🍿 pic.twitter.com/64xHqtLzD6

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) July 23, 2025

All these crooks and media are falling back on "Russia DID interfere in the election".

So its time to kill that narrative. I guarantee China spent more and did more to interfere. These countries all meddle to some small degree.

1) How much did Russia spend (I think $160K)
2) What exactly were these FB ads, let's see them.
3) Lets see the social bots/trolls

Let the people see the evidence and how "sophisticated" and "purposefull" it actually was. Time to destroy that BS excuse. Then move on to the next BS gaslighting tactic.

Obama & Cos most effective defense is targeted propaganda. There needs to be a focused effort to expose it as such.

FobTies said:

---

All these crooks and media are falling back on "Russia DID interfere in the election".

So its time to kill that narrative. I guarantee China spent more and did more to interfere. These countries all meddle to some small degree.

1) How much did Russia spend (I think $160K)
2) What exactly were these FB ads, let's see them.
3) Lets see the social bots/trolls

Let the people see the evidence and how "sophisticated" and purposefull" it actually was. Time to destroy that BS excuse. Then move on to the next BS gaslighting tactic.

---

They had the chance to do that in the Internet Research Agency case. Team Mueller ran away and dropped it when IRA hired American counsel (high dollar ones) who showed up to defend the case and ran circles around Team Mueller's lawyers. Team Mueller wouldn't even take it to trial because they knew it was all BS.

Yep, take that glossed over Mueller report BS and let people actually see exactly what the claim "Russia interference" actually hinges on. Lets see these stupid ads and bot posts. Expose Comey and Brennan as lying fools for citing useless nonsense.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

It is remarkable to me that I have not seen a single liberal here or anyone else condemn what Obama and his corrupt goons did. Lots of deflection and obfuscation, but not a condemnation to be found.

Even Hussein didn't say in his statement that he is innocent. He said the allegations were "bizarre." Well, I consider a president weaponizing the government, illegally, against his successor to be "bizarre."

---

That's because the nature of what that side of the political isle has become.

As I'm sure you know, 50% of all Democrats would joyously ask NO questions as all Americans could be arrested and put in prison, or they would just party like it's 1999.

It's highly likely these folks you speak of are going to either wait for the minute quotes, or comments, to tell us "but look at what the Senate said, including Rubio" during that time, OR, they'll just ignore it.

As you know, as long as you agree with the comments and thinking of these folks, they'll defend murder, rape, slavery, and all of that just in the last four years. Hell, we're still missing 270,000 children who are likely in the sex trade or labor trade. Supposedly, this administration has found approximately 30,000 children. That alone should be headlines every damn day.

So no, they don't care under any circumstances about any American as long as that American's opinion is different from theirs. The other 50% of Democrats know the depths they've sunk to but can't bring themselves to consider their side is not just horrendously bad, but routinely damages innocent American's on purpose, they just don't want to know about any truth.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I worry that the whistleblowers coming out now are setting Tulsi and Bondi up for a spectacular fall by feeding them stories that will deliberately fall apart under cross examination.

---

Hence my caveat to be absolutely certain they have a strong factual case and settled legal precedent for the crimes being charged, if any.

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

FobTies said:

---

Yep, take that glossed over Mueller report BS and let people actually see exactly what the claim "Russia interference" actually hinges on. Lets see these stupid ads and bot posts. Expose Comey and Brennan as lying fools for citing useless nonsense.

---

Unfortunately, IRA was owned by Putin's "Chef", Yevgeny Prigozhin. Also the leader of the Wagner Group. Putin blew up his plane a year or so ago. So that info is most likely under Putin's control.

Matt Taibbi sums it up nicely here:

Quote:

---

It was worse than we thought.

The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "developed a clear preference" for Donald Trump and "aspired to help his chances of victory" is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report's CIA authors.

The first item was a "scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment" of one sentence that the report's five CIA authors read "five ways" and initially left out, only to have Director John Brennan order it back in. The second item was an email with "no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification." The third was supposedly backed by "liaison," diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as signals intelligence (SIGINT), except the "SIGINT" didn't mention Trump, the "liaison reporting" didn't mention Trump and was from 2014, and the "diplomatic and media" reporting was a post-election review by a U.S. Ambassador citing a Russian pundit who said Putin and Trump should "work together like businessmen." This was "evidence" that Putin "developed a clear preference" for Trump.

All three reports weren't just unsourced and unreliable, but discarded fictions pulled out of the CIA's trash heap. "They manipulated the manipulations," is how ODNI Deputy Chief of Staff Alexa Henning put it.

---

FobTies said:

---

All these crooks and media are falling back on "Russia DID interfere in the election".

So its time to kill that narrative. I guarantee China spent more and did more to interfere. These countries all meddle to some small degree.

1) How much did Russia spend (I think $160K)
2) What exactly were these FB ads, let's see them.
3) Lets see the social bots/trolls

Let the people see the evidence and how "sophisticated" and "purposefull" it actually was. Time to destroy that BS excuse. Then move on to the next BS gaslighting tactic.

Obama & Cos most effective defense is targeted propaganda. There needs to be a focused effort to expose it as such.

---

Red Herring by the media. Nobody is saying there was no interference. The Obama/Brennan lie was that Putin had a preference for Trump and wanted him to win the election. This was completely manufactured and the opposite appears likely to be true.

Quote:

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

Not sure yet but I hope it would be a lot more solid than the Team Mueller BS cases.

These have bee quite large document dumps. Will take time for them to be reviewed and digested.

Francis Macomber said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I worry that the whistleblowers coming out now are setting Tulsi and Bondi up for a spectacular fall by feeding them stories that will deliberately fall apart under cross examination.

---

Hence my caveat to be absolutely certain they have a strong factual case and settled legal precedent for the crimes being charged, if any.

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

This is the big question. Gov't officials & an administration intentionally mis-interpreting intelligence to plant seeds for later investigations of their political opponents sure seems horrible. I'm just not sure if any laws were broken.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

Not sure yet but I hope it would be a lot more solid than the Team Mueller BS cases.

These have bee quite large document dumps. Will take time for them to be reviewed and digested.

---

Guy from the Article III project suggested a "criminal conspiracy against rights"

Quote:

---

A criminal conspiracy against rights, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 241, involves two or more individuals conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate someone in the free exercise of their constitutional or federal rights. This offense can be a felony punishable by imprisonment, fines, or even death in certain aggravated circumstances.

---

Lets see the FB/IG/Twitter content that was so wide reaching and influential. Ive seen these stupid "impressions" stats. Millions of impressions is meaningless, but it sounds impactful. IF they didn't have that content when they put this in the Mueller Report, then let's expose it as uncorroborated conjecture.

Its pretty ironic when you consider our own feds doing Crossfire Hurricane interference in 2016, and Hunter lap top interference in 2020. Back to back epic interference, yet we are all gaslit about this:

Also, I hope when this whole slimy mess is brought to light that a majority of people will conclude that electing Senators to be POTUS is a bad idea. Their mindset is purely focused on defeating political opposition by any means necessary, legal or very questionably legal. That doesn't just apply to their elected opposition. They also despise that portion of the electorate that didn't vote for them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

Not sure yet but I hope it would be a lot more solid than the Team Mueller BS cases.

These have bee quite large document dumps. Will take time for them to be reviewed and digested.

---

Is there any new information coming out of all of this? We already knew the Steele Dossier was BS, right? And that it was leaked to the media by McCain. We already knew Russia didn't hack the voting, but was posting stuff on social media to discredit Hilary, right?

I am not confused as to why this is pissing people off, but I guess I am confused as to why so many are acting like this is a huge revelation or that it is going to lead to criminal charges.

Isn't Obama basically untouchable now thanks to SC presidential immunity decision?

93MarineHorn said:

---

Also, I hope when this whole slimy mess is brought to light that a majority of people will conclude that electing Senators to be POTUS is a bad idea. Their mindset is purely focused on defeating political opposition by any means necessary, legal or very questionably legal. That doesn't just apply to their elected opposition. They also despise that portion of the electorate that didn't vote for them.

---

Eh, I am not sure there has ever been a POTUS more antagonistic to the other side's electorate than Trump in his first six months of this term.

To be clear, I don't think it's right for anybody to do that. I think once you are elected you should conduct yourself as though you are the president of everybody and not just the ones who voted for you. I am just saying I think it has more to do with politics today than it does whether or not they're Senators.

Francis Macomber said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Also, I hope when this whole slimy mess is brought to light that a majority of people will conclude that electing Senators to be POTUS is a bad idea. Their mindset is purely focused on defeating political opposition by any means necessary, legal or very questionably legal. That doesn't just apply to their elected opposition. They also despise that portion of the electorate that didn't vote for them.

---

Eh, I am not sure there has ever been a POTUS more antagonistic to the other side's electorate than Trump in his first six months of this term.

To be clear, I don't think it's right for anybody to do that. I think once you are elected you should conduct yourself as though you are the president of everybody and not just the ones who voted for you. I am just saying I think it has more to do with politics today than it does whether or not they're Senators.

---

Trump is antagonistic towards Dems that have tried to put him in jail and take his administration to court over everything. He is not antagonistic towards Dem voters, unless you count illegals

Obama & Biden vocally attacked Republican voters ("Bitter Clingers", "White supremacists"). They were every bit as much at war with Republican voters as they were with elected Rs.

Francis Macomber said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I worry that the whistleblowers coming out now are setting Tulsi and Bondi up for a spectacular fall by feeding them stories that will deliberately fall apart under cross examination.

---

Hence my caveat to be absolutely certain they have a strong factual case and settled legal precedent for the crimes being charged, if any.

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

People's lives were ruined. Their constitutional rights were trampled on. The legitimate President had his presidency severely hamstrung and was ultimately impeached. Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars were spent "investigating" activities they knew never even occurred. Is this confusing somehow?

No. Obama is not untouchable because of any court decision, despite the fact that leftists everywhere are screeching that.

He won't be touched, but not because he legally cannot.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Also, I hope when this whole slimy mess is brought to light that a majority of people will conclude that electing Senators to be POTUS is a bad idea. Their mindset is purely focused on defeating political opposition by any means necessary, legal or very questionably legal. That doesn't just apply to their elected opposition. They also despise that portion of the electorate that didn't vote for them.

---

Eh, I am not sure there has ever been a POTUS more antagonistic to the other side's electorate than Trump in his first six months of this term.

To be clear, I don't think it's right for anybody to do that. I think once you are elected you should conduct yourself as though you are the president of everybody and not just the ones who voted for you. I am just saying I think it has more to do with politics today than it does whether or not they're Senators.

---

Trump is antagonistic towards Dems that have tried to put him in jail and take his administration to court over everything. He is not antagonistic towards Dem voters, unless you count illegals

Obama & Biden vocally attacked Republican voters ("Bitter Clingers", "White supremacists"). They were every bit as much at war with Republican voters as they were with elected Rs.

---

He deployed the military against California protestors. That's pretty damn antagonistic.

Not trying to get into "who is more" argument, just saying I don't think it matters if they're Senators or not.

Quote:

---

Is there any new information coming out of all of this? We already knew the Steele Dossier was BS, right? And that it was leaked to the media by McCain. We already knew Russia didn't hack the voting, but was posting stuff on social media to discredit Hilary, right?

I am not confused as to why this is pissing people off, but I guess I am confused as to why so many are acting like this is a huge revelation or that it is going to lead to criminal charges.

Isn't Obama basically untouchable now thanks to SC presidential immunity decision?

---

Well what we here on TexAgs knew and what the public at large knew are two different things. We were connecting dots from way back. What is being released now is drawing those direct dots as we speculated. So in that respect, it is new. Is it worse than what we thought? Kind of but not that surprising, a least to me.

As to the Obama immunity question, the jury is still out on that. Personally, I am having a hard time seeing Obama's breaking the law repeatedly as an official act within the discharge of his duties. Then again I am from the Watergate era when Nixon was in criminal jeopardy for spying on the DNC and Dem candidates using CREEP with coordination from the Oval Office necessitating a pardon from Ford. Then several years later, Nixon did the David Frost interviews in which he forcefully asserted it was "not illegal when the President does it," as more than a bit too far.

There is a line, somewhere. We just aren't sure where that line is yet.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I worry that the whistleblowers coming out now are setting Tulsi and Bondi up for a spectacular fall by feeding them stories that will deliberately fall apart under cross examination.

---

Hence my caveat to be absolutely certain they have a strong factual case and settled legal precedent for the crimes being charged, if any.

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

People's lives were ruined. Their constitutional rights were trampled on. The legitimate President had his presidency severely hamstrung and was ultimately impeached. Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars were spent "investigating" activities they knew never even occurred. Is this confusing somehow?

---

Whose life was ruined? I honestly don't know.

Can you specify the crime or is this as close as you can get? It's an honest question that shouldn't spark outrage.

He probably just doesn't like playing stupid games with posters.

He did not deploy the military against California protestors. And no comment on people attacking ICE agents, to include shooting at them?

For a "conservative," you always tote the water of the radical left. You repeat every leftist talking point, but never seem to keep up with the debunking of those BS talking points.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Is there any new information coming out of all of this? We already knew the Steele Dossier was BS, right? And that it was leaked to the media by McCain. We already knew Russia didn't hack the voting, but was posting stuff on social media to discredit Hilary, right?

I am not confused as to why this is pissing people off, but I guess I am confused as to why so many are acting like this is a huge revelation or that it is going to lead to criminal charges.

Isn't Obama basically untouchable now thanks to SC presidential immunity decision?

---

Well what we here on TexAgs knew and what the public at large knew are two different things. We were connecting dots from way back. What is being released now is drawing those direct dots as we speculated. So in that respect, it is new. Is it worse than what we thought? Kind of but not that surprising, a least to me.

As to the Obama immunity question, the jury is still out on that. Personally, I am having a hard time seeing Obama's breaking the law repeatedly as an official act within the discharge of his duties. Then again I am from the Watergate era when Nixon was in criminal jeopardy for spying on the DNC and Dem candidates using CREEP with coordination from the Oval Office necessitating a pardon from Ford. Then several years later, Nixon did the David Frost interviews in which he forcefully asserted it was "not illegal when the President does it," as more than a bit too far.

There is a line, somewhere. We just aren't sure where that line is yet.

---

Gotcha. Thanks for the honest reply.

If there is an actual crime being committed, then on one hand I want there to be justice, but on the other hand I am worried to see what happens to this country if we put somebody as popular as Obama (who this "democrat" never voted for, btw) in jail.

Man, you're 7 years behind. Start at the beginning of the Mueller thread. Let me know once you're caught up.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I worry that the whistleblowers coming out now are setting Tulsi and Bondi up for a spectacular fall by feeding them stories that will deliberately fall apart under cross examination.

---

Hence my caveat to be absolutely certain they have a strong factual case and settled legal precedent for the crimes being charged, if any.

---

What are the laws that we are thinking were broken here?

I know everyone is going to pile on me for that question, but it is a serious question. I've not had time to look at all this stuff yet and all I've seen are some tweets and I heard a brief discussion on the radio but had to get out of the car before they go too heavily into it.

---

People's lives were ruined. Their constitutional rights were trampled on. The legitimate President had his presidency severely hamstrung and was ultimately impeached. Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars were spent "investigating" activities they knew never even occurred. Is this confusing somehow?

---

That poster might make a doofus out of themselves normally, but that's a legitimate question.

For my own curiosity I'd like to know what specific laws or statutes are in play.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

He did not deploy the military against California protestors. And no comment on people attacking ICE agents, to include shooting at them?

For a "conservative," you always tote the water of the radical left. You repeat every leftist talking point, but never seem to keep up with the debunking of those BS talking points.

---

No comment? I don't think they should attack ICE agents or shoot at them. Why would I would I randomly say that in this thread? This type of response is just bizarre.

Answer these questions for me:

Did he deploy the military in California?

Why did he deploy the military?

Rockdoc said:

---

He probably just doesn't like playing stupid games with posters.

---

More likely doesn't know the answer.

Francis Macomber said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Also, I hope when this whole slimy mess is brought to light that a majority of people will conclude that electing Senators to be POTUS is a bad idea. Their mindset is purely focused on defeating political opposition by any means necessary, legal or very questionably legal. That doesn't just apply to their elected opposition. They also despise that portion of the electorate that didn't vote for them.

---

Eh, I am not sure there has ever been a POTUS more antagonistic to the other side's electorate than Trump in his first six months of this term.

To be clear, I don't think it's right for anybody to do that. I think once you are elected you should conduct yourself as though you are the president of everybody and not just the ones who voted for you. I am just saying I think it has more to do with politics today than it does whether or not they're Senators.

---

Trump is antagonistic towards Dems that have tried to put him in jail and take his administration to court over everything. He is not antagonistic towards Dem voters, unless you count illegals

Obama & Biden vocally attacked Republican voters ("Bitter Clingers", "White supremacists"). They were every bit as much at war with Republican voters as they were with elected Rs.

---

He deployed the military against California protestors. That's pretty damn antagonistic.

Not trying to get into "who is more" argument, just saying I don't think it matters if they're Senators or not.

---

No, that is enforcing the law against a violent mob that CA Dems were not willing to confront. Senators have never had to run a gov't. They are partisan fighters and make terrible Presidents.

I love this. An angry mob in California, a state with a rich history of violent, hostile mob actions shows up at the doorsteps of federal buildings screaming, throwing things, pushing at Federal employees and agents, threatening, with all the hate and menace clearly demonstrated for days upon days and this clown thinks a military showing up defensively to keep people from getting killed is antagonistic. Ho-ly smokes that's a pretzel!

ETA: clearly not talking about you MarineHorn

Remember how Obama’s top intel operatives tried to get former NSA director Mike Rogers fired shortly after the 2016 election?

Now we know exactly why: Rogers refused to sign on to the corrupt efforts of Brennan and Clapper to smuggle garbage, unverified intel into the ICA and… pic.twitter.com/ohVUnp7Cd1

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 23, 2025

House Oversight Cmte: The Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee approved by voice vote a motion to direct the Chairman to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales.…

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 23, 2025

American Hardwood said:

---

I love this. An angry mob in California, a state with a rich history of violent, hostile mob actions shows up at the doorsteps of federal buildings screaming, throwing things, pushing at Federal employees and agents, threatening, with all the hate and menace clearly demonstrated for days upon days and this clown thinks a military showing up defensively to keep people from getting killed is antagonistic. Ho-ly smokes that's a pretzel!

ETA: clearly not talking about you MarineHorn

---

How many times in our history has that happened? Last time was Rodney King riots, I believe.

You thinking this warranted military action is what is a joke. But whatever Trump says you eat up just like the rest of his useful "followers."

When non military fails to enforce federal laws or protect federal property, POTUS is well within the Constitution and US Law to rely on military.

People rely on examples and references where local law enforcement was merely be supplemented. And in those instances there must be a request and non-military oversight.

But this was a case where local and state governments were FAILING to enforce federal law and were allowing destruction of federal property.