BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:57 pm

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin To Release Lebanese Terrorist Responsible For Targeting Americans

We’re all supposed to believe that Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon, as a candidate, colluded with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 election. There’s no serious evidence to that effect, despite a massive FBI investigation, a Congressional investigation, and a special counsel investigation initiated by the Department of Justice.

But there is clear evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Russian government to free an Islamic terrorist responsible for the deaths of Americans — all in order to appease Iran to pave the way for the Obama administration’s surrender to the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s escalating regional ambitions.

A little-noticed bombshell report from Josh Meyer of Politico reports that Ali Fayad, a Lebanese arms dealer and “suspected top Hezbollah operative whom agents believed reported to Russian President Vladimir Putin,” was captured by the Czechs in 2014. Fayad had been indicted in the United States already for “planning the murders of US government employees.” But the Obama administration did nothing to push for extradition. Instead, Fayad ended up in Lebanon, where he’s back at his terrorist work; he’s particularly active in supply weapons to the barbarous Syrian regime.

According to Politico, “administration officials also blocked or undermined their efforts to go after other top Hezbollah operatives … And when Project Cassandra agents and other investigators sought repeatedly to investigate and prosecute Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah’s longtime envoy to Iran, whom they considered the linchpin of Hezbollah’s criminal network, the Justice Department refused.”

In other words, working with Russia in order to swing the Iran deal trumped the prosecution of people responsible for continuing murder, including murder of Americans.

This isn’t the only evidence of Obama collusion with Russia, of course. In 2012, Obama was infamously caught on tape stating that he wanted Vladimir Putin to grant him some breathing room on missile defense, pledging “more flexibility” after his election.

So we know that Obama was willing to collude with Russia on foreign policy to effect both his re-election effort and to implement his Iranian deal. But we’re supposed to be worried that the Mueller investigation is focusing on the Trump transition team after the 2016 election?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24799/bombshell-report-obama-colluded-putin-release-ben-shapiro

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:58 pm

Wonder if Ben is going to pull this one done due to some imaginary inaccuracy??

by 'Wolfie Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:31 pm

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin 3489511464

"Dailywire.com"...

One of smelly's fave alt.right, alt.news, "Tea Party"-flavoured, Trump_apologist blather sites..

If any of Smelly's regular pro-Trump anti-Obama faux news puff pieces actually came from a recognised legitimate news source, then people might begin to take him seriously.

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:35 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Dailywire.com"...

One of smelly's fave alt.right, alt.news, "Tea Party"-flavoured, Trump_apologist blather sites..

If any of Smelly's regular pro-Trump anti-Obama faux news puff pieces actually came from a recognised legitimate news source, then people might begin to take him seriously.

You mean like CNN??

by Original Quill Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:03 pm

sb wrote:But there is clear evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Russian government to free an Islamic terrorist responsible for the deaths of Americans — all in order to appease Iran to pave the way for the Obama administration’s surrender to the burgeoning Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s escalating regional ambitions.

Frankly, I think Obama made a good trade. There is no evidence that the prisoner was responsible for the death of Americans. Had there been, he would have been on trial. But he was sitting in our concentration camp in Cuba, and there were no charges pending. Why not send him back? The whole concentration camp thing is unconstitutional anyway; why else did the Bush administration put it in Cuba, away from prying eyes of our judges?

You seem to totally misunderstand the analogy with Trump. What Obama did was in the proper course and scope of his job, which is empowered with special privileges to negotiate with other powers, even to release prisoners.

What Trump's team did was to conspire to break laws and sell governmental favors for his own pocket. Working with the Russian government's Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Petersburg, Trump's team played advance spotters for targeting the hacking and weaponizing it. So they participated in a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Ace (CFAA) and New York's Computer Trespass Act. The ultimate purpose was to pervert an election and get Trump elected.

But the underlying purpose of it all was to place a president in office who would then return favors to Russia, notably to lift sanctions. That's selling the powers of office, and espionage.

It's a false equivalency. But nice try. Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:06 pm

Ahhhhhh yes there it is.

The famous moral relativism of the Liberal, the turning of the blind eye.

The blasé acceptance of crimes so long as the criminal is one of theirs.

So sad

by Original Quill Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:11 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Ahhhhhh yes there it is.

The famous moral relativism of the Liberal, the turning of the blind eye.

The blasé acceptance of crimes so long as the criminal is one of theirs.

So sad

Wrong again. It is hardly relative when there is no equivalency. One is proper exercise of a duty, the other is a crime. You are comparing apples to oranges.

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Ahhhhhh yes there it is.

The famous moral relativism of the Liberal, the turning of the blind eye.

The blasé acceptance of crimes so long as the criminal is one of theirs.

So sad

Wrong again. It is hardly relative when there is no equivalency. One is proper exercise of a duty, the other is a crime. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I suppose that depends on how flexible your morals are

by Original Quill Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:31 pm

sb wrote:I suppose that depends on how flexible your morals are

No it doesn't. The law is the law.

by Guest Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:I suppose that depends on how flexible your morals are

No it doesn't. The law is the law.

Is that why trumps still POTUS??

by Original Quill Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:38 pm

The law is slow, but methodical.

by 'Wolfie Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:17 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
............... there it is.

The famous moral relativism of the Liberal, the turning of the blind eye.

The blasé acceptance of crimes so long as the criminal is one of theirs...

We're suppossed to be discussing modern day Amerikan politics here, Smelly'...

Not your long gone childhood, growing up in your beloved former apartheid South Africa..

by Guest Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:38 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
............... there it is.

The famous moral relativism of the Liberal, the turning of the blind eye.

The blasé acceptance of crimes so long as the criminal is one of theirs...

We're suppossed to be discussing modern day Amerikan politics here, Smelly'...

Not your long gone childhood, growing up in your beloved former apartheid South Africa..

You claimed down have you??

Got all your teddies back in your cot??

It's difficult to discuss anything on here, no one has a start point.

by Original Quill Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:49 pm

sb wrote:You claimed down have you??

WTF are you trying to say?

by Guest Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:36 am

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:You claimed down have you??

WTF are you trying to say?

Too low brow for you to crack the code??

Context Quill context.

Spoiler alert

It's a predictive text snafu

by 'Wolfie Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:25 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
WTF are you trying to say?

Too low brow for you to crack the code??

Context Quill context.

Spoiler alert

It's a predictive text snafu

SmellyGrub's brain is a predictive text 'snafu'...

by Original Quill Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:48 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
Too low brow for you to crack the code??

Context Quill context.

Spoiler alert

It's a predictive text snafu

SmellyGrub's brain is a predictive text 'snafu'...

Yes, I don't know what he's saying either. Moving on...

by Guest Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:30 am

The The members of Barack Obama’s administration in exile have become conspicuously noisy of late—even more so than usual. Former CIA Director John Brennan accused Donald Trump and his administration of engaging in “outrageous,” “narcissistic” behavior typical of “vengeful autocrats” by threatening proportionate retaliation against countries that voted to condemn the United States in the United Nations, as though that were unprecedented. It is not. James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, all but alleged that the president is a Russian “asset.” Perhaps the most acerbic and incendiary series of accusations from the former Democratic president’s foreign-policy professionals were placed in the New York Times by Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice. In her estimation, America has abdicated its role as a “force for good.”

It’s no coincidence that these overheated condemnations accompany abundant evidence that the Trump administration is finding its legs. As the last administration’s undeserved reputation as sober-minded foreign policy rationalists is dismantled one retrospective report at a time, its jilted members are lashing out.

Rice’s attacks on the Republican administration deserve the most attention, if only because they are the most apoplectic. Donald Trump’s recently released national-security review paints a “dark,” “almost dystopian” vision of the world, Rice contended. His world is full of “hostile states and lurking threats.” Rice claimed that there is “no common good” in Trump’s worldview. What’s more, there is no “international community” and no “universal values.” There are just “American values.”

Rice takes a theatrically dim view of what is essentially a restatement of the bedrock principle of almost all international-relations theory: The international environment is anarchic. There is no “international community,” because there is no enforceable “international law.” To the extent that such a thing exists, it is dependent upon the willingness of nation states to subordinate their sovereignty to international institutions. There’s no mechanism to make them do this, save for the threat of force. The recognition that nation states exist in a state of perpetual competition is not some grim surrender to the darkest of human impulses. It is reality, the acknowledgment of which only conveys to other nations firm parameters in which they can operate without accidentally triggering a conflict with another sovereign power.

Rice acknowledges that Moscow is a threat to regional stability and peace, “Western values,” and U.S. sovereignty. She implies that Trump is a menace because he declines to recognize that. In fact, it was Obama much more so than Trump who has failed to see the obvious.

Barack Obama was inarguably the least Atlanticist president since the end of World War II. Within a year of Russia’s brazen invasion and dismemberment of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, Obama scrapped George W. Bush-era agreements to move radar and missile interceptor installations to Central Europe. In 2013, the last of America’s armored combat units left Europe, ending a 69-year footprint on the Continent. By 2014, there were just two U.S. Army brigades stationed in Europe. The folly of this demobilization became abundantly clear when Vladimir Putin became the first Russian leader since Stalin to invade and annex territory in neighboring Ukraine.

A year later, Putin intervened militarily in Syria, where U.S. forces were already operating, resulting in the most dangerous escalation of tensions between the two nuclear powers since the end of the Cold War. Putin’s move in Syria should not have come as a surprise; Barack Obama outsourced the resolution of the Syrian conflict to Moscow in 2013, if only to avoid making good on his self-set “red line” for intervention in that conflict despite the norm-shattering use of WMDs on civilians. Even Rice’s chief complaint about Trump, his failure to condemn Putin’s brazen intervention in the 2016 election, didn’t elicit a reaction from Barack Obama until the final month of his presidency.

By contrast, and to the surprise of just about everyone, the Trump administration has been tough on Russia. Trump has ordered harsh sanctions on Moscow’s Iranian allies for violating United Nations resolutions—a course the Obama administration declined to take even if it allowed Hezbollah terrorists with direct links to Putin to operate with impunity. He ordered long overdue airstrikes on Putin’s vassal regime in Syria, halting any further use of chemical weapons in the process. Trump not only declined to lift Obama-era sanctions on Moscow, as many feared he would, but expanded them. This administration closed Russian consulates and annexes in the United States. It has targeted Putin allies like Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov under the Magnitsky Act—the same act that Kremlin cutout Natalia Veselnitskaya lobbied the Trump campaign to scuttle. Trump has even gone so far as to open U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, representing a significant blow to Putin’s ambitions in Europe. It is without a doubt that Trump now has a stronger record on Russia than Barack Obama ever did. No wonder Susan Rice is so angry.

Rice further alleged that Trump recklessly accused China of being an “avowed opponent” of the U.S. rather than just a competitor, and then insisted that China has not “illegally occupied its neighbors.” Tell that to Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, or Taiwan, each of which lay claim to strategic territory in the South China Sea that the People’s Republic seized and turned into forward air and naval bases. Rice suggested that Trump’s “realists” decided to “lump” Beijing in with Moscow, not because it is a rising military and economic power, but because they wanted to “placate” American nationalists. Though this White House declined to defibrillate the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement back to life when it inherited its corpse, it has done a far more comprehensive job of working with Beijing to isolate Pyongyang than Obama did. As the North Korean nuclear crisis intensifies, China has backed fresh sanctions on North Korean financial institutions, cut off all access to Chinese iron, lead, and coal, and may even scale back petroleum deliveries to the Stalinist state by as much as 90 percent. And all in the space of one year.

Rice bemoaned the fact that Trump’s national security document contained no nods to America’s core ideological principles, such as democracy promotion and human rights. Except it does. The strategy review did declare perfunctory fealty to the idea that America cannot “impose its values” on others, but it criticized nations like China and Russia for making their economies “less free and less fair” and for censoring information “to repress their societies.” It professed America’s intention to oppose “rival actors” who “use propaganda and other matters to discredit democracy.” The document added that this administration intends to “support the dignity of individuals” who “live under oppressive regimes and who seek freedom” and “rule of law.” The U.S. will use “every tool” to “isolate states and leaders who threaten our interests and whose actions run contrary to our values,” including “repressive regimes and human rights abusers.” After all, Dr. Rice, America values are universal values.

Rice contended that the document failed to itemize the discrete identities on whose behalf the U.S. should labor: LGBT people, people in poverty, people with AIDS, people under 30, et cetera. Rather, the document insists that all mankind, regardless of conditions or accidents of birth, are objects of U.S. interest. Rice complained that climate change is no longer viewed as a threat to national security. Good. Climate change is not itself a threat to American national security but a threat multiplier, as the weather has always been. Save for some valid concerns about the prospect of an overly restrictive immigration policy and the precariousness of U.S. free-trade obligations, Rice painted a picture not of a radical administration but one that is returning to a familiar status quo ante. In nearly all respects, it was Obama’s White House, not Trump’s, that adopted an ideological foreign policy and rendered the U.S. and the world less safe as a result.

Even as early as March of 2017, it was clear that the Obama administration’s foreign-policy professionals were quite insecure about how posterity would remember their stewardship of American interests abroad. They had every reason to be. For now, at least, the Trump administration has declined to govern as Trump campaigned; not as a populist firebrand but a conventional Republican. Susan Rice and her former White House colleagues have every reason to worry, but not for the United States. Their reputations, however, are another matter entirely.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/the-death-rattle-of-obamas-foreign-policy-record-susan-rice/

by Sponsored content

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin

Re: BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Colluded With Putin