Obama Should Face Arrest

Ohhhh!! But the Russians knew Hillary was sick!! That’s proof!!! They didn’t release that!!

Only..,, it DID get out!!!!

We trust Russian SHIT now???

But Comey DID release his pile of shit on Hillary within the normal QUIET period before elections.
 
You’re a fucking Maga moron and are one of the reasons most of the world thinks so poorly of America. . No doubt you also think Trump is brilliant and not a wannabe Hitler…..

Meanwhile back in reality; all of the Democrat nonsense about Trump/Russia collusion is sinking faster than the Titanic.
 
You're free to feel that way. If the allegations against him are true (if) then I might even agree with you. That doesn't mean I won't engage in schadenfreude over the fact that your much lauded Trump immunity decision means there will never be a prosecution. It is honestly hilarious.
Even if Barack Obama is never prosecuted, exposing the lies and abuses of the Obama-era intelligence community carries enormous political value. It shatters the false moral authority that has insulated corrupt actors for years, vindicates the victims of weaponized government, including Donald Trump, and educates the American people about how their own institutions were turned against them. Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations aren't just about past crimes; they're a warning about future ones. Accountability isn't always found in a courtroom verdict; sometimes it's clarity, public outrage, and the end of a manufactured legacy that brought great harm to the nation and the American people.
 
Even if Barack Obama is never prosecuted, exposing the lies and abuses of the Obama-era intelligence community carries enormous political value. It shatters the false moral authority that has insulated corrupt actors for years, vindicates the victims of weaponized government, including Donald Trump, and educates the American people about how their own institutions were turned against them. Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations aren't just about past crimes; they're a warning about future ones. Accountability isn't always found in a courtroom verdict; sometimes it's clarity, public outrage, and the end of a manufactured legacy that brought great harm to the nation and the American people.
This is a very interesting breakdown, explains how the use of the steele dossier was reincorporated into the Russia hoax. The beginning portion of the podcast with Matt I believe is only podcast 15/ 20 minutes long.

And yes!!! there is more to come!!!

 
You’re a fucking Maga moron and are one of the reasons most of the world thinks so poorly of America. . No doubt you also think Trump is brilliant and not a wannabe Hitler…..
Who is sitting in the White House, and who is relegated to the political wilderness? That last sentence isn’t just the measure of your room-temperature IQ, it’s an autopsy report on your critical thinking skills.
 
you got the pronunciation correct and I am of Irish descent on one side. The rest is as accurate as your understanding of immunity, which is to say not at all. lol.
So, you think Presidential immunity for "official acts" extends to criminal behavior such as sedition and treasonous acts?
 
So, you think Presidential immunity for "official acts" extends to criminal behavior such as sedition and treasonous acts?
what is it you think immunity is for? I get that you don't get it, the question is whether you get that you don't get it. What was dismissed under a theory of immunity was a criminal prosecution. What is so hard to understand about that? If Trump is immune from criminal prosecution is every president's immunity from criminal prosecution?

If there's no allegation of criminal behavior, the immunity in Trump v. US is not implicated.
 
what is it you think immunity is for? I get that you don't get it, the question is whether you get that you don't get it. What was dismissed under a theory of immunity was a criminal prosecution. What is so hard to understand about that? If Trump is immune from criminal prosecution is every president's immunity from criminal prosecution?

If there's no allegation of criminal behavior, the immunity in Trump v. US is not implicated.
No, you don't get it. Criminal referrals have already been made to the DOJ based on the declassified intel documents the Director of National Intelligence just released, Director Gabbard made a criminal referral, as did the Director of the CIA.
 
No, you don't get it. Criminal referrals have already been made to the DOJ based on the declassified intel documents the Director of National Intelligence just released, Director Gabbard made a criminal referral, as did the Director of the CIA.
So fucking what?

Does Trump v US stand for the proposition that immunity is abrogated "if criminal referrals have been made"? What page is that on? I'll give you a hint it's not fucking in there because that would defeat the holding of Trump v. US.
 
What Obama did was the most egregious criminal act against the U.S. Constitution, American law, and the people of the United States in the history of the nation. Nothing compares.
Lol. I can almost hear you ranting that on the psych ward before the nurses come to add more sedative to your IV.

You know there's a reason everyone has abandoned you in real life.
 
No, you don't get it. Criminal referrals have already been made to the DOJ based on the declassified intel documents the Director of National Intelligence just released, Director Gabbard made a criminal referral, as did the Director of the CIA.
Obama won't be arrested
 
Let's see:

SiobhanCan99" (pronounced Shi-vawn?) Irish by blood chaos by choice, she can talk for three hours straight about crystals, Instagram filters, and how her toxic traits are actually just 'boundaries.' Probably spells 'energy' with an "i", and thinks accountability is a zodiac sign. Born in '99, but emotionally stuck in a 2013 Tumblr post about self-care and Lana Del Rey lyrics. Siobhan can… overshare, overpost, and overestimate her influence, all before brunch. Am I close?:D
Obama has no reason to be arrested
 
...and what Trump did on Jan 6 was not??

To arrest Obama, he would have needed to commit an actual crime. Since Trump got away with far, far worse (and the events of that day are only one of many, many offenses he's been let off the hook for) it seems logical that if the Justice Department was to actually arrest Obama, then by the same token, they would have to subject Trump to a firing squad.

Surely even YOU are intelligent enough to realize this??? You are, after all, the one who complains about "Lawfare" against Trump (when Trump committed actual crimes) and yet here you are actively endorsing the same thing for Obama? If a six year old child can see this hypocrisy, then I KNOW you can.
Do you hate Obama because he destroyed all of the stereotypes of black men that you were sure he would display as president, or because trump does?
 
No, you don't get it. Criminal referrals have already been made to the DOJ based on the declassified intel documents the Director of National Intelligence just released, Director Gabbard made a criminal referral, as did the Director of the CIA.
Off topic, Florida Judge denies DOJ's request to unseal Grand Jury testimony in the Epstein case.
 
Off topic, Florida Judge denies DOJ's request to unseal Grand Jury testimony in the Epstein case.
Well, it was always up to a judge to decide. Under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, grand jury proceedings are required to be kept secret. This includes testimony, exhibits, and transcripts. Release does require a court order. I didn't have much hope invested in this one.
 
Lol. I can almost hear you ranting that on the psych ward before the nurses come to add more sedative to your IV.

You know there's a reason everyone has abandoned you in real life.
I never rant. I just calmly state the facts of the matter. Ranting is rage, that's what you entitled children do.
 
If they're innocent of the charges then they should file such a lawsuit. Immediately.

The absence of such a lawsuit will indicate that the accused are afraid of inviting discovery.

Keep in mind that as criminal defendants they are shielded from most discovery by the 5th Amendment. As plaintiffs they have no such protection and as we know any evidence brought to court in a civil proceeding can then be used ag ainst them in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
Not quite sound logic, mister. Matters concerning the current president show there’s room for debate on that notion.

If being "innocent" were the only condition for filing a lawsuit, Trump would’ve sued half the country by now. He has a long record of using lawsuits as both sword and shield—sometimes for valid reasons, more often just to stir the pot or shift a headline. So the absence of a civil suit doesn’t necessarily signal fear of discovery. It might just mean the headlines are already doing the job.

Obama, on the other hand, is generally viewed as a statesman, and his temperament doesn’t lean toward Trump-style theatrics in court. Different playbook entirely.

Take Trump v. The New York Times—he sued over an opinion piece about Russia, and it got tossed. The judge ruled it was protected speech. Discovery could’ve exposed more than it helped, but he filed anyway. So let’s not pretend lawsuits only happen when the facts are rock solid.

Also worth noting: Trump invoked the Fifth more than 500 times during a deposition in the New York civil fraud case. That’s his right, sure—but it hardly screams transparency. He goes on offense when it benefits him and clams up when it doesn’t.

From Trump University to the E. Jean Carroll cases, his legal history is a mix of aggressive posturing and courtroom retreat. The idea that he or his allies are now clutching pearls over MAGA’s Epstein outrage—blaming it on some Democrat plot—is laughable. The fear is showing. Speaker Johnson’s early summer shutdown came just as seventeen House Republicans signed onto a demand for full disclosure of the Epstein file.

Time for a reality check. This latest blast at Obama looks like a classic Trump misdirection. With Epstein documents looming and the base getting restless, the timing’s not just convenient—it’s calculated.
 
So, you think Presidential immunity for "official acts" extends to criminal behavior such as sedition and treasonous acts?
I do not think this, but you have made it clear exactly what you think.

If you believe that Trump should remain free, along with those who participated in a violent insurrection of the capital, then you do, in fact, believe in Presidential immunity for criminal behavior such as sedition and treasonoous acts.

In fact you have made several statements stating that this is EXACTLY what you think.

So you have no leg to stand on there, Petukh.
 
Back
Top