Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Obamagate' backfires: Documents show Biden, Obama acted properly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'Obamagate' backfires: Documents show Biden, Obama acted properly

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BB14jJLS.img?h=318&w=540&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=135&y=124.jpg
Views:	87
Size:	13.4 KB
ID:	2631857

    Republicans and right-wing media are in a conspiracy theory-spewing meltdown. In the wake of selective, politically motivated "leaks" of sensitive documents, conservative pundits are launching an avalanche of baseless attacks against President Trump's political opponents.

    But the reality is brutally obvious: Trump is weaponizing the American government to distract from his catastrophically incompetent pandemic response and the crushing economic fallout.

    While right-wing media continue to whip their audiences into hysteria over a nefarious Obama-led plot to undermine Trump, the documents - strategically released by Trump's political lackeys atop the intelligence and law enforcement communities - do absolutely nothing to further such asinine conspiracy theories. In fact, they prove the opposite.

    The recently disclosed files show the Obama administration's diligence and focus in the wake of Russia's sweeping assault on American democracy. Moreover, contrary to unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering, the materials demonstrate Obama's dedication to upholding the FBI's independence from improper political influence.

    In short, Trump's election-year ploy to distract the American public with selective leaks of sensitive information backfired. Spectacularly so.

    Well-documented exceptions aside, the files also show that the Comey-led FBI deftly steered a sensitive counterintelligence investigation amid nightmarish political circumstances.

    The FBI - rightly - opened counterintelligence investigations into several Trump campaign officials following a litany of Trump World contacts with shady Russian intelligence cutouts; these meetings coincided, naturally, with Moscow's brazen campaign to swing the 2016 election in Trump's favor.

    The president's baseless conspiracy theory du jour holds that members of the Obama administration improperly interfered with the FBI's investigation into Michael Flynn, the first person President Trump fired (for lying to Vice President Pence and the FBI). Conservative pundits also peddle thoroughly unsupported claims that Obama appointees, as part of a vast anti-Trump plot, leaked sensitive information about Flynn's case to the media.

    But the evidence is abundantly clear: Obama - unlike Trump - was adamant about staying out of the FBI's investigation into Flynn.

    Trump's future acting attorney general remembered then-President Obama saying that he "did not want any additional information" on Flynn's case. Even more to the point, Obama's national security adviser noted that Obama was "not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective" regarding the Flynn probe. Instead, Obama told the FBI to proceed "by the book."

    Obama, in essence, kept a wall of separation between the FBI and the presidency - as there should be. And just like that, unhinged conspiracy theories of a nefarious Obama-led, anti-Trump plot melt away.

    Obama's dedication to preserving the bureau's independence from political influence also begs comparisons to Trump's shamefully improper demand for "loyalty" from an FBI director. Ditto for the president's indefensible attempts to obstruct the Flynn investigation.

    Moreover, assertions that Obama and Biden "both actively followed the [Flynn] investigation" - published in these pages - fly in the face of the facts. Reviewing intelligence reports on improper interference in U.S. foreign policy is wholly separate from "actively following" a sensitive, compartmentalized FBI counterintelligence investigation. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama appointees engaged in the latter. Full stop.

    Conspiracy theory-spouting pundits also assert - again, without an iota of evidence - that Obama's team leaked sensitive information about Flynn to the media as part of a broader plot to damage Trump.

    Some context is in order. In late 2016, then-President Obama slapped aggressive sanctions on Moscow in retaliation for Russia's sweeping assault on American democracy. Flynn, coordinating with "senior members" of the Trump team, then colluded - in the truest sense of the term - with a high-level Russian government official to undermine U.S. pressure on the Kremlin.

    Putin's uncharacteristically tepid reaction to Obama's sanctions - including the expulsion of 35 Russian spies living in the United States - left America's foreign policy, intelligence and law enforcement agencies stunned. After sifting through reams of intelligence, the FBI finally made sense of the normally combative Russian leader's tame response. Thanks to routine, legal surveillance of foreign government officials, the bureau found that Flynn asked Putin, through a Russian ambassador, not to respond to Obama's sanctions.

    In other words, Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin (via Flynn) only months after Russia's brazen attack on the 2016 election.

    Two weeks later, the rough outlines of Flynn's (technically illegal) discussions with the Russian ambassador appeared in The Washington Post. Conspiracy-mongering right-wing pundits have seized upon a recently released list of U.S. officials as proof that Obama appointees leaked details of Flynn's collusion with the Russian government to the Post.

    The list shows which high-level policymakers requested to "unmask," or reveal, Flynn's identity in conjunction with intelligence reporting. "Unmasking," in short, is a commonly used tool that helps senior U.S. officials put sensitive intelligence products into context. To guard against improper snooping, all requests to reveal the names of U.S. citizens incidentally caught in such reports must be sufficiently justified and approved - as they were during the Obama administration.

    We now know that six U.S. government officials requested to unmask Flynn after Dec. 29, 2016, (the date of Flynn's collusive calls with a high-level Russian official) and before Jan. 12, 2017, (the date of the first Washington Post column referring to those calls). But this list of six names does absolutely nothing to further baseless charges by right-wing conspiracy-mongers that Obama appointees leaked details of Flynn's collusive calls to the Post.

    Three of the six individuals who unmasked Flynn during this two-week window are career intelligence officials. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper knew of Flynn's calls before his Jan. 7 unmasking request. Then-White House chief of staff Dennis McDonough requested an unmasking on Jan. 5 to put a critical Oval Office briefing that same day into context. And former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power submitted an unmasking request on Jan. 11. But Washington Post reporters knew about Flynn's calls several days before the first column referring to them ran (on Jan. 12). In other words, the unmasking list is utterly worthless to anyone inclined to hold it up as evidence of a fantastical Obama-led plot to undermine Trump by leaking to the media.

    Conspiracy theories aside, senior Obama officials like former Vice President Joe Biden had a pressing national security interest in understanding how and why an unnamed U.S. citizen (ultimately revealed to be Flynn) undercut U.S. pressure on the Kremlin after the 2016 election. We can only hope that Trump would be so diligent under similar circumstances.

    Contrary to the president's conspiracy-mongering, the Obama administration operated exactly how Americans would have hoped in the wake of an astoundingly brazen - and disastrously successful - psychological operation to subvert American democracy.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...VkSD5CdAhz820E



  • #2
    Fake news!





    (see how easy that was?)

    Comment


    • #3
      Damn on to the next plan. Haha.

      Obama took a dump and didn’t use a wipe! Trump wants an investigation. It’s just gets to him that Obama made it on his own without a rich daddy to back him up. And ppl actually like Obama.

      Comment


      • #4

        Comment


        • #5

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TonyR View Post
            Lock Him Up: An Army of Prosecutors Is Taking On Michael Flynn, Barr, and Trump


            Click image for larger version  Name:	1589840870101-michael-flynn.jpeg?crop=1xw:0.8444096950742768xh;center,center&resize=1400:*.jpg Views:	0 Size:	252.6 KB ID:	2632702

            A group of former prosecutors are slamming the motion to dismiss the case against President Trump's former national security adviser as partisan politics.

            WASHINGTON — Michael Flynn isn’t going free without a fight.

            The Justice Department’s attempt to drop the criminal case against Flynn has sparked so much outrage among former department officials and ex-prosecutors that a small army of DOJ alumni has hatched a plan to challenge the move in court.

            A group representing almost a thousand former prosecutors and high-ranking officials has drafted a legal brief slamming the motion to dismiss the case against President Trump’s former national security adviser as sheer partisan politics, according to a copy obtained by VICE News on Monday.


            The brief accuses Attorney General Bill Barr of having “weaponized” the Department of Justice “to punish the President’s opponents and reward his friends” — and asks Judge Emmet Sullivan to carefully scrutinize the attempt to dismiss the case, and reject it if he finds the move wasn’t in the public interest.

            “There is nothing remarkable or unjust about the case against Flynn. He lied to FBI agents— and admitted to that lie under oath,” the brief asserts. “The government’s motion instead bears the hallmarks of a brazen attempt to protect an ally of the President.”

            https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/m...vUtVFXDRQoxQyA

            Comment


            • #7
              Would someone please post a Fox News article to whip this up into something that fits what I’m being led to believe, please?

              Comment


              • #8
                The only culprit in the Flynn ‘unmasking’ scandal is the Trump administration

                There was no wrongdoing on the part of Obama administration officials who, during the presidential transition in 2016 and 2017, “unmasked” the identity of Michael Flynn, who was set to become national security adviser. Indeed, the only wrongdoing is by the Trump administration, which, in releasing last week a list of officials who made the unmasking requests, has yet again politicized the intelligence community.

                The Trump administration released the list to promote its claim that officials in the outgoing administration attempted to discredit Flynn and others associated with the incoming administration. But this claim makes absolutely no sense.

                To understand why, we need some background on the unmasking procedure. In the course of doing its job to gather information critical to our national security, the intelligence community might discover that a foreign intelligence target has talked about or even to an American. The intelligence community is only interested in the foreign side of the information collected and, in reporting it, will only make reference to the American if it is important to understanding the intelligence. Even then, to protect the privacy of that American, they would refer to him or her simply as “a U.S. person.” This isn’t required by the Constitution, but it has been a long-established protection.

                Most recipients of the reports don’t care about the identities of U.S. persons. There are, however, cases in which, to do his or her duty, the official receiving the report does need to know the identity. For example, if a report says that foreign intelligence officers were considering recruiting a U.S. person, it would be irresponsible for the FBI not to ask for the identity of that American, if only to warn them about the recruiting attempt.

                That being the case, intelligence rules allow certain recipients of these reports to ask the intelligence community for the true name of a U.S. person. But the rules are clear that the intelligence community can unmask the name only if the requester needs to know it to do their job. If approved, the true name only goes to that requester.

                The process of unmasking has been routine under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Indeed, last year, there were about 7,700 requests made, with most — but not all — approved. I don’t know of a single case when this process has been abused. Only a specially trained group is authorized to do the unmaskings, and their work is closely monitored and audited.

                There are four things to note about the unmasking requests related to Flynn: First, there’s nothing suspicious about the fact that Flynn’s name appeared with some frequency in intelligence reports. As incoming national security adviser, he must have had multiple conversations a day with senior foreign officials. Perhaps some of those conversations were collected. But, even more likely, the foreign officials who had a conversation with Flynn, in turn, had conversations with others in their own governments about their discussion with Flynn, which were collected and reported, with Flynn identified only as a U.S. person. Doing this would be in accordance with procedure.

                Second, some have speculated that these unmasking requests must mean that the requesters were hunting for — and knew they were unmasking — Flynn. This is nonsense. The whole reason for making an unmasking request is to reveal a name that an official doesn’t know and needs to know to do their job. Indeed, there’s no way of even knowing whether the unmasking requests were “aimed” at the U.S. person who was Flynn, since many requests are to unmask all the names in a given report — and Flynn’s might have just turned up in the report along with others.

                Third, the idea that the requesters in the Obama administration were seeking to highlight ties between Flynn and Russia is belied by the breadth of the intelligence reports that were the subject of these unmaskings. The wide range of responsibilities of the mostly nonpolitical civil servants from various departments in the federal government who are on the released list shows that the reporting covered issues apparently ranging from Russia and Turkey to counterterrorism and the Middle East.

                Finally, the fact that a senior official’s name appeared on the list doesn’t necessarily mean that the official actually made the request. In many cases, unmasking requests are made by a senior official’s daily intelligence briefer so they could be prepared to answer any questions the official might raise. The intelligence community nonetheless records that as a request by the senior official.

                The simple fact is that the list of individuals making completely legitimate unmasking requests is not news. The only news here is the continuing politicization of the intelligence community. This public release of requesters’ names is unprecedented, and there was no particular reason for it to be done now, or ever. Seeking the list in the first place, declassifying it and providing it only to Republican members of Congress — who immediately handed it to the media — strongly suggests that the intent was to create a political spectacle. We cannot allow that to happen.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...XoOvLckFziKf5o

                Comment


                • #9
                  In LAPREDATORFANs and Obamas rear view.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MAGAMAN View Post
                    In LAPREDATORFANs and Obamas rear view.

                    😆😆😆

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MAGAtMAN


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 69bronco View Post

                        😆😆😆
                        Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

                        https://www.everydayhealth.com/emoti...able-emotions/






                        Comment


                        • #13
                          La predator fan👇
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 69bronco View Post

                            😆😆😆
                            toaster deaths, exactly .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ShaneSpicoli


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X