• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

new Text Msgs Reveal FBI Agent was Friends with Judge in Flynn Case

haymarket said:
You want to pretend that all this evidence does not show a pattern of Trump repeatedly doing this and Trump apologists repeatedly trying to excuse it. You cannot take one incident and isolate it and pretend we should give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he has done this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again time after time after time.

And you trying to insult me does not change Trumps words or his intent. Shame on you for trying to make this about me.
Click to expand...

Ah...

So actually doing something is not important. What's important is that Haymarket imagines a pattern.

If your comments are not related to you, then who may I blame for posting them?

What you say reminds me of a politician that return-mailed a letter to an associate with this hand written note on the page: "Look what some idiot is sending out over your signature".

Who is it that is posting on your account that protects you from being responsible for the words and ideas posted there? That guy needs help!
 
code1211 said:
Ah...

So actually doing something is not important. What's important is that Haymarket imagines a pattern.

If your comments are not related to you, then who may I blame for posting them?

What you say reminds me of a politician that return-mailed a letter to an associate with this hand written note on the page: "Look what some idiot is sending out over your signature".

Who is it that is posting on your account that protects you from being responsible for the words and ideas posted there? That guy needs help!
Click to expand...

You trying to attack me does NOT change the actions of Trump and his top people in colluding with the Russians illegally.
 
Chomsky said:
I'll tell you what, to be fair I'll poke around a little, to see if I believe there's something legit there.

But we've been down this route before, including with the Nunes' memo ...
Click to expand...

The Republicans are getting all their ducks in a row. Their approach differ from the Democrats. The Democrats attempt to have a trial in the court of public opinion, using fake news and opinions to mold public opinion. One can hear the parrot repeat. The Republicans are setting up a legal case that can be tried in the court of law.

The Democrat approach is similar to watching a TV crime and court drama, where the hero detective solves a complex case in one hour including commercial breaks. Each day CNN gives another installment of this soap opera drama. This appeals to the left for some reason.

Real detective work is much slower and boring. It may take weeks, months and even years to gather evidence. Real detective work does not follow the TV format as well as a prewritten fictional drama. Those who think a TV detective is the same as a real detective, notice that the Republican's competing TV show, is not as tidy, and leaves you hanging. The left opts for the standard TV approach which is neat and tidy and all wrapped in one sitting. Those who are more scientific minded, don't mind the wait, if justice is served in the end. They prefer to listen to the results of the investigation, as it appears.

The only thing that bothers me is the fact there are so many people, who prefer the TV collusion drama, also think a TV drama is real. It makes the future look very shaky. Imagine if a TV president was elected president? You would need the media fawning; hyping the fall season, to compensate for lack of any genuine skills.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You trying to attack me does NOT change the actions of Trump and his top people in colluding with the Russians illegally.
Click to expand...

You keep ranting about that, but you have yet to present any actual real world evidence that this actually occurred.

Would you care to start. It's been over a year and I'm still waiting for even one real world fact to come out of your paranoia.

Sounds like even Muldoon and the Gang that Won't Shoot Straight have given up on your pipe dream and are now just trying to go after Republicans that lied to the FBI or perjured themselves.

Interestingly, they don't seem to have any interest at all in DEMOCRATS who actually DID lie to the FBI or PERJURE themselves. McCabe comes to mind. So do Strzok and Page and Comey.

Justice in our country has taken a decidedly ugly and political turn of late.

I find it interesting that after 8 years of Eisenhower, Kennedy could not find a person he could trust in the DOJ so he hired Bobby as the AG.

Now after 8 years of Obama, about 55 years later, Trump can't find anyone he can trust.

There's nothing new in any of this. However the lying a-holes spinning lies on the news networks for their political parties want us to believe it is new.

History repeats. The uninformed parrot the lies. The world turns.
 
code1211 said:
You keep ranting about that, but you have yet to present any actual real world evidence that this actually occurred.
Click to expand...

All of the following has already been established and is beyond dispute from rational person:

*** Donald Trump publicly invited the Russians to help him in his campaign and promised them if they did so they would be rewarded for their help

*** The Russians interfered in the election process and aided Trump in his effort to get elected.

*** Help from foreign nations in providing things of value to a presidential campaign is illegal according to federal law

*** Top Trump campaign officials met with people they believed represented Russian government interests for the purpose of obtaining illegal information in the campaign which would violate the federal law.

*** Top Trump campaign officials even speculated on the best way to use the illegal information and discussed coordinating things like timing of the release of the info.

*** Persons associated with Trump and his campaign colluded with those connected to the hack and the wikileaks release.

*** As the information was released, Trump and his campaign embraced it and weaponized it and used it over 160 times in the campaign.

*** As the scandal around this has developed publicly, Trump has openly and repeatedly lied and lied and lied some more about his relationship with Russians and the involvement of his top people with the Russians.

*** Several people associated with Trump including some senior officials have pled guilty to the crimes related to the scandal and its cover-up.

All that is beyond dispute at this point and is ample evidence of collusion and criminality.
 
haymarket said:
All of the following has already been established and is beyond dispute from rational person:

*** Donald Trump publicly invited the Russians to help him in his campaign and promised them if they did so they would be rewarded for their help

*** The Russians interfered in the election process and aided Trump in his effort to get elected.

*** Help from foreign nations in providing things of value to a presidential campaign is illegal according to federal law

*** Top Trump campaign officials met with people they believed represented Russian government interests for the purpose of obtaining illegal information in the campaign which would violate the federal law.

*** Top Trump campaign officials even speculated on the best way to use the illegal information and discussed coordinating things like timing of the release of the info.

*** Persons associated with Trump and his campaign colluded with those connected to the hack and the wikileaks release.

*** As the information was released, Trump and his campaign embraced it and weaponized it and used it over 160 times in the campaign.

*** As the scandal around this has developed publicly, Trump has openly and repeatedly lied and lied and lied some more about his relationship with Russians and the involvement of his top people with the Russians.

*** Several people associated with Trump including some senior officials have pled guilty to the crimes related to the scandal and its cover-up.

All that is beyond dispute at this point and is ample evidence of collusion and criminality.
Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits you post and then presents it as if it is not edited in any way?

That aside, though, nothing you said is proven in any way as being illegal.

You really need to sharpen your understanding of what's happening in this.
 
code1211 said:
Don't you just hate it when a poster edits you post and then presents it as if it is not edited in any way?

That aside, though, nothing you said is proven in any way as being illegal.

You really need to sharpen your understanding of what's happening in this.
Click to expand...

The thing I hate the most here is when people on the far right stick their head in the sand pretending to be playing ostrich and want to live in a fantasy world which denies reality that is already accepted.

here is the law making what the Russians and Trump did illegal

[USC07] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)
Click to expand...

but lets be frank here- you have seen it countless times already and this is not new to you even though you tired to play naive and act like you never heard it before.
 
haymarket said:
The thing I hate the most here is when people on the far right stick their head in the sand pretending to be playing ostrich and want to live in a fantasy world which denies reality that is already accepted.

here is the law making what the Russians and Trump did illegal

[USC07] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals



but lets be frank here- you have seen it countless times already and this is not new to you even though you tired to play naive and act like you never heard it before.
Click to expand...

Are you going to post anything else that is not connected to the Trump campaign?

Spoiler alert: You will.
 
I think all this new evidence is likely to lead a judge to dismiss the charges against Flynn because Strzok would necessarily be called upon to be a witness in the case against Flynn. And ironically in the end it will be Strzok that will be indicted.
 
vesper said:
I think all this new evidence is likely to lead a judge to dismiss the charges against Flynn because Strzok would necessarily be called upon to be a witness in the case against Flynn. And ironically in the end it will be Strzok that will be indicted.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

How do you keep all this stuff straight? :confused: I had an easier time figuring out a Rubik's cube! :mrgreen:
 
vesper said:
I think all this new evidence is likely to lead a judge to dismiss the charges against Flynn because Strzok would necessarily be called upon to be a witness in the case against Flynn. And ironically in the end it will be Strzok that will be indicted.
Click to expand...

I was just reading that the current Judge in the Flynn case really really really hates it when the prosecution doesn't disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

How do you keep all this stuff straight? :confused: I had an easier time figuring out a Rubik's cube! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
From reading different law professors' blogs, it is the consensus that Strzok is going to be indicted. Some feel that McCabe will be also. If a second special counsel is appointed they feel there's a real possibility, some from the previous administration finding themselves in need to lawyer up too.
 
So in this scandal from the Obama administration we've seen the following getting sucked in (in no particular order):
  • Steel
  • Fusion GPS
  • DNC / Hillary (same thing at the time)
  • McCabe
  • Comey
  • Strzok
  • Page
  • FISA Judge Contreras (an Obama appointee)
  • Who unmasked so many? Oh Susan Rice was it?
Did I miss anyone?

Yeah, this is really starting to look like a nest of snakes at the highest positions in government. Not liking this, not one little bit.

Obama admin being scandal free? :lamo Yeah, in your dreams.
 
eohrnberger said:
So in this scandal from the Obama administration we've seen the following getting sucked in (in no particular order):
  • Steel
  • Fusion GPS
  • DNC / Hillary (same thing at the time)
  • McCabe
  • Comey
  • Strzok
  • Page
  • FISA Judge Contreras (an Obama appointee)
  • Who unmasked so many? Oh Susan Rice was it?
Did I miss anyone?

Yeah, this is really starting to look like a nest of snakes at the highest positions in government. Not liking this, not one little bit.

Obama admin being scandal free? :lamo Yeah, in your dreams.
Click to expand...

After the FBI/DOJ released long awaited documents, turns out Clapper and Brennan's testimony doesn't jive with the documents. And also there's Bruce Ohr over at the DOJ who's behavior in all this has been very shady. And Samantha Power is the one who is accredited for unmasking over 300? She claims that wasn't her then who was it?
 
eohrnberger said:
So in this scandal from the Obama administration we've seen the following getting sucked in (in no particular order):
  • Steel
  • Fusion GPS
  • DNC / Hillary (same thing at the time)
  • McCabe
  • Comey
  • Strzok
  • Page
  • FISA Judge Contreras (an Obama appointee)
  • Who unmasked so many? Oh Susan Rice was it?
Did I miss anyone?

Yeah, this is really starting to look like a nest of snakes at the highest positions in government. Not liking this, not one little bit.

Obama admin being scandal free? :lamo Yeah, in your dreams.
Click to expand...

LOL Manufactured scandals are not real. The only scandal I see is that Strzok wrote the letter that reopened the Hillary email case just days before the vote. He must be a partisan don't you think?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/strzok-fbi-comey-clinton-letter/index.html
 
Fenton said:
New Text Msgs Reveal FBI Agent was Friends with Judge in Flynn Case

https://saraacarter.com/explosive-text-messages-reveal-judge-in-flynn-case-was-friends-with-strzok/


Page: “Thought of it because you had to Google FISC judges and him there. I’m telling you.”

Strzok: “….She brought up a good point about being circumspect in talking to him in terms of not placing him into a situation where he’d have to recuse himself.”

Page: “I can’t imagine you either one of you could talk about anything in detail meaningful enough to warrant recusal.” Page then goes back to discussing a different issue saying, “Anyway, maybe you meant to, but didn’t.’

Strzok “Really? Rudy. I’m in charge of espionage for the FBI. Any espionage FISA comes before him, what should he do? Given his friend oversees them?

Page: “Standards for recusal are quite high. I just don’t think this poses an actual conflict. And he doesn’t know what you do?”


Strzok: “Generally he does know what I do. Not the level or scope or area but he’s super thoughtful and rigorous about ethics and conflicts. (redacted) suggested a social setting with others would probably be better than a one on one meeting. I’m sorry, I’m just going to have to invite you to that cocktail party. Of course, you’ll be there. Have to come up with some other work people cover for action.”


Page: “Why more? Six is a perfectly fine dinner party.”



:lamo First, how AWESOME is Sarah Carter ??? SO awesome !! Second, this is really bad news. Contreras was a Obama appointee and on the FISA court when the FBI submitted Hillary funded opposition research corroborated with a Yahoo article to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the opposition candidate and his staff during a election year. He was also forced to recuse himself from overseeing Flynn's case, and now we know why.

Just think, had Hillary won we would have NEVER found out about any of this. Sztrok would have received a promotion, Bruce Ohr would be our new AG and Andrew McCabe the new FBI director. Man did we ever dodge a bullet or what !! :lol:

Oh, and McCabe should be officially fired either today or tomorrow and as we await the release of the IG's report the Left can continue focusing on non-issues like Don Jr's divorce or rehashed stories about Trump Org
Click to expand...


Incredible...

thanks for sharing
 
code1211 said:
Are you going to post anything else that is not connected to the Trump campaign?

Spoiler alert: You will.
Click to expand...

Your irrational reply makes no sense as a reasoned response to the posts from me you pretended to be replying to.
 
iguanaman said:
You just refuse to admit that when you have this much smoke there is likely a fire. Why would Strzok write that letter to Congress upending Hillary days before the election? It is obvious that he wanted to help Trump win.
Click to expand...
Did it ever occur to you he was ordered to by his boss, McCabe. McCabe is being investigated by the IG for sitting on the emails for MONTHS that were discovered on Weiner's computer instead of acting on it immediately.
 
wellwisher said:
The Republicans are getting all their ducks in a row. Their approach differ from the Democrats. The Democrats attempt to have a trial in the court of public opinion, using fake news and opinions to mold public opinion. One can hear the parrot repeat. The Republicans are setting up a legal case that can be tried in the court of law.

The Democrat approach is similar to watching a TV crime and court drama, where the hero detective solves a complex case in one hour including commercial breaks. Each day CNN gives another installment of this soap opera drama. This appeals to the left for some reason.

Real detective work is much slower and boring. It may take weeks, months and even years to gather evidence. Real detective work does not follow the TV format as well as a prewritten fictional drama. Those who think a TV detective is the same as a real detective, notice that the Republican's competing TV show, is not as tidy, and leaves you hanging. The left opts for the standard TV approach which is neat and tidy and all wrapped in one sitting. Those who are more scientific minded, don't mind the wait, if justice is served in the end. They prefer to listen to the results of the investigation, as it appears.

The only thing that bothers me is the fact there are so many people, who prefer the TV collusion drama, also think a TV drama is real. It makes the future look very shaky. Imagine if a TV president was elected president? You would need the media fawning; hyping the fall season, to compensate for lack of any genuine skills.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with this characterization at all. It strikes me as wishful projection.
 
haymarket said:
Your irrational reply makes no sense as a reasoned response to the posts from me you pretended to be replying to.
Click to expand...

I ask for links to support the rubbish you think is fact and you post more rubbish that you make up as you go along.

The trouble with the real world is that it's so real.

IF what you say is real, then prove it. It's not real. Disagree? Prove it.
 
code1211 said:
I ask for links to support the rubbish you think is fact and you post more rubbish that you make up as you go along.
Click to expand...

That is a lie. Go back and review the posts and you will see I made up nothing.
 
haymarket said:
That is a lie. Go back and review the posts and you will see I made up nothing.
Click to expand...

I said you posted no links to real world facts.

You are free to start any time. As a point of reference, do you know the difference between real world fact and rubbish?

Until you find some real world facts that support your fantasies, though, I will not understand why you are so committed to the line of thought that has gripped you.

Maybe you could just explain that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom