Tulsi Gabbard releases years long coup effort against DJT

Guess who's birthday is today....

 

Trump was a threat to democracy. We had to stop him. What do you want??

 

Not everyone agrees it was a lie. I've not been a big believer that they actually colluded, but there was that email from Eric (?) trump who wanted to know what dirt they had on Biden, and the meeting in trump tower with a russian asset. There is a lot of Russia surrounding trump with his dealings in real estate, namely Deutsche Bank. He tried for years to do business in russia; So they may have known, and looked the other way.

If Hillary had won, and there was evidence that russia flooded social media with fake accounts and links to fake stories about trump, I would have fully expected that we would have included investigating her campaign to see if they colluded. It just makes sense. So shovel up your snow flakes and let go of the pearls.

 

Perhaps if candidate Trump and his surrogates had followed long-accepted norms for campaigning, the alarm bells wouldn't have sounded.

Disrupters attract attention. Trump likes attention. He got all kinds of attention. Now MAGA says he shouldn't have attracted attention?

So weird.

 

Anybody remember who won the 2016 election?

 

It's Tuesday.... any charges filed on this.... or is dear leader still just slinging mud hoping enough sticks somewhere that his dupes will forget Epstein?

 

"You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."

 

Pathological liar and the complicit media lets him get away with it.

 

Sounds like an accurate description of the current POTUS.

 

It didn't go so well last time Auten was the key witness on the topic. I guess we're just going to play all the old hits again.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/durham-fbi-russia-probe-witness

 

I do not think the goal is to actually get anyone convicted, it is just to force them to go through a process where they have to hire expensive lawyers and cost them a lot of money and time.

 

I'd agree. They can even likely get grand jury indictments since that's a one-sided process and they could withhold, for example, that there are questions as to whether the emails declassified by Gabbard are genuine or not. Then when the charges get tossed, they blame leftist judges (or anti-Trump judges if Republicans).

 

Possible prosecutable crimes

Based on the information provided in the X post by Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_
, Post ID: 1953115833674187082) and the surrounding context from related posts, web results, and historical developments, several potential crimes could be considered for prosecution if the declassified materials substantiate the allegations. These potential crimes span federal laws related to intelligence, election interference, fraud, and misuse of government authority. Below is an analysis of possible charges, grounded in U.S. legal frameworks and the specific context of the Steele Dossier, the Clinton Plan, and the weaponization of national intelligence:
1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)Description: This statute prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to defraud the United States by interfering with or obstructing a lawful government function, such as the integrity of the electoral process or federal investigations.
Application: If evidence shows the Clinton campaign, through operatives like Marc Elias, Robby Mook, John Podesta, or others, coordinated with the FBI or CIA to fabricate or promote the Steele Dossier to influence the 2016 election or subsequent investigations (e.g., the Trump-Russia probe), this could constitute a conspiracy. The 2025 Just The News article mentions declassified intelligence suggesting a "Clinton Plan" to smear Trump with Russia ties, potentially implicating campaign officials and intelligence figures.
Evidence Threshold: Proof of intent to deceive federal agencies (e.g., FBI reliance on unverified dossier claims for FISA warrants) and coordination with foreign or domestic actors (e.g., Christopher Steele’s sources) would be key.
2. False Statements to Federal Officials (18 U.S.C. § 1001)Description: It is a crime to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to federal investigators or in documents submitted to the government.
Application: If the Steele Dossier contained fabricated information (as suggested by the 2020 DOJ Inspector General report and the 2023 Durham Report, which found unverified or discredited claims), and if campaign officials or Steele knowingly presented this to the FBI or DOJ, this could apply. The Hoover Institution piece notes the dossier relied on hearsay and denied testimony, raising questions about its veracity.
Evidence Threshold: Documentation showing Steele or Clinton campaign affiliates misrepresented facts to federal authorities, especially in FISA applications, would be critical.
3. Misprision of a Felony (18 U.S.C. § 4)Description: This involves concealing knowledge of a felony committed by another without reporting it to authorities.
Application: If FBI or CIA officials were aware of the dossier’s dubious origins (e.g., funded opposition research) but failed to disclose this to oversight bodies or the FISA court, they could be liable. The 2020 IG report criticized the FBI’s handling of the dossier, suggesting procedural lapses.
Evidence Threshold: Internal communications or whistleblower testimony showing awareness of wrongdoing and deliberate concealment would be needed.
4. Campaign Finance Violations (52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.)Description: The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits illegal contributions, including foreign contributions or unreported expenditures, to influence federal elections.
Application: If the Steele Dossier’s funding involved foreign nationals (e.g., through Steele’s Russian sources or intermediaries) or if the Clinton campaign failed to disclose the dossier as an in-kind contribution, this could violate campaign finance laws. The Durham Report hinted at possible foreign disinformation, though not conclusively.
Evidence Threshold: Bank records or communications tracing foreign involvement in dossier funding would be necessary.
5. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503 or § 1512)Description: This includes corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding an official proceeding or investigation.
Application: If evidence shows Clinton campaign officials or intelligence figures (e.g., FBI leadership) manipulated the dossier to derail Trump’s campaign or presidency (e.g., via the Mueller investigation), this could apply. The X post by @Gut_Check1
suggests a “Grand Conspiracy,” and the White House document on weaponization alleges prior administration misuse of DOJ powers.
Evidence Threshold: Proof of intent to obstruct, such as deleted communications or altered records, would be required.
6. Espionage Act Violations (18 U.S.C. § 793)Description: This law prohibits the unlawful retention or disclosure of national defense information to foreign entities.
Application: If the dossier included classified intelligence mishandled by Steele or campaign affiliates (echoing the 2019 State Department probe into 38 individuals linked to Clinton’s email server), or if Russian disinformation was knowingly used, this could apply. The Senate Judiciary findings suggest Russian involvement in dossier content.
Evidence Threshold: Classified documents or testimony linking dossier creation to leaked intelligence would be essential.
7. Wire Fraud or Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341, § 1343)Description: These statutes criminalize schemes to defraud using interstate communications or mail, including financial gain or political advantage.
Application: If the Clinton campaign used the dossier as part of a scheme to defraud voters or federal agencies (e.g., securing FISA warrants under false pretenses), this could be prosecuted. The Just The News article notes the campaign’s coordination with media to amplify unverified claims.
Evidence Threshold: Evidence of a coordinated plan using communications to deceive would be key.
Contextual ConsiderationsHillary Clinton’s Implication: The X images suggesting Clinton would “take half of Washington with her” if prosecuted imply potential co-conspirators across government and media, complicating prosecutions due to political fallout. This aligns with public sentiment in X replies demanding “perp walks” (@TARSRel0aded
) and arrests (@BruhStevens
).
Statute of Limitations: Many of these crimes (e.g., conspiracy, false statements) have a 5-year limit from the offense date (2016), expiring in 2021 unless tolled by ongoing cover-ups or new evidence, which the declassified materials might provide.
Political Weaponization: The White House’s 2025 order on ending federal weaponization suggests a broader context of DOJ misuse, potentially shielding or targeting figures based on politics, affecting prosecutorial decisions.
Challenges to ProsecutionEvidence Gaps: The declassified materials’ contents remain speculative until released. Historical probes (e.g., Durham, Horowitz) found misconduct but stopped short of recommending charges.
Political Pressure: High-profile figures like Clinton or Obama (as suggested in @Gut_Check1
’s post) could deter action due to public and institutional resistance.
Jurisdictional Issues: Proving intent and coordination across agencies and campaigns requires airtight evidence, often hindered by classified or destroyed records
Conclusion
Possible crimes include conspiracy, false statements, obstruction, and campaign finance violations, with espionage and fraud as secondary considerations. The success of any prosecution hinges on the declassified materials corroborating intent, coordination, and specific acts—details yet to emerge as of 05:47 PM EDT, August 6, 2025.

 

The statue of limitations has run out for all of them, except #6. Also, recent SCOTUS rulings on Defraud likely make it something that would be thrown out of court quickly.

With regard to #6, no classified information was used in the Steele Dossier. It was all a bunch of made stuff from Denchenko.

The only prosecutable crime was for the alteration of FISA warrant evidence, for which Klinesmith plead guilty.