That wasn’t conjecture.

That was the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, standing in the White House, telling the American public that a sitting president weaponized the intelligence community to interfere in a presidential election—and take down his successor.

The paper trail is now public.

“We’re here today because the American people deserve the truth, they deserve accountability, and they deserve justice.”

She outlined three separate data points now declassified and available for anyone to read: ODNI records, the DOJ’s “Clinton Annex,” and a full oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee.

“All come back to and confirm the same thing.  There was a gross politicization and manipulation of intelligence by the Obama administration, intended to delegitimize President Trump even before he was inaugurated, ultimately usurping the will of the American people.”

And now, it’s all on the table for the American people to see.

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1948130119010124125

Trump - "Quick, deflect, deflect, deflect!!! We've gotta put a stupid ass story out there, y'all. We need to throw the press off the scent, because it's harming my image as a stable genius!!!"

The First Arrest will Shock the World… 🌎

Tick Tock…

Frank wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 10:06am:


His name is spelt Obama, not O'Bama.

ruzzia helped Trumpy aka TACO this election too. Trumpy is almost a ruzzian asset!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 10:24am:


And Gabbard 100% is.

Below are key findings from the HPSCI oversight report:

Putin’s principal interests relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate.
Putin chose not to leak the most damaging and compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election; instead planning to release it after the election to weaken what Moscow viewed would be an inevitable Clinton presidency. If Russia wanted to help Donald Trump get elected, they would have released this material prior to the election to harm the Clinton campaign.
The material about Hilliary Clinton that Putin chose not to release before the election, included possible criminal acts, including:
“Details of secret meetings with multiple named US religious organizations, in which State Department representatives offered – in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton – “significant increases in financing” from Department funds and “the patronage” of State in dealing with ‘post-Soviet countries.”
DNC emails detailing that Hillary Clinton suffered from “psycho-emotional problems,” “uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers,” and while she was afraid of losing, she remained “obsessed with a thirst for power.”
CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.
As reflected in ODNI documents released on July 18, multiple IC assessments released in the months leading up to the November 2016 elections assessed that Russia had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election.

On December 5, 2016, the FBI and ODNI gave HPSCI its first post-election classified briefing, in which there was “no mention of Putin ‘aspiring’ to elect Trump” by either agency.
The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) drafted on December 8, 2016 stated that no Russian or criminal actors impacted vote counts. This document was pulled hours before it was to be published due to “new guidance.” If it had been published, it would have been briefed to both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.
On December 9, 2016, a National Security Council meeting was called with President Obama’s senior national security officials, which included CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe and others.
After the December 9, 2016 secret meeting of Obama national security officials, DNI Clapper’s assistant sent an email to leaders in the IC with the subject line “POTUS tasking on Russia Election Meddling,” and tasking to create a new “assessment per the President’s request.”
The HPSCI oversight report reveals that, “unlike routine IC analysis, the ICA was a high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five analysts, using one principal drafter. Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA.”
Later that same day, Brennan ordered the inclusion of “substandard reporting” on Russian activities, which had previously been withheld from publication because the information was judged “to have not met longstanding publication standards.” Some of the information was, later used in the ICA, over the objections of veteran CIA officers, because it was “unclear, or from unknown subsources.”
CIA Director Brennan overruled senior CIA officers who challenged the ICA’s claims, stating “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.
Yet, the Obama-directed ICA published on January 6, 2017 explicitly stated: “We assess Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.” The CIA and FBI expressed high confidence in this judgment, while the NSA held moderate confidence.
However, the HPSCI report reveals “the ICA did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.”

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 10:19am:


If, as Trump claims, he has Obama "stone cold", then take him to Court. If he's so confident there's enough supposed evidence, then take it to Court without delay. Put up, or shut up! Of course, we all know it won't make it that far, because Trump has diddlysquat and it's just another pathetic attempt to distract from his growing Epstein problems that just won't go away.

Frank wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 9:33am:


I wonder if you're posting all of this because the bombshell dropped that Trump is in fact on the "Epstein list"...

(technically, all over the Epstein files, but everyone is using "Epstein List")

Murdoch holds the strong hand now, and Trump? He's cooked. That weak grip on the narrative is slipping fast, and it's only going to get uglier from here.

So what do the loyalists like Frank do? What they always do, deflect, distract, derail. Suddenly it's all Obama this, Michelle that, Hunter's laptop, gay frogs, lizard people. Anything but the fact their idol is neck-deep in the very scandal they used to scream about from the rooftops.

The desperation is off the charts now. You can smell it.

Frank, I hope you've lined up a psych appointment, mate. Because the cognitive whiplash from watching your messiah tangled up in Epstein's filth is going to sting.

The cover-up's failed. The leaks are coming thick and fast.  Trump's name is there, and no amount of whataboutism or finger-pointing can change that.

Quote:

The benchmark for dumb cover-ups used to be Watergate...

But Trump’s panicked effort to bury the truth about his ties to Epstein makes Watergate look like a meticulously orchestrated operation that only failed due to sheer bad luck.

Nixon had tapes, yes, but at least he had a plan. Trump has nothing but denial, deflection, and a propaganda machine trying to memory-hole the fact that he’s everywhere in the Epstein files.

Compared to Trump’s trainwreck, Watergate now looks like the gold standard in cover-ups, even if it failed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 3:35pm:


You heard it here first! In his latest, increasingly desperate attempt to divert attention away from his Epstein paedophile ring links, Trump is expected to shortly announce a Trump resort on Mars. No, it won’t be financed by Elon Musk. It will be financed by his arch nemesis - Jeff Bezos and his Blue Origin organisation. Bezos got the deal over the line with Trump by promising to change his company name to Orange Origin.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 12:06pm:

Not everyone who knew Epstein is thereby guilty of something.

How big is the 'Epstein file'? How long does it go back? What is in it? How much of it was used to convict Maxwell? How much of it was NOT used? You don't know. I don't know.
We have some flight manifests and we know that much of the stuff is sealed by courts.


But we do know that  O'Bama and his cronies HAVE been referred to the DOJ.  That the Russia hoax was a hoax we ha very known for a long time. Durham reposed on it. He just left out O'Bama andComey and Hillary and the rest of the guys who cooked it ul and pedalled into a no-questions-asked mainstream media.

They couldn’t believe Trump beat Hillary. Hillary especially couldnt believe it.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 12:28pm:

Bollocks.


The Epstein wheeze is a distraction by the Dems, now that Trump is again in the WH and is effective.

The Dems didnt carry on about it for 4 years while Bidden was sleeping in the WH. They were busy throwing other dirt but none of it stuck, Trump STILL got reelected. So now it's Epstein, dead for 6 years but pressed into service by the Dems.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 9:52pm:


I know, but Aquascoot says it was just a hip version of the Playboy Mansion, so that's okay.

Ivanka would have been taken good care of, Greggery. Jeff was like an uncle to the Trump kids.

Look, Frank's just curious, that's all. He has lots of pertinent questions about the Epstein files, as you'd expect.

How could the big fella's best friend get arrested for more than 36 child sex offences, but only get sentenced to a year of weekend detention?

Why did the big fella appoint the prosecutor who let Jeff off as a cabinet secretary?

Why did the big fella wish Jeff's accomplice Ghislaine well?

What did the big fella mean when he sent Jeff that birthday letter talking about wonderful secrets?

Alas, Greggery, I guess we'll never know. The big fella's banned the files. Nothing to see here, leftards.

Now that we've settled that, Frank wants to discuss the really important question.

Why hasn't the Kenyan been arrested for releasing an intelligence report into the biggest case of foreign election interference in US history?

You tell me that, leftards.

WITCH HUNT !!!

Frank wrote on Jul 24^th, 2025 at 9:37pm:


Trump, his campaign, and the MAGA cult were the ones who couldn't shut up about Epstein, his island, and the so-called "list." They weaponised it for years, implying some vast Democratic paedo conspiracy, only for it to boomerang back and splatter all over their messiah.

You don't get to suddenly pivot now and claim it's all a leftist hoax. That dog won't hunt.

Reality has finally caught up, that Trump is on the list, that the documents are real, and that some of them are graphic, you're desperately trying to rewrite the narrative. Are you going to join Scoot in pretending Epstein was some misunderstood socialite, that he "killed himself" because of a Democrat witch hunt, and now you want Ghislaine pardoned so the whole thing can vanish quietly?

Really..?

What happened to "think of the children"? Now it's "think of the party guests"? Apparently, it was all just a few cheeky soirees for the powerful to unwind, let their hair down?

Wake up, Frank. You're not just on the wrong side of history anymore. You're defending paedophiles.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 9:04am:

The Dems, while in the WH, said for 4 years that there's nuffin' to see here, move on.

Now that Trump, despite all the Dems' dirty works, is back in the WH the Epstein muck racking is back on the Dem agenda and is important again.
That's the difference.

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 11:10am:


If you want to play conspiracy, then why doesn't Trump release the files?

Clear his name?

You know, like he demanded Obama show his birth certificate? 

Do we apply the same logic?  Unless Trump releases the full unedited files, he's hiding something?

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 11:10am:


Trump's in the White House now and his team says the list is on their desk.

Should they release it or not?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 11:10am:



more excuses for pedophilies

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 1:20pm:


That's a good point.

Scoot and Frank, in their steadfast defence of Trump, have somehow decided to align themselves with one of the most prolific child sexual predators and traffickers to minimise the impact of his deep ties to Trump.

What the bugger!?

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 3:05pm:



So what crime did Obama commit....Can you spell it out for us???

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:


What is the crime Obama commited Lee???

Quote:


https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 7:23pm:


How???

Quote:


https://www.factcheck.org/2025/07/gabbards-misleading-coup-claim/

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 1:44pm:


From the 'Numpty Watch' dossier, Jan 2020. Hop forward Sad Sack:
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1574552240/609#609
"He isnt a Russian asset but he is a Russian asset."

I want to see the list...... let the truth fall as it lays...

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2025 at 1:11pm:


Hard to say, Lee. If your intelligence agencies investigated a hack into a major party's email server that was released to influence an election, I think the public would probably want to know.

If it turned out the operation was carried out by the Russian military, which ran a round-the-clock social media campaign, sent Russian operatives in to campaign on US soil and launder money into far-right think tanks and organisations like the NRA, I think they'd want to know that too.

Not you, clearly, but I'd say most of us would be rather curious about that.

Still, most of the intelligence reports came out after the election had been called. Your DL has a few timeline issues there. But his most priceless claim of all is that releasing the reports into Russian interference in 2016 was an attempt to influence the 2020 erection.

Worse - an act of treason.

Here's the big fella confronting Obama with his crimes at Jimmy Carter's funeral.

WITCH HUNT !!!

Karnal wrote on Jul 26^th, 2025 at 8:49pm:



"(U) ICD 203 stipulates that analysis be
“independent of political consideration”
and “must not be distorted by, nor shaped
for, advocacy of a particular audience,
agenda, or policy viewpoint.” The election
had concluded, and the ICA was essentially
a post-mortem analysis. Therefore, the
rushed timeline to publish both classified
and unclassified versions before the
presidential transition raised questions
about a potential political motive behind
the White House tasking and timeline."

https://www.cia.gov/static/Tradecraft-Review-2016-ICA-on-Election-Interference-0...

The corporate media have insisted for years that Russia hacked the 2016 election or colluded with Trump to steal it. The hoax was already thoroughly debunked, but documents released by Tulsi Gabbard on Friday revealed that the Obama administration “manufactured” the evidence behind the narrative.

A House report Gabbard declassified on Wednesday further revealed how the Obama administration manipulated the contents of an intelligence report to push the claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump. The “only classified information” cited as evidence for the assertion was “one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence” in a “substandard” report. Nonetheless, the corporate media for years acted as willing propaganda arms for the Democrat Party, uncritically and relentlessly peddling the claim that Russia helped Donald Trump win in 2016.

WaPo
CNN
Stephen Colbert, whose unfunny, leftist TV segment The Late Show was recently canceled by CBS, also peddled the hoax.
Jennifer Psaki
Katine Jean Pierre


The New York Times
Not satisfied with being one of the first outlets to tout the Obama intelligence agencies’ lie that Russia tried to get Trump elected, The New York Times was persistent in platforming the narrative throughout Trump’s presidency.

The Times also cast doubts on the 2024 election results. Writers outlined the supposed evolution of Russian strategy from misspelled Facebook posts to an AI-aided assault on democracy across multiple social media sites that also involved China and Iran. “But the broad goal of these efforts has not changed,” the authors wrote. “To sow discord and chaos in hopes of discrediting American democracy in the eyes of the world.”

Today, the paper released stories with headlines “Targeting Obama, Trump’s Retribution Campaign Takes Another Turn” and “Gabbard Releases Documents on Obama White House Amid Epstein Criticism,” attempting to spin Gabbard’s latest revelations against Trump.

As more evidence is released, President Trump seems more determined to bring the perpetrators of what Gabbard calls “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history” to justice.

“They tried to rig the election, and they got caught, and there should be very severe consequences for them,” he said in a press conference yesterday.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/24/flashback-7-media-mouthpieces-who-repeated-...

Frank wrote on Jul 27^th, 2025 at 10:45pm:


Lol   

'Gabbard' and 'Intelligence' in the same sentence.

Hilarious.

John Smith wrote on Jul 27^th, 2025 at 11:30pm:

You don't understand, as usual, thicko.

"On December 9, 2016, a National Security Council meeting was called with President Obama’s senior national security officials, which included CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe and others.

After the December 9, 2016 secret meeting of Obama national security officials, DNI Clapper’s assistant sent an email to leaders in the IC with the subject line “POTUS tasking on Russia Election Meddling,” and tasking to create a new “assessment per the President’s request.”

The HPSCI oversight report reveals that, “unlike routine IC analysis, the ICA was a high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five analysts, using one principal drafter. Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA.”

Later that same day, Brennan ordered the inclusion of “substandard reporting” on Russian activities, which had previously been withheld from publication because the information was judged “to have not met longstanding publication standards.” Some of the information was later used in the ICA, over the objections of veteran CIA officers, because it was “unclear, or from unknown subsources.”


A suspicion long held among some close observers of the Russia kompromat conspiracy that dogged Donald Trump’s first term was that it originated from much higher levels within the government than was previously exposed – with reporters like Lee Smith at Tablet chasing down evidence that then-President Obama himself was not just aware of the moves, but called for a new report to be drafted, one which was ultimately based on shoddy evidence with utterly debunked claims.

...
If you wanted a summary of the years-long battle between the intel community’s public spokesmen and the Russiagate skeptics, you could do little better than this quote regarding the infamous Steele Dossier contained within the report. After confronted by a CIA officer who opposed its inclusion based on its obvious errors and outrageous claims, “DCIA [John Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, [Brennan] responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”

To paraphrase Ronald Coase, if you torture the intelligence long enough, it will confess to anything. The old George Costanza line is a decidedly dangerous way for any intelligence apparatus to behave when it comes to what they say to the public: “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.” And that’s what Brennan et al are still doing today.

https://thespectator.com/topic/high-russiagate-farce-originate-tulsi-gabbard/

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 7:23pm:



The Obama-Biden-Clinton coup was not a victimless crime. What Obama, the outgoing president, in particular, chose to do in concocting the "Russia investigation" was to make impossible regular state-to-state relations with a not unimportant foreign country. One consequence of that was the Russia-Ukraine War, a brutal meat-grinder now in its fourth year. Hundreds of thousands are dead because of what the blood-soaked Obama and Mrs Clinton did. Russia is not just a useful card to play against your political opponent in some stupid lo-grade bus'n'truck tour of House of Cards: it's an actual place in that zone of the State Department maps marked "Rest of the World".

So, okay, Obama and Clinton are war criminals who should be on trial, but not in DC (where they'd walk) but in the Hague.

Frank wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 12:07am:


I say, old boy, that's terrible.

So why did Congress vote to impose sanctions on Russia by a nearly unanimousvote?

419 to 3. The Senate passed the bill 98 to 2, dear. Are you blaming the legislature for Vlad invading Ukraine too?

Hundreds of thousands are dead because of what the blood soaked Congress did, is it?

Well. Marco Rubio begs to differ.

I think that Vladimir Putin's ultimate goal was not the election of one candidate versus another, although he may have personally preferred one candidate. But his ultimate goal was to ensure that whoever was elected the next US president, they did so with their credibility damaged. I also think that he wanted to exploit the already existing divisions in American society for the purpose of forcing us to go through what we're going through right now — investigations, divisive debates, talk about impeachment, and the like.

Little Marco didn't even rule out impeaching your DL. He was of the view that Russian interference needed to be investigated, brought out into the open and exposed, just what you're blaming the Kenyan for. If a US prez was found to have colluded with a foreign state actor in influencing a US election, then yes. It stands to reason Marco supported their impeachment too. He just wanted an independent inquiry first - exactly what the Muller investigation was established to do: an investigation with bi-partisan support.

So I'm curious. Given your views on the treason of Obama, Hillary and Sleepy Joe, what do you have to say about the crimes of those 413 representatives, 98 senators and the Chair of the Senate Enquiry into Russia Russia Russia?

Little Marco is currently your DL's Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.

Thoughts?

It's funny, isn't it? The only thing keeping Trump out of prison, the same presidential immunity argument his defenders cling to, would also shield Obama, if any of the nonsense you lot keep peddling were even remotely true.

Imagine that. You break precedent chasing conspiracy fantasies about Obama, and in doing so, hand the courts exactly what they need to lock Trump up for the very real crimes he's already been found guilty of.

It's the sort of galaxy-brain self-own you'd expect from the desperate MAGA-tards, flailing from distraction to deflection, doing mental gymnastics to justify defending a man deeply entangled with a known child predator, to the bitter, delusional end.

Russia.  Obama.  Laptops from hell   

These MAGA morons will do anything to deflect attention away from the Epstein/Trump cover up.

Tap wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 11:27am:


Nope.

Karnal wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 1:05am:



So you neither read nor understood. OK.

lee wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 2:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 10:35pm:



You are squirming incoherently, with your balls nailed to the floor, paki.


You wish you could tap dance.

Karnal wrote on Jul 28^th, 2025 at 10:23pm:


Thanks for proving it.

It's amazing how the Democrats went from uber-competent to uber-incompetent in the space of just a matter of years, at least according to Trump. They were so good, they created a fake Russia story. They were so good, they created fake Epstein files. They were so good, they stole the 2020 election from Trump. Then they were so incompetent, they lost last years' Presidential election, giving Trump control of Congress and the White House despite clearly not wanting Trump back in the White House. Damn, those pesky Dems! 

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 10:00am:


Hey Lee, Sad's onto you, dear.
.

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 11:48am:


Autocorrect got me, oh no...

Jingling*

Nice catch.  Now if only you'd put that vast intellect to good use, and explain things like why Trump keeps contradicting his own story about his ties with Epstein and their apparent falling out?

Someone is telling porkies, either past Trump or present Trump.  Which is it?

And why does he need to lie about his ties to Epstein?

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 1:01pm:


But he has the best memory...

John Smith wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 2:08pm:


Of course the dear leader thinks he's got a brilliant memory, he just declares it, and his simpering sycophants nod along like wind-up dolls.

No one in his circle dares correct him, and when someone does push back, they're quickly dismissed as fake news, deep state, or worse, disloyal.

At this point, it's not even clear if Trump's lying or if he genuinely believes the myth he's built around himself. He's so thoroughly cocooned in delusion and ego-fluffing that reality no longer gets a look in.

It's entirely possible he's not technically cheating at golf, because the people around him are so desperate to please him that they do all the cheating for him.

And so, with that laughable follow-through, he still struts around thinking he's a scratch golfer.

Just another fantasy propped up by a cult too spineless to speak the truth.

You've just blown my mind...

Imagine the mental gymnastics required to pretend that Epstein himself is somehow the distraction, just so you can deflect from Trump's well-documented association with him and his likely overrepresentation in the files.

The guy was a central figure in a massive international child trafficking ring, and yet somehow, in that twisted framing, he's the red herring?

Trump's name pops up so much it might as well be printed in bold. You're not uncovering some clever diversion, you're just desperately trying to shield your golden calf from scrutiny.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:



Oh, likely overrepresentation. Did you find him visiting Epsteins's island yet?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 4:38pm:

Quote:


What contradictions, tap-dancing teapot?
Don't go off all unmored and unhinged. You are not a wee paki or a Slovenian creep, are you?

Focus.

lee wrote on Jul 31^st, 2025 at 3:29pm:


Thanks, Lee. Now let's watch you prove every one of those points.

Up for a giggle?

Or would you prefer a gag?