Obama -- Leader of the Deep State Coup The
In any criminal investigation where the suspect is not immediately known, the first question usually asked is who would have the most to gain? As we follow the bread crumbs of the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and await release of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo regarding the collusion between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DOJ, and FBI to interfere with the 2016, ensure the election of Hillary, and the defeat or impeachment of Donald Trump, the answer to that question is clear -- one Barack Hussein Obama.
Can it be believed that as key players in the Obama administration like Strzok and Page, as well as FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, number 4 at Justice Bruce Ohr, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and many others were linked in a vast criminal conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, that Barack Obama was blissfully unaware of all this? Rather, it can be plausibly argued that he was orchestrating it.
Perhaps not directly or by explicit orders, but rather by discussing the threat to his legacy Trump represented with his progressive minions and then simply saying, as crime bosses throughout history have done, “You know what needs to be done. Do it.”
This scandal did not occur in a vacuum any more than did the weaponizing of the IRS to target the Tea Party and other conservative groups before Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign occured in a vacuum. The agencies under Obama’s control have been politicized before and used to intimidate and destroy his political opponents
Last September, I argued that Comey had the fix in for Hillary and we now know that he began writing his exoneration memo significantly before interviewing Hillary and other key witnesses. The exoneration memo underwent key edits in which Strzok, who interviewed Hillary and those witnesses, some of whom were granted immunity, was involved. But now, as the layers of this rotting onion are peeled away, it has become clearer that Comey did not act on his own initiative. This fish is also rotting from the head.
Back in April, 2016, President Obama gave an interview in which he seemed to have foreknowledge that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her “carelessness” and did not “intentionally” mishandle classified emails, words that Comey would use just a few months later:
President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed “carelessness” by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security, while also vowing that an ongoing FBI investigation into the matter will not be tainted by politics.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Obama seemed to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, and he disputed the notion that any of the emails contained classified information of true importance.
“She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” he said. “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.”…
“I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” the president said. “There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.”
Carelessness and lack of intent were key parts of Comey’s shape-shifting memo. And we now see how Obama’s pledge that politics would not taint the investigation was a bald-faced lie. This confidence in her exoneration was shared by Mrs. Clinton, who also seemed to have foreknowledge that the fix was in:
The FBI is investigating the matter, and while Mrs. Clinton has virtually promised she will not be indicted, the scandal still hangs over her presidential ambitions and fuels the notion -- widespread, according to opinion polls -- that she’s not trustworthy.
She maintains that no emails in the account were classified at the time they were sent or received -- though she was initially much more emphatic, flatly saying she had never handled classified information. She reiterated last week that, in her view, the federal investigation ultimately will clear her.
“That is not going to happen,” she told NBC News when asked if she would be indicted. “There is not even the remotest chance that it’s going to happen.”
National Review Contributing Editor Andrew McCarthy has long argued that Obama was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email investigation:
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton-emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call -- not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s… The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
Why would Obama use a fake email account to communicate with Hillary Clinton? Granted, classified communications between a President and a Secretary of State are normal, but not via a fake email account. Were they discussing the fix that was in during her email investigation? McCarthy suggests just such a reason:
If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton -- Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.
McCarthy notes that among the edits to the draft of Comey’s memo was one omitting a reference to President Obama:
This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI, regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.”
So not only were edits made to Comey’s draft memo to hide Hillary’s guilt but also Obama’s involvement. It is worth noting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch also used a fake email account under the name “Elizabeth Carlisle” to conduct official business:
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch went by the alias 'Elizabeth Carlisle' in email she used to conduct government business.
Lynch's pseudonym was confirmed in a report by the Daily Caller, which shows Lynch sometimes preferred to use another name while doing work, just as her predecessor Eric Holder did. The finding came after several batches of emails were released last week from conservative watchdog groups who had requested documents from the Justice Department using the Freedom of Information Act.
Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice sought documents related to former President Bill Clinton's meeting with then-Attorney General Lynch in an airplane on the runway tarmac in Phoenix. The meeting was scarcely noticed at first, but eventually created a controversy over possible conflicts of interest about the ongoing investigation by the FBI into Hillary Clinton's email server.
Fake emails and surreptitious edits to incriminating documents. From the Strzok-Page text messages we know that Loretta Lynch knew Hillary would not be prosecuted. That meeting on the tarmac was to tell Bill Clinton the fix was in, a fix whose impetus came from the White House and an occupant concerned with both his legacy being erased by a President Trump but also by his involvement in covering up Hillary’s crimes.
As some have suggested, this is Watergate on steroids. Not only do we have one party colluding with government agencies to keep its candidate from being prosecuted for her crimes and preventing the election of the other party’s candidate, but we also have a sitting and corrupt President using the powers of his office to subvert an election and hand-pick his successor.
Lock her up. Lock him up too. Lock them all up. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/obama__leader_of_the_deep_state_coup.html
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
What did Obama know and when did he know it???
Well, depending on whether it's an even or odd numbered hour of the day, your Shitbag® claims Obama didn't do enough to stop "this Rusher thing" or had his Shitbag® Tower phone lines tapped. He's your Shitbag® so stop blaming everyone else for the mess he's put you in.
Trump is pointing out the mess the guy you put in caused. We know Trump was indirectly under surveillance because Manafort was being monitored while working at Trump Tower and communicating with him. You guys like to ridicule Trump and then deny he's right when all the facts come in.
What do you mean by "indirectly under surveillance?"
When someone is under surveillance EVERYONE who is in contact with that person is ALSO UNDER SURVEILLANCE. Did you forget that fact or just ignore it?
Bingo.
So Manafort was indirectly under surveillance because the Russian agents he was contacting were under surveillance? And you have a problem with them tapping Russian agent's phones???
Wow, nice try to twist my words. I was answering the question what was meant by "indirectly under surveillance" and you want to twist it into an argument against spying on Russian spies...wow, just wow...shows how very desperate and afraid you are that Trump might survive this and actually prove that the Democrats were the ones in collusion with Russia...
Well, make up something. You always do.
You're confusing Obama with Trump. Obama READS. Obama may have relied on the news for the basketball scores, but other than that, not so much. Trump on the other hand, can barely handle bullet point briefings and retweets Fox and Friends talking points on an almost daily basis.
Thanks for the irrelevant babble. /s
BTFW, was Obama the leader of the DEEP STATE or clueless? Pick one.
WOW !
"From the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, to the IRS targeting conservative nonprofit groups, to the revelations about veterans dying while waiting for care because of falsified lists at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the president and his top aides have admitted that they found out about them in the media.
"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this," Obama said in June 2013 when he was asked about the IRS scandal. "I think it was on Friday."
But the next week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that senior staff knew of the targeting but did not tell Obama because they were waiting for a report about it from the Treasury Department's inspector general. Carney has since been succeeded by Josh Earnest.
Perhaps Obama's biggest embarrassment came last November, when he apologized publicly to the millions of Americans who lost their health insurance under Obamacare — despite repeated assurances for more than three years that they could keep their coverage if they liked it.
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama told NBC News in a White House interview."
Kinda like his comments on shovel ready:
Gee.....I didn't know shovel ready wasn't very shovel ready !
I hear "The Media" told Obama it was !
I have just gone through this thread and removed 11 comments of back and forth between Tessylo and Texan that was nothing more than childish rank outs. Do this again, and you will both get 4 days suspension.
Also, the author of this seed has been nowhere for over 17 hours. Here are the screenshots of his last comments:
I am closing this article for lack of attention.
The 'deep state' players are the right wing billionaires, their lackeys in the conservative media and their 'useful idiots' in the faux christian cabals.
Tinfoil sales keep going up with all these "deep state", "secret society" lunacy.
Yep, those rogue FBI agents and their disturbing tweets are doing wonders for the tinfoil industry.
The "Deep State" is not a Secret Society or Lunacy, it is the tens of thousands of people who are employed by our government and owe their loyalty to one or both of the Political parties. These people are not elected, they are Career Government workers and they have a great deal of Power within their respective Agencies. Every Government Agency has their own Agenda, mostly revolving around keeping or increasing their funding and they want continuity that's why they like Party Politicians like Bush, Obama, or Clinton because they know nothing will change, not Policy, not Funding, or Agency Hierarchy. They see Outsiders like a Trump or a Ross Perot or any Third Party Candidate as an extreme danger to their Jobs, Power, and expected career paths.
And the moon is made of green cheese, the moon landing was faked etc. etc. etc.
That "lede" and the rest that follows is just a way of saying, people who work for the government are citizens and entitled to hold political opinions and vote their preferences. Taking a government job does not require surrendering those basic constitutional rights. By innuendo, you're suggesting that there are thousands of them who cannot discharge their duties fairly or properly which is an unfounded, politically motivate calumny. Sure, there are probably small numbers across the entire political spectrum who might put politics ahead of duty but, I think, rare and not at all limited to just one ideology. Every time an administration changes hands so, too, does the political process of appointments affect the make-up of the career employees of the many departments of government. People retire or leave for any number of other reasons and some new hires inevitably are going to have a political tinge to them. But overall, the vast majority of federal public employees go to work every day with the intent to do their job well regardless of their own political views or their opinion about their politically appointed bosses. That said, in the current situation we're seeing a very much exaggerated process of politicization of all the branches of government. Not only are the top appointments being picked in order to deliberately undo the work of the last administration (which could be expected) but there seems to be an unprecedented effort to also cripple the ability of certain agencies, particularly singled out by rightwing extremists for destruction: those protecting the health care of Americans and the environment. The goal of the latter is to turn over the natural resources of this country to the extraction industries and remove all barriers to ecologic destruction. The motivation for the first is a bit harder to understand. I can't imagine that the motive is deliberately intended to make Americans sicker and make it harder to find health care although that will be the result. It seems more to do with simply petty personal hatred for the previous president who made things better (not perfect, no one ever said that) and the desire to destroy that effort without even taking into account the people who will be the casualties of that effort. But I digress from my original point--that every administration has a federal bureaucracy made of people who represent a political and social cross section of the country. To complain about bias among those 2 million workers that would actually have a political impact is to invent a phantom in order to excuse failure and justify political purges.
Unless some of them are actually trying to throw a wrench into the works. If Workers within various Agencies are Resisting Trump (Like many vowed to do and have been doing) then a purge is warranted. In private Industries Workers Resist with Work slowdowns and other things to fight management but Government Employees have no right to Resist the Political Agenda of the President no matter how much they dislike Him or His policies, if they can't serve his administration and Agenda then they should quit, they're there to do a job and they are paid to do it, if they want to make policy they should run for office. It's even worse when Law Enforcement plays Favorites and corrupts Justice along political lines. i would speak just as loudly against this type of corruption no matter which party was being favored or persecuted.
Another gem from the 'American Stinker', cut and paste mill.
Two of them.
Republicans are directly helping Putin and are being helped by Russian bots.
Those quotes might mean something if they came from real conservatives.
Those promoting a made up theory of "Russian Collusion" based on dis-information provided by Putin's cronies to the Kremlin's American lobbyist (Fusion GPS) are doing Putin's work.
Putin wanted destabilize the American electoral system. Democrats are doing everything they can to help.
This is about far more than 'collusion', this is about Russian interference in our election. This is about Russian propaganda used to seed their influence. In this case it was used specifically to help Trump. You can continue to pretend this is all nothing (although your past opinions on investigations puts you in a very hypocritical light this time). The Mueller investigation is ongoing, with interviews, guilty pleas, indictments and continued unraveling of what happened. Instead of trying to make sure this doesn't happen again, republicans are balls to the wall trying to protect Trump from this REAL investigation, harming the very foundation of our country's justice system in the process. WITH THE HELP OF RUSSIAN BOTS AND PROPAGANDA.
All the real conservatives have been dead for years.
Of which, after a year of investigating, you have absolutely no proof of. Even your biased investigators are saying it. But for some reason, you just don't get.
You still seem to be dwelling on the mistaken idea (or is it wishful thinking) that this will only be about collusion. But it's Shitbag®'s blatant obstruction that's going to be the meat of of this sandwich.
The rest of the thinking world knows this moved from collusion months ago. But YOU don't seem to grasp it as you seem to keep bringing it up time after time.
Complete as they say, poppycock. There is no deep state, secret society etc., only the paranoid fantasies giving birth and legs to this nonsense.
Hillary Clinton: "It's all part of a vast right wing conspiracy."
I was talking about her own personal experience with conspiracies.
You've got it bad. It must be impossible to defend Trump and Russia if this is the only default defense.
The funny thing is Hillary IS the only candidate proven to get assistance from Russia and Putin through Steele and Fusion GPS. The fact that Democrats aren't shocked and outraged by that just proves how hollow their Trump/ Russia theory is.
Need a reminder of the dossier? Who started that opposition research?
Here is the pdf to Steele's testimony:
Russia was helping Trump. Investigation might get done when republicans decide country over party. Until then, paid opposition research is part of politics. At least she didn't go on tv and ask directly for Russian help.
Fusion GPS didn't contact Steele until AFTER Team Clinton began finding it. Until then it was just domestic opposition research. The whole Russia thing still has Hillarys fingerprints on it. Trumps are nowhere to be found.
Actually, the funny thing is that there isn't one iota of evidence that the Russian sources for the information in the dossier had any idea who Steel was working for. Nor is there any evidence that HRC KNEW about the content of the dossier.
You and yours have vilified Clinton ad nauseam. Considering your low opinion of her, since y'all believe Clinton and the DNC paid for the dossier, she owned it, so explain why Clinton didn't release it BEFORE the election? Or BEFORE the electoral college voted? OR EVER?
And you laughed that off. Now for some reason idiotic ideas of massive government conspiracies is all you people can think about now.
Maybe she didn't release it because even she knew the dossier is filled with lies and nobody trusted her already.
Nope. Everything you and yours have said insinuates that Clinton has no conscience and is utterly shameless. No one need know that it was Clinton that 'leaked' the dossier. Y'all insist that she has conspirators everywhere, especially in the media. So yours is a weak scenario at best. Try harder.
That is a true statement
That is two in a row! Your on a roll the first true statemens i have seen you make!
You need to truncate and misrepresent my comment in order to make what I'm sure you think is a 'point' show an utter lack of good faith. I can always count on you to raise the level of petulance in a thread.
That is the only way i could make what you said accurate and say something approaching being complimentary to you.
The words I would have used are balderdash or codswaddle though poppycock works just fine...