Pages

Friday, March 3, 2017

Is the former President at war with the new President?

... or is he at war with America?

As a general rule, the outgoing President rides off into the sunset to go work on his library, write a book, make some speeches, and basically stay out of the way of the incoming President. Short of the humorous prank of the outgoing Clinton staff removing all of the "W" keys from every White House computer keyboard, you don't see much for any interference.

However, Former President Obama does not appear as willing as his predecessors to simply move aside. Publicly the lame duck President pushed for investigations into allegations of election hacking by the Russians, made overtures regarding possible election fraud, and even pushed the narrative of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. They hastily rushed through the motions of their investigations, produced little verifiable evidence to the public, but still put into place sanctions against the Russian Government which unfortunately handcuffed the incoming administration. All this appeared to part of a race against time to make one more relevant move a President.

Now reports are surfacing that the Obama Administration had also made fairly concerted efforts to make things uncomfortable for the incoming Administration behind the scenes as well.  First it has been reported that the Obama administration twice made FICA requests to monitor Trump and his Advisers. The first was rejected, the more limited one was granted (giving the sitting President legal authority to eavesdrop on the opposition's election campaign?). This specific action alone should send a chill down the spine of any American. Then the former Administration started lowering classifications on the broad unspecific information they recovered from these wire taps which fundamentally encouraged leaks. Lastly we have more than enough evidence to suggest that the former President is basically promoting a true partisan us vs them attitude for any Obama loyalist who are still working in the so called "deep state".

My theory on President Obama was that he was an Obama loyalist first, a Democrat loyalist second, a global loyalist third, and a President of the American People somewhere in between his passion for golf and his love of the White Sox. If you want to know why American's elected Donald Trump and his "America First" platform, go back and read some of my old posts regarding Presidential elections being a reaction to what we did not like about the previous President.

Obama made multiple FICA requests to
monitor the Trump Presidential campaign
We elected an honest to a fault peanut farmer to replace Nixon (Ford), we elected an actor to replace the peanut farmer when he appeared incapable of providing a vision, we elected a young liberal to replace two old conservatives, we elected the god fearing conservative to replace the young liberal who was bit too liberal with the ladies, and we elected a great public speaker to replace the man who generally couldn't make it through more than a few sentences without making up a new word. So if you look for the worst quality of the lame duck President, you can generally expect we will elect someone who will shore that up for us. In the case of Obama, it was clearly that he placed Party and global affairs ahead of the American people. Thus Donald Trump wins the general election by promising to put America first and make it great again. It's actually fairly obvious when you look.

So it doesn't surprise me that Obama is bucking conventional attitudes of outgoing Presidents regarding being deferential to the incoming President. Rather the lame duck Obama Administration was monitoring the Trump campaign with wiretaps, declassified recovered information which basically left bread crumb trails to make sure unsubstantiated allegations were leaked,  made suggestions that the election was hacked, tossed around last minute sanctions, and is basically running a shadow campaign to undermine the new President. They are in essence, doing whatever they can to sabotage any success the new Administration is having. After all, success for the American people does not equate (right now) with success for the Democratic Party. Unfortunately that's what appears matters to Obama, the Democrats, much of the press, and most of Obama surrogates and loyalists.

25 comments:

rrb said...



In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

Roger Amick said...

Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked

rrb said...



so democrats, as usual, are wasting an enormous amount of time and taxpayer resources over absolutely nothing. just to politically grandstand.


Perjury is not inaccuracy. It must be willfully false testimony. Willfulness is the criminal law’s most demanding mens rea (state of mind) requirement. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally — not by accident, misunderstanding, or confusion — said something that was untrue, with a specific purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Therefore, when there is an allegation of perjury, the alleged false statements must be considered in context. Any ambiguity is construed in favor of innocence. If there is potential misunderstanding, the lack of clarity is deemed the fault of the questioner, not the accused.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445416/jeff-sessions-perjury-allegation-meritless-al-franken-congressional-testimony


it's my hope that this backfires on them in a big way and that sessions gets SO pissed off that he begins the most ruthless witch hunt in modern history to find and prosecute the deep state leakers that are part of OFA: 0linsky's Fucking Assholes.


caliphate4vr said...

he used an AOL account, he didn't have a secret server in someone's bathroom.

You fucking hack.

The real story is Pence still has an AOL account

Roger Amick said...

Mark Levin Crazy
By Andrew Zarowny
I apologize for the title. I do not mean to focus solely on the so-called ′Great One′, radio talk host Mark Levin. There are plenty of other ′Cucks′ out there to choose from. Take Glenn Beck, whom, yesterday, vowed to vote fro Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump. Is he crazy? Yep, bat-s#*t crazy! So, too, is Mark Levin. This past week he declared that Trump is unsuitable to be president because Trump will ″make deals″ when he is elected president and goes to Washington. Levin argues that Ted Cruz, whom Levin considers to be a ″true Conservative″, will stand by his principles and not make any deals. Essentially, Mark Levin is advocating that over the next 4 years, that nothing should be done! That the US government should be brought to a complete standstill. There is just one, tiny, teensy-weensy, little problem with this ′logic′. Our nation is falling apart!


Let us define ′logic′ first. A quick Google search gives us the following definition, ″reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.″ Just to play it safe, let us further define ′validity′, just so we are all on the same page. ″The Quality of being logically or factually sound, soundness or cogency.″ Let′s settle for factually sound for the moment, as we do not want to confuse the matter between logic and logically.

So is Mark Levin factually sound about the menace Donald Trump poses if he goes to Washington and ″makes deals″? If it is a ′menace′ to accomplish things, like securing our borders or defeating ISIS, then I suppose Levin may have a ′logical′ argument. But being ″factually sound″ about Ted Cruz being such a principled guardian of ′Conservative values′ falls mighty short. Cruz supported the Obama-contrived Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, also known as TPP, until it became politically unsavory. On immigration, Cruz, likewise, supported earlier attempts to reform our current system, including inevitable amnesty for all illegals. Again, he changed his tune when he saw the wind blow the other way. In other words, he′s your typical politician.

Make no mistake, Ted Cruz is an ′Establishment′ candidate. Oh, he may ruffle feathers here and there, cause some trouble now and then. But he, and his wife Heidi, are the consummate, ideal power couple, going to the right schools, working the right jobs, getting their tickets punched at each wrung of the Establishment Ladder to Success along the way. Especially Heidi Cruz! Not only does she work for Goldman Sachs, Illuminati Central

Roger Amick said...

He used it for his email to conduct his Senatorial duty.

Bad judgments as usual. It's ok for Republicans..gotcha

Loretta Russo said...

Email drunkard.

He didn't have a server set up in his bathroom, drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard who doesn't know the difference between an email account and a server.

caliphate4vr said...

He was a senator?

Fascinating

Roger Amick said...

If you were honest, it would be George W Bush who remained out of sight until your hero won the Russian hacked election. But you are not the Coldheartedtruth any more. Closedmindedhack.com

caliphate4vr said...

List of United States Senators from Indiana

Was Pence the Senator of another State?

Loretta Russo said...

LOL. Pence was hacked.

Well, so was the government - several times....

....right under Obama's big fat nose.

Loretta Russo said...

" used it for his email to conduct his Senatorial duty. "

LOL

Myballs said...

What obama is doing is outrageous, unprecedented, and being ignored by the news media, too busy trying to bash everything trump.

Oh, and cnn very quietly last fall hired Valerie Jarrett's daughter to cover the new admin.

Trump is right and should keep up his counter attacks on big media.

Myballs said...

Congress needs to investigate Obama's silent coup he began last year.

caliphate4vr said...

ObamaCare's Popularity Is A Myth — Satisfaction Craters To 22% As Law Continues To Collapse

Roger Amick said...

Bush was very entertaining on Jimmy Kimmel live last night. Funny, witty and quite different from the President act. He surprised me.

Roger Amick said...

Even with the looming threat of a repeal, more and more Americans say they support the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

A poll released by Public Policy Polling on Thursday showed that 46% of Americans said they support the ACA, while 41% oppose the law.

Additionally, PPP found that 62% of people polled said they wanted to keep the ACA and make changes to it, while 33% said they wanted it repealed and the US to start over with a new healthcare law.

"Obamacare continues to become more popular the more talk there is about repealing it," PPP said in a release.

The poll follows two others that show the ACA is becoming more popular with Americans. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month found that 45% of Americans said they approved of the law and 41% disapproved, and a Morning Consult/Politico poll this week found 47% said they approved while 45% disapproved.

Interestingly enough, PPP also found that President Donald Trump's approval rating was 47% approval and 49% disapproval, meaning that the healthcare law has a better net approval rating than the president.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Roger Amick said...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/polls-obamacare-approve-popularity-2017-2

Link.

Sorry Mrs Alzheimer's, shove it up your ass,

Myballs said...

PPP is a dem polling company. Everyone knows that.

Roger Amick said...

Blackmarket is a right wingers favorite

Roger Amick said...

CNN) Americans views of Obamacare tilt narrowly positive, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, marking the first time more have favored than opposed the law since its passage in 2010. The shift comes at the same time more than 8-in-10 say the law is likely to be repealed and replaced by incoming president Donald Trump.

Overall, 49% say they favor the 2010 health care law, more formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while 47% oppose it. Though a mostly mixed review overall, that's a sharp improvement compared with previous polling on the law.

More have opposed than favored the law in every CNN/ORC poll on this question from March 2010 until now. The shift in the law's favor stems largely from Democrats and independents, while views among Republicans haven't moved much.

The only one Paul used slows downhill approval on Google

Fake news from a truther as usual

C.H. Truth said...

The new coverage of ObamaCare these days has been all about protests against repeal and the alleged increase in public support for the law.

But a survey of actual ObamaCare customers released this week paints an entirely different picture.

It found that just 22% of the 44,200 ObamaCare enrollees polled rate their health plan as good to excellent. That's down from 77% who gave their ObamaCare plans high marks last year.

The reason for the sharp decline was higher premiums, worse service and lack of choice. The survey, conducted by Black Book Market Research, found that 96% reported a decline in customer service support, 90% noted premium increases, 80% said their plans had narrower provider networks, and 77% said their plans' benefits had been trimmed. Nearly two-thirds (61%) complained about lack of competitors in their market.

In other words, the collapse of competition in the ObamaCare exchanges — which left five states and a third of U.S. counties with only one ObamaCare insurer — has led to the rapid deterioration in quality.


caliphate4vr said...
ObamaCare's Popularity Is A Myth — Satisfaction Craters To 22% As Law Continues To Collapse
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-repeal-just-got-easier-as-enrollee-satisfaction-plunges/

Commonsense said...

I think the bottom line is that if you are getting free healthcare through medicaid you think Obamacare is a good deal (at least until you can't find a doctor who will take medicaid).

If you actually have to pay the outrageous premiums then you don't.