Well first a political party cannot prosecute anyone for anything. Second there has to be EVIDENCE of a crime to get a Grand Jury to return an indictment. Third have you ever actually read the US Constitution, treason is very narrowly defined and there is nothing Obama did, much less his wife that comes close. what is your plan? To indict him for wearing a tan suit and her for being married to a man in a tan suit?

enter US Constitution into your favorite search engine and try to come up with anything the Obama’s did that matches the definition of treason. No being black while president doesn’t work either. Being actually popular doesnt’ work.

So my dear what do you think the Obamas can be indicted for that fits the definition? Ushering in the longest period of economic growth in US history?? Perhaps digging the US out of a major recession in record time? Maybe saving the US auto industry and all those jobs. Just what do you believe they did?

Did you happen to record the call Mueller made to you personally updating you on the results of his investigation so far? Or save the email? Because I didn’t get a call or an email myself. I did hear that Mueller sends out a weekly newsletter with investigation updates, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how to subscribe to it.

But even without personal updates from the OSC, I KNOW for a fact that it isn’t true that Mueller has found nothing, because he HAS found enough to put multiple people connected to Trump in jail, not to mention dozens of others who have been indicted.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that there was a “plot” by the Russians to help Trump at the very least throw the election into doubt and chaos and at the most put Trump in the White House. The only questions remaining are did Trump personally know of this plot and if he didn’t, was he a useful idiot or a complete moron.

The idea that Obama and Clinton would conspire to illegally affect a national election that Clinton was expected to win is delusional.

FYI

Hmm all the witnesses are Republicans. The evidence was provided by Republicans. The FBI is 70% republican and the head of the FBI is a Trump appointee.

So where are the dems??

Factually Trump has admitted on TV that he organized the illegal insurrection. The GOP dominated FBI found evidence of Trumps theft in Trumps club. How do you think the Dems did that? Who were the witnesses? Republicans from Trump’s inner circle.

In Georgia the witnesses once again Republicans, the documents provided by Republicans. Now how did the Dems invent charges??

I have noticed what Trumpies have done. Rather than providing an argument addressing the facts they threaten the lives of the grand jurors, the Judges, the witnesses, the court officials FBI agents in general. That is how a criminal gang acts.

No we don’t like Trump, he lies, he doesn’t keep his promises, the evidence is he financially tried to benefit from being president and probably did. He has shown no respect for those serving in our military and finds people wounded in our military to be disgusting, they weren’t pretty enough to please him. He lied to serving military he was more loyal to an enemy nation than to our military. As a veteran I find that disgusting. I find it repellent that he tried to sow dissension between the US and our allies while essentially sowing fealty to an enemy nation. I find it repellent that he tried to sow discord among Americans and called anyone he didn’t like traitors. I run a business, I know a lot of other business owners. He is known for being dishonest, a poor businessman and a man who bullies others, employees and contractors.

All that said this is the US we go by evidence and the evidence is that there was sufficient EVIDENCE to convince 4 grand juries made up from people across the political spectrum the the cases should go to trial. That is how we do things in the US. We follow the law.

As an ardent lifelong liberal who continues to vote with Democrats until there is a liberal choice in our country, let me assure you that no reasonable person is gloating over the level of criminal activity former President Trump and his family are involved in. I am personally mortified every day, every single time some new revelation discovers an additional atrocity orchestrated by him. I am disheartened that many of his crimes will go forever unanswered because he has overwhelmed the capacity of the legal system’s ability to resolve all of them. Trump is a crimson letter that will blight every American forever.

Question: Will AG Barr bring charges against Obama now that Director of National Intelligence John Radcliffe has released a declassified document that showed Obama had placed a spy in the then candidate Trump's campaign?

Let’s see:

1. Barack Obama wasn’t running for office again so there would have been reason for him to place a “spy” inside of Trump’s campaign - Please feel free to provide actual evidence of a constitutional attorney performing an act so idiotic that it would result in his being indicted or arrested. I’ll wait.
2. The Trump campaign was not a sacrosanct entity - In fact, there are almost no actual statutes against a campaign being investigated by law enforcement (or even an intelligence agency if they have connections with overseas components) despite the myriad claims from the right that there are. It appeared that laws might have been violated, and the FBI seems to have investigated that. If Trump had not won, he likely would have been indicted for certain aspects of the Russia affair; and he may well face charges when he leaves office.
3. Michael Cohen clearly and concisely stated that Donald Trump violated federal election laws and potentially money laundering and structuring statutes - Trump allowed his former fixer/attorney to pay off Stormy Daniels, a porn star, using Cohen’s mortgage line of credit. That’s money laundering and a violation of federal election laws, both of which are prosecutable under the federal code. So the FBI and the Attorney General were on solid legal ground when they looked into the Trump campaign as laws were clearly being violated.
4. There really wasn’t a need to “plant a spy” inside of the Trump campaign as it was shambling wreck that was broadcasting all of its “secrets” - From using Wikipedia to research political opposition, to hiring professional goofballs like Roger Stone for advice, to both Trump sons holding meetings with potential Russian assets who were under surveillance, the campaign was lucky that a newspaper reporter wasn’t planted in their ranks as their security was subpar. Why waste time and money on a “spy” when the assembled group is telling almost everyone what they are doing?
5. If such information both existed and was credible, then leaking it to the public would the LAST thing that a DNI (Director National Intelligence) would do - US Espionage 101: The various intelligence agencies outside of FBI cannot get involved in domestic intelligence gathering, nor law enforcement, unless specifically tasked to do by the POTUS. Even then, they would have to do so discreetly as tipping their hand could ruin months or years of investigation. It could also seriously damage any potential case against the suspect/target as exposing evidence could allow his/her defense to mount a solid strategy against any prosecution. For reasons that aren’t exactly clear, Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists seem to believe that they are going throw out the prosecution playbook just to confirm that what someone “suspects” is true. That’s laughably amateurish and thus probably an incorrect assessment of the events occurring.

Barack Obama had no need to “spy” on Donald Trump. If he did “spy” (of which no credible evidence has been presented) then given the Trump campaign’s poor management and security skills, that might have consisted of buying a copy of the Washington Times and reading it. Michael Cohen has clearly stated that he helped Donald Trump break the law and he was convicted, in part, for that. Finally no one is going to leak crucial information that might damage a prosecution because…that might damage a prosecution.

This is an exercise in poor critical thinking that can be safely dismissed without too much effort.

State and Federal nvestigations are under way. That's the first step. You can assume Trump will try to obstruct and delay the investigations as much as he can. So don't get impatient. This isn't about losing his job; it's about losing years of his life and his civil liberties.

I think he will be indicted. Last I heard I think there were something like four areas of criminal liability he was being investigated for and New York state had a couple of charges they were looking into.

Pelosi has also indicated bipartisan interest in a 9/11 type investigation into the Jan. 6 plundering of the Capital. The implication is that funding of the riot and planning for it was widespread, possibly extending into elected officials. That means it could go as high as the Oval Office.

As a political matter, my sense is that many of Trump's actions were so blatant and easily proved that prosecution is necessary to restore trust in law enforcement as independent of the President; and to discourage overreach by future presidents.

So you’re saying: is it possibly that Obama could pick up the phone and ask a foreign power to expend their energies illegally spying on a US national on US soil? And not just that, but on a person who might be the President of the United States at some point. And you’re saying the UK spy agencies said “Sure, we’re not busy and creating future diplomatic problems is no issue for us. Despite the fact that you have your own intelligence agencies, we’re more than happy to help out. Where do you want us to point the mics?”

Nobody has found any evidence that Obama tapped Trump’s phones or spied on him at all. The idea that the English were involved is just a further attempt by Trump to distract everyone from the car crash administration he’s presiding over.

It’s best not to give it any thought.

Okay, take off the tin foil hat. Stop watching Fox News and reading Conservative Tree House.

Remind yourself that Pizzagate was fake. Remind yourself that Uranium One was fake. Remind yourself that after years of constant investigation they didn’t lock her up because they couldn’t find anything. Remind yourself that Birtherism is fake.

Okay, are we ready?

No, because Obamagate is Fake. It’s faker than Arabian Marmite and Vegan beefsteak. Faker than a chocolate umbrella or a Creationist website. Faker than the fakest thing ever and then some.

Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, shame on you. Fool you over and over again and you’re still lapping it up? There are no words for the level of abject humiliation you should be feeling right now.

Barr is taking a page from Trump’s playbook, not actually saying anything, but throwing out innuendo. He said:

“I have no specific evidence that I can cite right now”

But he is “concerned.” Now why is he concerned with no specific evidence? That would be irrational if it were true. In fact, this is just a smear.

Then he said:

"There might be abuses that don't rise to the level of a crime."

“Might be”? There “might be” Martians living on the far side of the Moon too, but I don’t have any evidence of it.

The Obama spying on the Trump campaign story is news old and long discredited. It seems to me that Barr is trying to create a fake scandal to distract from the the Mueller report will say if he ever releases it.

I am concerned that AG Barr is intentionally running a propaganda operation to shield Donald Trump, and I just gave my specific evidence.

We now know that there was an ongoing wiretap targeted at Trump Tower for some years - because there was a Russian Mafia boss running a massive array of rackets out of Trump Tower. We don’t know if that wiretap picked up anything beyond the people running massive Russian Mafia operations out of Trump Tower, as I just felt I needed to reiterate in italics.

We also know that Paul Manafort - who lives in Trump Tower, and was Trump’s campaign manager during a crucial period of the campaign - had received vast sums of money from a Ukrainian oligarch to promote a pro-Putin agenda in the USA. The White House has said Trump knew nothing about this deal, which means the Trump machine vets campaign managers about as thoroughly as tenants who aren’t black.

We know that Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for National Security Adviser, made phone calls to the Russian Ambassador to the US, who is widely reputed to be a spymaster, and then lied about having the phone calls, and then had to resign.

We know that Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for Attorney General, and in charge of the Justice Department, had a face-to-face meeting with the same gentleman around that same crucial period of the campaign when Manafort was hanging around, when the GOP platform suddenly did a U-turn on Ukraine.

I mean, there’s lots of people who might be interested in phone conversations involving Russian spies, Russian oligarchs, Russian mobsters, or, if we switch it up a bit, the Turkish government, who were slinging wads of cash at Mike Flynn. So there’s all kinds of possible scenarios in which the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, GCHQ or whoever might have picked up a conversation that involved someone who was making or receiving a call from somewhere in Trump Tower; which appears to be, in the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, a ‘wretched hive of scum and villainy’.

What I simply can’t credit is the idea that Barack Obama rang up GCHQ and asked them to ‘wiretap’ Trump Tower to get some kind of dirt on Donald Trump which would prevent him from winning. The reason I find this so unlikely is that Donald Trump is now actually President instead of in jail.

A note to people who ask questions: If you’re going to ask a question about something in the news, include a link to a news article that explains what the question is about.

In the case of this question, I was hampered in finding a reference because the question itself misstates the facts. Nobody placed a spy in the Trump campaign, at least not one so far disclosed, and not according to Radcliffe.

The “spying” consisted of FBI agents taking notes of the conversation during their briefings of the Trump campaign. One has to keep in mind that the FBI had information that the Russians were talking to the Trump Campaign, and they started an investigation.

There were good reasons for the investigation. Trump supporters define misconduct and spying in a way similar to how Trump describes treasion: anything negative towards Donald Trump. They define illegal and improper as anything negative towards Donald Trump. It is a bizarre way to look at things.

For all the people upset by what the FBI did, let me ask you one question: Can you name ONE THING that the FBI did that lessened Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 election? And if what they did had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE CAMPAIGN WHATEVER, how was it a coup against Trump?

So let’s unpack this, shall we?

1. It’s not “the Democrats”. Bob Mueller is a lifelong Republican, appointed by a Republican. This is a law enforcement matter, not a political matter.
2. No one is “going after Trump”. The investigation is into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation….”
3. Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017. He’s been on the job significantly less than two years.
4. There’s plenty of evidence visible, including the 14 known contacts between Trump campaign team members and people connected with the Russian government, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, and the indictments of Russian entities for meddling in the election. Beyond that, we don’t know what other evidence Mueller has, because his investigation has (quite properly) been essentially leak-free.

So you’re wrong on the premise and on all of the particulars. Troll score: 10.0, 10.0, 10.0, and oooh, 7.4 from the Russian judge.

Is it possible? Anything is possible. The question should really be is it probable, and in that case the answer is: no it is not probable.

There is a categorical denial on record from Her Majesty’s government.

What is clearly true is that at this point in time someone should be asking His Orange Magnificence to provide us with a definitive answer to that question which he saw fit to raise in public about President Obama and GHCQ.

With his press conference today he piled probably slanderous and criminal accusations against President Obama and GHCQ on top of his earlier probably libellous and criminal accusations against President Obama.

President Trump and his press secretary have made his preposterous tweet storm into an international incident, and it is an incident that is now damaging the credibility of the US with its very closest international allies.

President Trump has all the power he requires to find out the answers and it is incumbent upon him to make the answers public. If he has no evidence to support his accusations then it is incumbent upon Congress to bring that fact out.

So when I say someone should ask Donald Trump, I don’t mean Wolf Blitzer or Tucker Carlson. I mean someone with the power to compel President Trump’s testimony under oath.

Here’s another burning question.

Is it at all possible that Kim Jong-Un’s recent missile launches are being organized by President Obama’s moles in the US and North Korean governments?

So Obamagate is basically Trump saying his campaign was illegally spied on by Obama’s Administration, even though they had FISA warrants and reasonable cause to believe his campaign was involved with Russia and meddling in the election. Which there was plenty of proof, still today, that supports that possibility. Trump lied and blocked every witness he could and is even pardoning the ones who were convicted as part of that investigation.

But you think it’s perfectly fine for Trump to blackmail Ukraine with $400 million in military aid to force them to investigate Joe Biden? (With no warrant, no due process, no intelligence agencies of ours involved) Trump was actually impeached for this by the way. And the only reason he was not removed from office is because a Republican controlled Senate let him off. Even some of the Senators who voted not to remove him said they knew he was guilty, but thought he had learned his lesson.