US #Obamagate - Trump lashes out at Obama in Mother's Day tweetstorm - Obamagate trends on Twitter.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


------------

President Trump on Sunday repeatedly lashed out on Twitter at former President Obama, days after reports that Obama had expressed concern over the Justice Department's decision to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump spent much of his Mother's Day tweeting and retweeting various accounts, with many of the posts aimed at his predecessor. In one tweet he simply wrote "OBAMAGATE!" In another post, in which he retweeted a supporter's declaration that Obama was "the first Ex-President to ever speak against his successor," Trump wrote, "He got caught, OBAMAGATE!"
1589170418152.png
1589170383148.png

Earlier on Sunday, Trump retweeted conservative commentator Buck Sexton, who claimed that "the outgoing president"—an apparent reference to Obama—"used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration." Trump in his retweet wrote, "The biggest political crime in American history, by far!" Sexton is a former employee of Hill.TV.
1589170329805.png
The president also retweeted multiple accounts that posted memes taking aim at Obama, including one account that posted a graphic of Obama over the slogan, "Watergate will look like a parking ticket."

Trump's Obama-related tweets were just some of the many comments he posted on Twitter Sunday, with others lashing out at figures including CNN's Brian Stelter and NBC's Chuck Todd.

His tweetstorm came after his administration's controversial move to drop charges against Flynn, who had been accused of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia before Trump took office. The decision, led by Attorney General William Barr, was met with swift condemnation by Trump's critics.

Obama became ensnared in the unfolding drama after a private phone call between the former president and members of his administration were leaked to Yahoo News on Friday.

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama reportedly said.

“And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk," he continued. "And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

The White House did not immediately return a request for further comment.

--------------------
 
True, but so does half of the shit you post.
Please cite a single article I have ever posted where links to tweets made up the majority of the post. That's just a bullshit claim and I would prefer you stop making up false accusations once again.
Edit you've also proven you don't even read the articles I post on multiple occasions so I'm not sure how you would know
 
Last edited:
Please cite a single article I have ever posted where links to tweets made up the majority of the post. That's just a bullshit claim and I would prefer you stop making up false accusations once again.
Edit you've also proven you don't even read the articles I post on multiple occasions so I'm not sure how you would know
Lol calm down.
 
Actually I think it's that Trump has been around blue collar workers in construction. He spent a lot of time on site with his father and in turn had his own children spend time working on site. He seems to actually like the people who literally built his developments so it's no surprise he's listened to their concerns and addresses them.
Wonder what happened with all of those contractors from 2016 saying Trump never paid them. Seemed fishy at the time and then they just evaporated.
 
Breitbart is an unreliable source, the right wing version of Vox or Buzzfeed.
They're really not that bad. Vox and Buzzfeed wade chest-deep in insanity as a matter of routine. Breitbart is more like a dinky version of the AP, only with mediocre writing. They're pretty okay for what they are, a squeaky-clean boomer-friendly GOP-leaning news blog.
 
Might be right?

Alright guess I'll expand.
Just for the record. I am a libertarian left wing nationalist. (Inb4 "national socialism") from spain. So, generally speaking. I agree with Trump on many things, specially when it comes to added descentralization and how he behemently defends america's interests. Fucking wish our presidents would defend ours like that. But I also disagree with him on other things. Like lack of public sector, what he's said about vaccines and creationsim, etc. Now. When it comes to Obama. Honestly, I never quite liked him. Just because, maybe because of how spanish media was controlled during the transition, when our media over here constantly tries to paint a politician in as positive a light as possible we're just set to understand that something's going on in the background and we're not gonna like it. Every god dammed time. And god did american media fucking try to deify the bastard. But the reason why I started really looking into the guy was, well the same reason I started liking Trump, namely the TPP.

Oh god you might not remember the TPP but it was really actually atrocious. Holy fuck was it blatant in its enforcing of chinese interests, and when Obama tried to push that shit into spain I was primed to hate the bastard. Just fuck that shit. So when Trump called it "the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, ever", he had my attention, thoroughly. Honestly even then during primaries I was, much to my shame, a Berny Bro. (I mean, I don't live in america so it's not like I can vote there but you know, american politics always spill over. So I really fucking hoped they didn't put forth that bitch Clinton!) He has since thoroughly disapointed me, though, in many ways. And I was one of those that when the DNC pulled what they did I fliped to hoping Trump won just because Clinton was the alternative and what she did during the primaries was inexcusable. But honestly, I still expected Trump to be a shitshow. And then his first act in power was giving the TPP the middle finger inequivocaly and unilaterally. That's when he had my erection. And boy was it a very confused boner.

So since then I've come to the conclusion that even if you were a left wing authoritarian globalist (comrade) you have to admit Trump has actually done a lot of good. A surprising amount I'd say. But also even if you are a right wing libertarian nationalist (so technically fuck the feds) you gotta admit, he also says a lot of stupid shit routinely. I mean he can't keep his mouth shut sometimes and his twitter is a shitposting machine of unprecedented proportions!

So yeah, I certainly have a lot against how Obama handled many things. And I agree with Trump on many things, but I also know Trump gaffes near constantly, and I thought Obama wasn't this fucking stupid!

I mean, it's a thing to pull shady deals and suspicious trade deals, and let the inteligence services do shit that's bound to piss off people if they find out. But actively conspire with the inteligence services to incarcerate an innocent guvernment employee who was investigating the corruption of one of your associates, leave in office agents you've conspired with in the past with orders to be uncooperative towards your successor, getting those agents to lead a 3 year witchhunt in an attempt to coup a democraticaly elected leader? Dude. That's some top fucking shit. I really did not expect what Trump was claiming this time would actually be real, much less provable. I thought the russiagate was just Pelosi and co being atupid petty and vindictive, not an actual preestablished ploy to protect Biden's son after he did some fucked up shit in eastern europe. Like that's a whole new level of crazy this new batch of evidence is showcasing. And it's really fucking scary shit. I knew Obama was worse than the media painted him, I did not expect the guy to be THIS fucking rotten. I'm still flaberghasted its come to this! This is some deep state conspiracy shit, it belongs on a very good scyfy novel about sam fisher, not real life through courtroom paperwork with solid evidence! How the fuck did it get this far?
 
Please cite a single article I have ever posted where links to tweets made up the majority of the post. That's just a bullshit claim and I would prefer you stop making up false accusations once again.
Edit you've also proven you don't even read the articles I post on multiple occasions so I'm not sure how you would know
lolcalmdown, then slow down and read that entire conversation again. What you were accused of doing is being 🗑 dumb at least half of the time. So at least get angry about the correct thing.
 
Bruh, that was a shit-post. Chill. Most people didn't want to think Obama was this bent, but the writing was on the walls if you chose to look.

I know I fell for his shit myself till about halfway though his second term, then I started slowly noticing how things had gotten and I didn't like it one bit.
 
They're really not that bad. Vox and Buzzfeed wade chest-deep in insanity as a matter of routine. Breitbart is more like a dinky version of the AP, only with mediocre writing. They're pretty okay for what they are, a squeaky-clean boomer-friendly GOP-leaning news blog.
Breitbart is good for keeping up to date on major happenings because they'll do the grunt work and slog through twitter or facebook to get the good tweets and make an updated timeline. A good example would be during the US hurricanes, lots of good archiving so I can deal with some hack writing in exchange for clicks. Plus they will pester loony lefties in academia for comment when they do dumb shit. They are a press organization after all, on paper.

That and I love how petty they are. Example: they never call Hillary Clinton by her name without insulting her.
"Hillary Clinton, loser of the 2016 election"
"Clinton, who has lost the electoral race three times before, said"
 
Breitbart is good for keeping up to date on major happenings because they'll do the grunt work and slog through twitter or facebook to get the good tweets and make an updated timeline. A good example would be during the US hurricanes, lots of good archiving so I can deal with some hack writing in exchange for clicks. Plus they will pester loony lefties in academia for comment when they do dumb shit. They are a press organization after all, on paper.

That and I love how petty they are. Example: they never call Hillary Clinton by her name without insulting her.
"Hillary Clinton, loser of the 2016 election"
"Clinton, who has lost the electoral race three times before, said"
The one item I would like about Brietbart is that their headlines are to the point and simple to understand. Its not Bezo's blog bullshit like "Austere scholar of peace". The MSM really wants to avoid direct language headlines even when it favors their chosen idol like the Obama era.
 

----
Media knives out for Catherine Herridge — for reporting Obamagate straight
By Jonathan S. Tobin
May 19, 2020 | 8:18pm | UpdatedMay 20, 2020 | 1:35pm

Journalists are pack animals. That’s especially true in Washington. Despite the hunger for scoops, when it comes to the substance of stories, few have the guts to go against the ideological groupthink that prevails in our nation’s capital.

That’s what makes CBS’ Catherine Herridge so exceptional. In an era when too many network journalists slant their reporting to serve establishment opinion, Herridge sticks to the facts. Her dogged determination to get to the bottom of stories has made her an invaluable source on the national security beat.

Her sterling quality and integrity have also put a target on her back. When it came to the “collusion” hoax, she dared to let the truth guide her. Likewise with her reporting into government misconduct in the prosecution of President Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Most of her colleagues reveled in collusion falsehoods — and ignored FBI wrongdoing. She did the opposite.

But there’s always a price to be paid for refusing to conform. If you expose documents that further discredit the already exploded myth that Trump colluded with Russia, you are going to lose friends in Washington. If you show that there was a concerted attempt to spy on his campaign and to leak information designed to paralyze his administration, you aren’t going to be popular with journalists who were part of this effort.

So it’s hardly surprising that Herridge — a star reporter at Fox News from 1996 until last year before moving to CBS — has been subjected to abuse by Joe Biden’s campaign mouthpiece and backstabbed by her colleagues in recent days.

Jealousy, and her association with ratings champion Fox, no doubt motivated her mainstream colleagues to blackball her when she came under attack. This even though her tenure at Fox was marked by admirable objectivity.

After Herridge beat other reporters to the news that Biden’s name was on the list of ex-officials who had asked to “unmask” Flynn, Biden flack Andrew Bates called her a “partisan, right-wing hack.” A scurrilous story appeared in The Daily Beast, in which various CBS journalists speaking anonymously voiced their disgust with her for not sharing their partisan prejudices.

That’s what happens when you play it straight rather than distort the news to serve anti-Trump talking points.

The Biden campaign’s attacks on Herridge, and the sniping at her from colleagues, also illustrated the appalling hypocrisy of most of the Washington press corps.

Whenever Trump talks back to relentlessly hostile reporters at news briefings, they denounce him for supposedly trying to destroy press freedom.

Some of his tweets on the subject, calling hostile journos “enemies of the people,” have been over the top. But the same can be said for the collective pearl-clutching on the part of his targets. Though they pose as victims, they have spent the last 3½ years breathlessly pushing stories about Russia collusion that don’t withstand scrutiny. In the Flynn case, they (the media) have been the persecutors, which makes their collective shrug now all the more appalling — and telling.

While their colleagues have feted the objects of Trump’s ire as First Amendment martyrs, few have spoken up in defense of Herridge. That was also generally the case when President Barack Obama routinely bashed Fox for reporting or commentary that contradicted his talking points.

Most mainstream outlets have tilted liberal for decades, of course. But today’s media bias is something else. Many supposedly straight-news reporters now openly see themselves as part of a project to delegitimize the Trump administration — and to humiliate its supporters. They are proud of this. They don’t even bother to hide it on Twitter.

The news business is paying a price for this ideological zeal. If much of the country doesn’t believe what the media tell them, it’s not because of Trumpian manipulation. It’s because Americans can see with their own eyes what happens when someone like Herridge steps outside the lines.

There is intimidation of the press in our time. But Trump isn’t the one who metes it out. It’s establishment reporters and editors who punish their own for questioning liberal orthodoxies — or following the facts to the unpopular conclusions.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org. Twitter at: @JonathanS_Tobin

---------------
 
So wait. It was bad that Trump went after the media for rather blatant corruption.

But it's a GOOD THING that the Left is pulling out the long knives for Catherine Herridge for daring to break the media blackout on Obamagate?
 
The FBI documents that put Barack Obama in the ‘Obamagate’ narrative

Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for ‘partisan axes to grind.’



Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.

Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or “CR” for short.

The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with officials familiar with the conversations.

Strzok related Priestap’s concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.

“He, like us, is concerned with over sharing,” Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. “Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies.”

Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.

“Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the DNI,” Page texted back.

Strzok responded, “The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind.”

That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.

“Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?” Strzok asked.

"Yup. Don’t know how it ended though,” Page responded.

“They didn’t include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn’t want to dissent,” Strzok added.

“Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting,” Page suggested.

You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.

The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that Flynn’s conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.

The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama’s well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent’s recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.

They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting" the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.

“The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger,” one investigator with direct knowledge told me. “The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried involved entrapment or a perjury trap.”

The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role Obama’s perception of Flynn played in the FBI’s decision making.

Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.

Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.

"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News.

"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in positions of authority, accountable," he added.

Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced piecemeal by the FBI over two years:

  • April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure.
  • July 31, 2016: FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible ties between Trump campaign and Russia, focused on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Flynn is not an initial target of that probe.
  • Aug. 15, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in their infamous text exchange about having an insurance policy just in case Trump should be elected. “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. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40,” one text reads.
  • Aug. 16, 2016: FBI opens a sub-case under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella codenamed Crossfire Razor focused on whether Flynn was wittingly or unwittingly engaged in inappropriate Russian contact.
  • Aug. 17, 2016: FBI and DNI provide Trump and Flynn first briefing after winning the nomination, including on Russia. FBI slips in an agent posing as an assistant for the briefing to secretly get a read on Flynn for the new investigation, according to the Justice Department inspector general report on Russia case. “SSA 1 told us that the briefing provided him ‘the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with [Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview ... would have that to fall back on,’” the IG report said.
  • Sept, 2, 2016: While preparing a talking points memo for Obama ahead of a conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin involving Russian election interference, Page texts Strzok that Obama wants to be read-in on everything the FBI is doing on the Russia collusion case. “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing,” Page texted.
  • Sept. 5, 2016: During an international summit in China, Obama meets face-to-face with Putin and tells him to “cut it out” with election meddling.
  • Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump won the election, the president-elect meets with Obama at the White House and the outgoing president encourages the incoming president not to hire Flynn as an adviser.
  • Jan. 3, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama’s daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House.
  • Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the “7th floor” leadership of the FBI is now involved.
  • Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept. Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama.
  • Jan. 5–23, 2017: FBI prepares to conduct an interview of Flynn. The discussions lead Priestap, the assistant director, to openly question in his handwritten notes whether the bureau was “playing games” and trying to get Flynn to lie so “we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
  • Jan. 24, 2017: FBI conducts interview with Flynn.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.

“We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed,” one investigator said.
 

Attachments

Back
Top Bottom