Probably the smartest of the bunch, in that he keeps pretty much a low profile, these days. Probably wishes his spouse would zip it as well. He might simply like to enjoy the fruits of their nefarious deeds-I cannot say crimes, because I have no evidence of same, but I suspect there is evidence to be had-I just do not have it. I think it would behoove all of those players, if they were not such narcissists who cannot seem to help getting into the limelight whether because they are being investigated for some wrongdoing or another, to simply shut up, and fade into the twilight. They won't of course, because they see themselves as invincible and god like-they alone know what is best for the rest of us. Such stuff and nonsense! I will leave Obama and his minions and their legacy to history-I suspect it will not be kind-but I won't be around to see it-it makes me neither happy or sad to see his legacy blown sky high by the t***h-just that I know it will happen-history has a way of doing that, because it has no axe to grind.

Fire Builds Under Obama – Leads to Hard Questions
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2020 | By Robert B. Charles | 173 Comments
Share:
Three odd things happened last week. For those who believe in government accountability, they matter. They raise an important – disturbing – question. What was the Obama team up to?

First, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Richard Grenell, declassified names of 39 high-ranking Obama Administration officials who urgently sought between November 8, 2016 (two days after the e******n) and January 12, 2016 (eight days before inauguration) to “unmask” private calls between incoming Trump National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn and foreign leaders, including Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

You really should try to find a non fiction source of info if your going to repeat it.
everything above has zero legitimacy as anything close to fact...
example

raised national debt 74 percent, and presided over a near-stagnant economy for eight years.
President Bush handed off an economic disaster, with unemployement rising to 10% in first year of Obamas presidency, 74% is a gross exaguration, and when Obama left the White house unemployment was at 4.6%, of which what is it again today?
Unmasks are rare, what a joke quite common, and ironically, Flynn name wasn't masked in the first place so, this whole pile of s**t Trumps spewing is just another misdirection lie hes very familiar with telling, all that comes out of his mouth


If your gonna spew garbage at least hand out trash bags with it so we can clean up behind You

Unmasking requests are rare, as they involve invasion of an American’s 4th Amendment rights against “unreasonable search and seizure.” This list is odd. It involves a machine-gun style set of requests aimed at the incoming Administration, fits a story the Obama team kept pushing that would delegitimize the e******n, and includes eye-popping names.

To be specific, the list includes seven unmasking requests from UN Representative and former Obama White House official Samantha Power; three from Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (impugned for lying to Congress in March 2013, caught in unauthorized press disclosures); two by CIA Director and former Obama White House official John Brennan (who admits once v****g c*******t; see www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-c*******t-v**e/index.html); two by Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury and former White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew (who served President Clinton); one by Sarah Raskin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury – married to Trump critic Jamie Raskin (D-MD); one from FBI Director James Comey (enough said); one from Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough;; two from aides to Clapper, 29 from others, including five redacted names, and one – on January 12, 2017 – from Vice President Joe Biden.

Since unmasking is a non-political process, why did eight Obama White House members invade the privacy of incoming Trump officials? What was the motive? Did no warning signs go off in their heads – saying this is utterly wrong? Ask yourself: What was their aim?

Second odd event: Documents continue to vindicate General Flynn, indicating he was entrapped by Obama’s FBI appointees – beginning in November 2016. Handwritten notes confirm an effort by then-FBI Director Comey and Deputy Andrew McCabe “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” See www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-fbi-handwritten-notes-get-him-lie-fired. Ominously, the “302” recording a later interview with Flynn appears to be gone. See: www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stolen-or-destroyed-trump-seeks-missing-fbi-document-on-flynn-interview.

The obvious question: Why – in November 2016 – did high-ranking Obama appointees want to undermine Flynn? Why the scramble before January 20? The biggest bombshell of the past week is that President Obama knew his closest allies – including Vice President Biden – were going after Trump’s national security advisor – and there was no criminal basis. Obama knew that on January 5, 2017. That was 15 days before the inauguration.

According to documents filed by Justice seeking to dismiss the case, Obama knew intimate details of the Flynn intercepts, and knew there was no criminal basis. His knowledge surprised his Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. She was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded” when she later learned Flynn was being interviewed by FBI without DOJ authorization. See: www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-knew-details-of-wiretapped-flynn-phone-calls-surprising-top-doj-official-new-docs-show

All this raises profound issues. Why would an outgoing president be intimately familiar with wiretaps of his former rival’s team? Knowing no criminal basis, why not stop the process – before the January 20 inauguration?

Knowing his Vice President had sought unmasking of their rival’s team on January 12, that a Washington Post ran the next day, why not stop this narrative? Classified leaks are illegal. Was Obama part of the narrative, bystander or director? The nagging question – what was their objective?

Third odd event: As documents continue to be declassified and released, the fire under Obama Administration officials – and Obama himself – is getting hotter. One sign is that the former President spoke out last week – throwing a punch from the sidelines.

Old boxer Jack Dempsey quipped, “The best defense is a good offense.” In that context, Obama’s remarks may make sense. With nothing particular to say, he hears footsteps.

Said Obama, perhaps redirecting: “More than anything, this p******c has fully, finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they’re doing.”

That is rich from a president who capitulated to Putin on an open mike, gave hundreds of millions and nuclear deterrence to Iran, allowed China to dominate global trade and the South China Sea, raised national debt 74 percent, and presided over a near-stagnant economy for eight years. It is particularly rich from a president who knew about and did not stop abuse of our intelligence and law enforcement authorities in pursuit of his political opponents.

In a swipe at President Trump’s unwillingness to federalize c****av***s response, which would violate the 10th Amendment, Obama added: “A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” For good measure, he tagged Trump for “being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy.” Remarkable words from a president under fire for political abuse, who advised Democrats that if Republicans “bring a knife” they should “bring a gun.” See: www.snopes.com/fact-check/bringing-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/

Bottom line: Americans are s**k of political intrigue, abuse of power, and lack of accountability – including by senior Obama officials. A moment of t***h is approaching. These events suggest a closing circle. They also raise a seminal question: Why was the Obama White House so urgently seeking to delegitimize the 2016 e******n?

If not just after Flynn, whom they knew committed no crime; if not just opening the door to future investigations, after they were gone – what were they up to? Were they aiming, with judicial intervention based on these urgent wiretaps, to stop the inauguration?

That question is solemn, sobering, and arresting. But it deserves asking, as the theory of the case points to something bigger than Fynn – something urgently sought between November 8 and late January. If not that, what? Odd events happened last week. More may lie ahead.

Fire Builds Under Obama – Leads to Hard Questions
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2020 | By Robert B. Charles | 173 Comments
Share:
Three odd things happened last week. For those who believe in government accountability, they matter. They raise an important – disturbing – question. What was the Obama team up to?

First, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Richard Grenell, declassified names of 39 high-ranking Obama Administration officials who urgently sought between November 8, 2016 (two days after the e******n) and January 12, 2016 (eight days before inauguration) to “unmask” private calls between incoming Trump National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn and foreign leaders, including Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Unmasking requests are rare, as they involve invasion of an American’s 4th Amendment rights against “unreasonable search and seizure.” This list is odd. It involves a machine-gun style set of requests aimed at the incoming Administration, fits a story the Obama team kept pushing that would delegitimize the e******n, and includes eye-popping names.

To be specific, the list includes seven unmasking requests from UN Representative and former Obama White House official Samantha Power; three from Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (impugned for lying to Congress in March 2013, caught in unauthorized press disclosures); two by CIA Director and former Obama White House official John Brennan (who admits once v****g c*******t; see www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-c*******t-v**e/index.html); two by Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury and former White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew (who served President Clinton); one by Sarah Raskin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury – married to Trump critic Jamie Raskin (D-MD); one from FBI Director James Comey (enough said); one from Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough;; two from aides to Clapper, 29 from others, including five redacted names, and one – on January 12, 2017 – from Vice President Joe Biden.

Since unmasking is a non-political process, why did eight Obama White House members invade the privacy of incoming Trump officials? What was the motive? Did no warning signs go off in their heads – saying this is utterly wrong? Ask yourself: What was their aim?

Second odd event: Documents continue to vindicate General Flynn, indicating he was entrapped by Obama’s FBI appointees – beginning in November 2016. Handwritten notes confirm an effort by then-FBI Director Comey and Deputy Andrew McCabe “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” See www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-fbi-handwritten-notes-get-him-lie-fired. Ominously, the “302” recording a later interview with Flynn appears to be gone. See: www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stolen-or-destroyed-trump-seeks-missing-fbi-document-on-flynn-interview.

The obvious question: Why – in November 2016 – did high-ranking Obama appointees want to undermine Flynn? Why the scramble before January 20? The biggest bombshell of the past week is that President Obama knew his closest allies – including Vice President Biden – were going after Trump’s national security advisor – and there was no criminal basis. Obama knew that on January 5, 2017. That was 15 days before the inauguration.

According to documents filed by Justice seeking to dismiss the case, Obama knew intimate details of the Flynn intercepts, and knew there was no criminal basis. His knowledge surprised his Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. She was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded” when she later learned Flynn was being interviewed by FBI without DOJ authorization. See: www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-knew-details-of-wiretapped-flynn-phone-calls-surprising-top-doj-official-new-docs-show

All this raises profound issues. Why would an outgoing president be intimately familiar with wiretaps of his former rival’s team? Knowing no criminal basis, why not stop the process – before the January 20 inauguration?

Knowing his Vice President had sought unmasking of their rival’s team on January 12, that a Washington Post ran the next day, why not stop this narrative? Classified leaks are illegal. Was Obama part of the narrative, bystander or director? The nagging question – what was their objective?

Third odd event: As documents continue to be declassified and released, the fire under Obama Administration officials – and Obama himself – is getting hotter. One sign is that the former President spoke out last week – throwing a punch from the sidelines.

Old boxer Jack Dempsey quipped, “The best defense is a good offense.” In that context, Obama’s remarks may make sense. With nothing particular to say, he hears footsteps.

Said Obama, perhaps redirecting: “More than anything, this p******c has fully, finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they’re doing.”

That is rich from a president who capitulated to Putin on an open mike, gave hundreds of millions and nuclear deterrence to Iran, allowed China to dominate global trade and the South China Sea, raised national debt 74 percent, and presided over a near-stagnant economy for eight years. It is particularly rich from a president who knew about and did not stop abuse of our intelligence and law enforcement authorities in pursuit of his political opponents.

In a swipe at President Trump’s unwillingness to federalize c****av***s response, which would violate the 10th Amendment, Obama added: “A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” For good measure, he tagged Trump for “being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy.” Remarkable words from a president under fire for political abuse, who advised Democrats that if Republicans “bring a knife” they should “bring a gun.” See: www.snopes.com/fact-check/bringing-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/

Bottom line: Americans are s**k of political intrigue, abuse of power, and lack of accountability – including by senior Obama officials. A moment of t***h is approaching. These events suggest a closing circle. They also raise a seminal question: Why was the Obama White House so urgently seeking to delegitimize the 2016 e******n?

If not just after Flynn, whom they knew committed no crime; if not just opening the door to future investigations, after they were gone – what were they up to? Were they aiming, with judicial intervention based on these urgent wiretaps, to stop the inauguration?

That question is solemn, sobering, and arresting. But it deserves asking, as the theory of the case points to something bigger than Fynn – something urgently sought between November 8 and late January. If not that, what? Odd events happened last week. More may lie ahead.

Fire Builds Under Obama – Leads to Hard Questions
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2020 | By Robert B. Charles | 173 Comments
Share:
Three odd things happened last week. For those who believe in government accountability, they matter. They raise an important – disturbing – question. What was the Obama team up to?

First, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Richard Grenell, declassified names of 39 high-ranking Obama Administration officials who urgently sought between November 8, 2016 (two days after the e******n) and January 12, 2016 (eight days before inauguration) to “unmask” private calls between incoming Trump National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn and foreign leaders, including Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Unmasking requests are rare, as they involve invasion of an American’s 4th Amendment rights against “unreasonable search and seizure.” This list is odd. It involves a machine-gun style set of requests aimed at the incoming Administration, fits a story the Obama team kept pushing that would delegitimize the e******n, and includes eye-popping names.

To be specific, the list includes seven unmasking requests from UN Representative and former Obama White House official Samantha Power; three from Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (impugned for lying to Congress in March 2013, caught in unauthorized press disclosures); two by CIA Director and former Obama White House official John Brennan (who admits once v****g c*******t; see www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-c*******t-v**e/index.html); two by Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury and former White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew (who served President Clinton); one by Sarah Raskin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury – married to Trump critic Jamie Raskin (D-MD); one from FBI Director James Comey (enough said); one from Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough;; two from aides to Clapper, 29 from others, including five redacted names, and one – on January 12, 2017 – from Vice President Joe Biden.

Since unmasking is a non-political process, why did eight Obama White House members invade the privacy of incoming Trump officials? What was the motive? Did no warning signs go off in their heads – saying this is utterly wrong? Ask yourself: What was their aim?

Second odd event: Documents continue to vindicate General Flynn, indicating he was entrapped by Obama’s FBI appointees – beginning in November 2016. Handwritten notes confirm an effort by then-FBI Director Comey and Deputy Andrew McCabe “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” See www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-fbi-handwritten-notes-get-him-lie-fired. Ominously, the “302” recording a later interview with Flynn appears to be gone. See: www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stolen-or-destroyed-trump-seeks-missing-fbi-document-on-flynn-interview.

The obvious question: Why – in November 2016 – did high-ranking Obama appointees want to undermine Flynn? Why the scramble before January 20? The biggest bombshell of the past week is that President Obama knew his closest allies – including Vice President Biden – were going after Trump’s national security advisor – and there was no criminal basis. Obama knew that on January 5, 2017. That was 15 days before the inauguration.

According to documents filed by Justice seeking to dismiss the case, Obama knew intimate details of the Flynn intercepts, and knew there was no criminal basis. His knowledge surprised his Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. She was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded” when she later learned Flynn was being interviewed by FBI without DOJ authorization. See: www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-knew-details-of-wiretapped-flynn-phone-calls-surprising-top-doj-official-new-docs-show

All this raises profound issues. Why would an outgoing president be intimately familiar with wiretaps of his former rival’s team? Knowing no criminal basis, why not stop the process – before the January 20 inauguration?

Knowing his Vice President had sought unmasking of their rival’s team on January 12, that a Washington Post ran the next day, why not stop this narrative? Classified leaks are illegal. Was Obama part of the narrative, bystander or director? The nagging question – what was their objective?

Third odd event: As documents continue to be declassified and released, the fire under Obama Administration officials – and Obama himself – is getting hotter. One sign is that the former President spoke out last week – throwing a punch from the sidelines.

Old boxer Jack Dempsey quipped, “The best defense is a good offense.” In that context, Obama’s remarks may make sense. With nothing particular to say, he hears footsteps.

Said Obama, perhaps redirecting: “More than anything, this p******c has fully, finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they’re doing.”

That is rich from a president who capitulated to Putin on an open mike, gave hundreds of millions and nuclear deterrence to Iran, allowed China to dominate global trade and the South China Sea, raised national debt 74 percent, and presided over a near-stagnant economy for eight years. It is particularly rich from a president who knew about and did not stop abuse of our intelligence and law enforcement authorities in pursuit of his political opponents.

In a swipe at President Trump’s unwillingness to federalize c****av***s response, which would violate the 10th Amendment, Obama added: “A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.” For good measure, he tagged Trump for “being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy.” Remarkable words from a president under fire for political abuse, who advised Democrats that if Republicans “bring a knife” they should “bring a gun.” See: www.snopes.com/fact-check/bringing-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/

Bottom line: Americans are s**k of political intrigue, abuse of power, and lack of accountability – including by senior Obama officials. A moment of t***h is approaching. These events suggest a closing circle. They also raise a seminal question: Why was the Obama White House so urgently seeking to delegitimize the 2016 e******n?

If not just after Flynn, whom they knew committed no crime; if not just opening the door to future investigations, after they were gone – what were they up to? Were they aiming, with judicial intervention based on these urgent wiretaps, to stop the inauguration?

That question is solemn, sobering, and arresting. But it deserves asking, as the theory of the case points to something bigger than Fynn – something urgently sought between November 8 and late January. If not that, what? Odd events happened last week. More may lie ahead.