anyone still listening to Rudy Giuliani.

Imagine Mamdani being the mayor of NYC during 9-11.
Reply Quote
3
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 10:50a, 8/11/25
bear2034 said:
sycasey said:
Imagine anyone still listening to Rudy Giuliani.

Imagine Mamdani being the mayor of NYC during 9-11.
Mamdani was 9 years old during 9-11, so it would be hard to imagine him as the NYC mayor back then.
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 11:36a, 8/11/25
bear2034 said:
sycasey said:
Imagine anyone still listening to Rudy Giuliani.

Imagine Mamdani being the mayor of NYC during 9-11.


Imagine trust fund Mamdani as the mental love child of Pocahontas, claiming he was African American for DEI spoils.
Reply Quote
3
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:33p, 8/11/25

Clip 'n save.
Reply Quote
3
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 3:20p, 8/11/25
dajo9 said:
I see from this thread the magats have successfully moved the discussion away from Epstein. What a bunch of lemmings.


Wow. This post got 8 stars. I wonder if those people realize my comment was directed at the anti-Trump people active on this thread.
Reply Quote
2
cal83dls79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 4:44p, 8/11/25
dajo9 said:
dajo9 said:
I see from this thread the magats have successfully moved the discussion away from Epstein. What a bunch of lemmings.


Wow. This post got 8 stars. I wonder if those people realize my comment was directed at the anti-Trump people active on this thread.
your phraseology was ambiguous as to who the lemmings were. Tighten it up.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 6:26p, 8/11/25
bearister said:
The lesson that is lost on the Trump Administration is that to successfully use Lawfare as a political tactic, the target has to actually have committed a felony, you know, like Trump, the J6 insurrectionists, and the seditionists that tried to overthrow the 2020 Election.

Charging, trying and convicting those parties was like shooting fish in a barrel because to a man, or woman, they were guilty as charged.

Lawfare doesn't work when your target is someone that was involved in the process of getting one of the above described MAGAs convicted of a felony, or is baselessly accused of a crime. In that situation, all that is occurring is that the Trump Administration is needlessly spending millions of dollars of tax payers' money, it makes the architects of the Lawfare look like birdbrains and it exposes how inept and wholly incompetent the federal prosecutors are that were hired solely because they swore fealty to Trump.


I can't believe a lawyer posted this ish. Part of lawfare - often the most severe consequence - is imposing financial costs and humiliation on the defendants even if they're innocent (or at most guilty of crimes that are not typically prosecuted). Michael Flynn is the best example - he was bankrupted and forced to plead to prevent the government from going after his family.

And for the record, it seems likely at least some crimes were committed, thought they may outside the the statute of limitations. Those are still crimes.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 6:34p, 8/11/25
tequila4kapp said:
It's correct there's no such thing as absolute presidential immunity. The test from SCOTUS ties immunity to the execution of official Presidential duties.

Obama's actions appear to be in the sphere of official duties - foreign affairs, guarding against election interference, etc. The question of whether or not Obama acted outside official duties would likely be a fact based assessment, meaning it would be determined by the lower courts not SCOTUS. Obama isn't going to be charged / convicted.

Immunity would not cover acts occurring after Obama was out of office. For example, acts in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy.

I hope they do not prosecute Obama - that would be toxic and terrible precedent. Ironically, it would be pretty funny for Trump to pardon Obama which would be humiliating to Obama (laugh out loud funny).

I want a complete explanation of what happened and accountability for anyone who did something wrong (e.g., lying to or misleading congress and/or hiding documents from Congress or others). Accountability may be limited to exposure of the wrong doing (as opposed to prosecutions).
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:31p, 8/11/25
If this proves to be true, things are about to get very serious for lots of people.

Reply Quote
2
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 7:51p, 8/11/25
How about 26 DOJ Mueller (Weismann) Federal attorneys wiping their Federal smartphones 'accidentally' (impossible), in near unison, at the conclusion of the witchhunt.

I never knew how expansive our CIA is, and our MIC desire for world hegemony.

Supposedly lead dummies Clapper and Brennan recently penned an op ed continuing the lies.

Does the Mar-a-Lago raid turn out to be a delicious gift?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:22p, 8/11/25
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 8:33p, 8/11/25
BearGoggles said:
If this proves to be true, things are about to get very serious for lots of people.



The Schiff has hit the fan. Former Democrat Intelligence Committee staffer turned whistleblower told the FBI that then Congressman Adam Schiff personally approved leaking classified information on Russia to smear President Trump.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 8:39p, 8/11/25
BearGoggles said:
If this proves to be true, things are about to get very serious for lots of people.



Adam Schiff believed he would have been CIA Director had Clinton won in 2016!
Reply Quote
3
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 11:34p, 8/11/25
bear2034 said:
BearGoggles said:
If this proves to be true, things are about to get very serious for lots of people.



Adam Schiff believed he would have been CIA Director had Clinton won in 2016!

If true - and for me that is still a big if - this is very bad. Both because of what Schiff allegedly did, but more because the seemingly FBI buried it.

As noted, I need to see more confirming the facts are as presented. Perhaps there is some innocent explanation ore reason that the whistleblower cannot be trusted. The whistleblower is reportedly a long term democrat, but does he have an axe to grind?
Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 12:38a, 8/12/25
When was this released, and by whom?
Reply Quote
1
cal83dls79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:48a, 8/12/25
The BI sleuths are hard at work.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
Reply Quote
4
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 3:59a, 8/12/25
Did the FBI investigate or punt because of the speech and debate clause?

Does that clause really protect leaking classified materials?

Do staffers get S and D protection too?

Did the FBI investigation- if there was one - include interviewing staffers? Did they corroborate or contradict these claims?

Was Schiff interviewed by the FBI?

If the decision was taken not to investigate, who made the decision?
Reply Quote
3
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:13a, 8/12/25
Schiff met Assange in a diner in Vienna. He was traveling under the name Alan Schiff
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 7:02a, 8/12/25
movielover said:
bear2034 said:
sycasey said:
Imagine anyone still listening to Rudy Giuliani.

Imagine Mamdani being the mayor of NYC during 9-11.


Imagine trust fund Mamdani as the mental love child of Pocahontas, claiming he was African American for DEI spoils.

Having trouble smearing Mamdani for something he actually did or said?
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:13a, 8/12/25
Lock him up.

Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 8/12/25


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:29p, 8/12/25
She's the best, sharp.

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 8/12/25
Shame him. Pull the perks.

Reply Quote
4
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:40p, 8/12/25
This was from a Democrat Whistleblower inside the system.

The DOJ chose not to pursue it, and then, conveniently, the SOL runs out.

More Whistleblower leaks forthcoming?

Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:10p, 8/12/25
Veteran DOJ attorney Bill Shipley aka @ShipwreckedCrew delves into a possible treasure chest here today.

"We haven't even started to learn all there is to know about Adam Schiff and the scope of the criminal conspiracy he was a part of with regard to undermining the 2016 candidacy of Pres. Trump, the first term in Office of President Trump, and the efforts to prevent him from running/winning a second term in 2024.

*** There will be a need shortly if not in already for daily "welfare checks" on Adam Schiff. *** …

"…what was released on Monday afternoon were four FBI Form 302s of interviews with a "Whistleblower" (WB)…

"So, among the initial questions that I'd be seeking answers to based on the release of these five documents would be:

"1. What was the factual predicate for opening this case?

"2. The first 302 is dated Aug. 2, 2017 how long before that interview was the case file opened? What, if anything, was done between the Opening EC and this interview?

"3. Is the same case file number on every document or is there more than one case file? If so, why?

"4. How many serialized documents are there in the case file(s)? What work was done between the Opening EC and the Closing EC?

"5. Are the other 302s that reflect interviews with anyone other than the original "whistleblower"?

"6. Was a Pros Memo ever prepared for transmittal to DOJ to seek prosecution of Schiff or anyone else?

"7. What is the date on the Closing EC? What justification was given for closing the file?…"

I don't subscribe to his full blog, but it sounds like there is another traunch of information to be discovered.
Reply Quote
3
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 4:36p, 8/12/25
movielover said:
When was this released, and by whom?



My guess is Kash Patel revealed it to a select group of people yesterday.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 7:24p, 8/12/25


Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:20p, 8/12/25


Newly declassified documents show that Former FBI Director, James Comey, ordered the FBI to "assist the New York Times" in the writing of one of their articles.
Reply Quote
3
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55p, 8/12/25


Eric Swallwell?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 10:15p, 8/12/25
Was FangFang copied in by CC or BC?

I believe John Solomon said his name was going to pop up soon.
Reply Quote
3
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 10:58p, 8/12/25
tequila4kapp said:
Did the FBI investigate or punt because of the speech and debate clause?

Does that clause really protect leaking classified materials?

Do staffers get S and D protection too?

Did the FBI investigation- if there was one - include interviewing staffers? Did they corroborate or contradict these claims?

Was Schiff interviewed by the FBI?

If the decision was taken not to investigate, who made the decision?

We don't know why the FBI punted - or for that matter if they did punt. TBD

The S&D clause does not extend to activities outside the legislative process/sphere (which is broadly defined). If the facts are as presented - again a big if - then I don't believe anonymously leaking top secret information (or for that matter false information) for the express purpose of harming your political opponent is part of the legislative process, broadly defined. Obviously a court has never been presented with this exact fact pattern.

Staffers have limited S&D protection . . . again tied to the legislative process. There is a case addressing this. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/

Obviously, I have on way to consider your final 3 excellent questions. Hopefully we will find out.

The S&D clause provides immunity from prosecution. It doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. I'll revert to my prior post. It may be that the only accountability here is a full investigation rather than prosecution. But there needs to be a full investigation and accountability.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.