Wrong again, fucktard. Just responding to the OP
Obama administration sought to "destroy Donald Trump" prior to the 2016 election.
- Thread starter hvilleherb
- Start date
Wrong again, fucktard. Just responding to the OP
Think so? How, exactly, Andrew?
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
Judge Pirro said they tried to destroy Trump before the election. Why, when according to you they never thought he would win and the FBI investigation was just an insurance policy?
Can you see how contrived the story is? That's a sure sign it's being made up as you go along.
I didn't say they "never thought he would win" and the "FBI investigation was just an insurance policy". Obama and Peter Strzok said it.
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
This is the likeliest explanation of what happened. By summer 2016 the FBI had solid, legitimate reasons to open an investigation. They kept it secret because they had no wish to affect the election, and they certainly didn't "seek to destroy Trump prior to the election" as Judge Pirro claimed.
If Trump or some of his associates were bad apples, the FBI would do its best to find out, even if - especially if - Trump won. That's almost certainly what Strzok meant by an insurance policy.
Now it's down to Mueller, and all the nonsense we are hearing is an attempt to undermine him. But Trump and his helpers are amateurs at this; Mueller is not.
If Trump or some of his associates were bad apples, the FBI would do its best to find out, even if - especially if - Trump won. That's almost certainly what Strzok meant by an insurance policy.
Now it's down to Mueller, and all the nonsense we are hearing is an attempt to undermine him. But Trump and his helpers are amateurs at this; Mueller is not.
Impressive guesswork. You believe that?
Remember Watergate?
The crime at the root of Watergate was an attempt at surveillance of the DNC after George McGovern seemed about to win the DEMOCRAT Party’s presidential nomination, just as the government misconduct in Russiagate was an attempt at surveillance of the Republican Party’s national campaign after Trump clinched its nomination.
In both cases, the incumbent administration regarded the opposition’s unorthodox nominee as undermining the nation’s long-standing foreign policy and therefore dangerous to the country.
McGovern renounced the DEMOCRATS’ traditional Cold War policy.
Trump expressed skepticism about George W. Bush and Obama administration policies on NATO, Mexico, Iran and Russia.
The incumbents’ qualms had some rational basis. But their attempts at surveillance were misbegotten. It’s hard to figure out what the Obama law enforcement and intelligence folks had to gain by spying.
Neither the Obama spy nor Mueller’s investigation has presented evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
None of Mueller’s indictments points in that direction, and Trump’s foreign policy over 16 months has been far less favorable to Russia than Obama’s.
Both the Watergate wiretap and the Obama appointees’ investigator/spy infiltration were initially inspired amid fears that the upstart opposition might win.
In March 2016, it was conventional wisdom that Trump couldn’t be elected president. But his surprising and persistent strength in the Republican primaries left some doubtful, including the FBI lovebirds who instant messaged their desire for an “insurance policy” against that dreaded eventuality.
Their unease may have owed something to their knowledge of how the Obama Justice Department and FBI had fixed the Hillary Clinton emails case. Clinton wasn’t indicted.
There are two obvious differences between Watergate and the Obama administration’s infiltration. The Watergate burglars were arrested in flagrante delicto, and their wiretaps never functioned. Neither the FBI nor the CIA cooperated with the Watergate cover-up.
That’s quite a contrast with the Obama law enforcement and intelligence appointees’ promotion of Christopher Steele’s Clinton campaign-financed dodgy dossier and feeding the mainstream media’s insatiable hunger for Russia collusion stories.
Has an outgoing administration ever worked to delegitimize and dislodge its successor like this?
https://nypost.com/2018/05/27/obamas-spying-scandal-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-watergate/
The crime at the root of Watergate was an attempt at surveillance of the DNC after George McGovern seemed about to win the DEMOCRAT Party’s presidential nomination, just as the government misconduct in Russiagate was an attempt at surveillance of the Republican Party’s national campaign after Trump clinched its nomination.
In both cases, the incumbent administration regarded the opposition’s unorthodox nominee as undermining the nation’s long-standing foreign policy and therefore dangerous to the country.
McGovern renounced the DEMOCRATS’ traditional Cold War policy.
Trump expressed skepticism about George W. Bush and Obama administration policies on NATO, Mexico, Iran and Russia.
The incumbents’ qualms had some rational basis. But their attempts at surveillance were misbegotten. It’s hard to figure out what the Obama law enforcement and intelligence folks had to gain by spying.
Neither the Obama spy nor Mueller’s investigation has presented evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
None of Mueller’s indictments points in that direction, and Trump’s foreign policy over 16 months has been far less favorable to Russia than Obama’s.
Both the Watergate wiretap and the Obama appointees’ investigator/spy infiltration were initially inspired amid fears that the upstart opposition might win.
In March 2016, it was conventional wisdom that Trump couldn’t be elected president. But his surprising and persistent strength in the Republican primaries left some doubtful, including the FBI lovebirds who instant messaged their desire for an “insurance policy” against that dreaded eventuality.
Their unease may have owed something to their knowledge of how the Obama Justice Department and FBI had fixed the Hillary Clinton emails case. Clinton wasn’t indicted.
There are two obvious differences between Watergate and the Obama administration’s infiltration. The Watergate burglars were arrested in flagrante delicto, and their wiretaps never functioned. Neither the FBI nor the CIA cooperated with the Watergate cover-up.
That’s quite a contrast with the Obama law enforcement and intelligence appointees’ promotion of Christopher Steele’s Clinton campaign-financed dodgy dossier and feeding the mainstream media’s insatiable hunger for Russia collusion stories.
Has an outgoing administration ever worked to delegitimize and dislodge its successor like this?
https://nypost.com/2018/05/27/obamas-spying-scandal-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-watergate/
Don't be so hard on yourself. There has to be something feminine about you.
a) That would be extremely out of character for Obama.
- Is there any record of Obama having done such thing when he ran for the Illinois legislature?
- Is there any record of Obama having done such thing when he ran for the U.S. senate?
- Is there any record of Obama having done such thing when he ran for president?
In each of those cases those Obama ran against posed a risk to Obama. If Obama did so then, why is no one mentioning it?
And if Obama didn't do it then, why:
- after Obama was term-limited, and unable to continue in office past inauguration day, that means Obama was
- not under threat of Trump, or anyone else.
- The candidate predicted to win was not Trump, but Hillary. So why would Obama have gone after the one predicted to lose?
This is absurd.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
TICK TOCK
the only real question now is who will be the first to flip on Obama?
Will it be Brennan? Clapper? Comey? McCabe?
Remember we have Strzok and Page texts saying everything is being run out of the White House
the only real question now is who will be the first to flip on Obama?
Will it be Brennan? Clapper? Comey? McCabe?
Remember we have Strzok and Page texts saying everything is being run out of the White House
He wasn't in charge of the federal intelligence agencies then.
Insurance, according to Peter Strzok.
“Strzok: I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: “the White House is running this.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/strzok-page-texts-trump-russia-investigation-origins/
Comey announced the emails while they had started checking on Daffy. When he announced her email problem, Comey should have mentioned Trump was also being investigated for his horrible corrupt campaign.
Is that so?
Nope. As usual you are wrong. I was paying attention to a right wing poster. I did not play her silly video.
So you say. If you didn't hear her, you have no idea whether what she said is accurate or not, do you?
The amusing thing about this "fantasy" (delusion) is that it reveals an unsatisfied expectation.
And while having an expectation satisfied can feel quite rewarding, this expectation expressed in IA #33 will go unsatisfied. And that is the definition of frustration.
So those of us with more sober temperament, more logical more realistic thought process, more rational expectation can sit back and be entertained and amused by the growing frustrations of the eternally unsatisfied. Kind of cute I suppose.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Andy must have liked the insurance policy lol.
Is there any doubt Obama was aware of this? Shouldn’t he at least be interviewed?