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

[ChezC3]

Indeed.

They only have to recuse themselves in certain circumstances. There is no presumption that a judge (always previously a lawyer) is inescapably biased simply because they knew or were friends with an attorney before them.

I would think anything political should be one of those circumstances. We're not talking parking tickets here. It isn't about actually being biased, it is about the perception. Which involves maintaining the people's trust in our public institutions.

For quite some time standards have been going down and the reasons for giving anyone in government the benefit of the doubt have been slim pickings to non existent.

 

[ludin]

Didn't we just go through "Secret Society"?

And now they're trying this? :doh

So you are saying that it didn't happen or exist?
Your TDS has gotten the better of you.

The fact is these people hated trump so much that they have corrupted the entire investigation.
There is no way the mueller evidence stands up on anything.

Any defense lawyer can shoot holes through anything he is doing because of these people.

 

[ludin]

Sara Carters opinion ? These text between Sztrok and Page aren't hypothetical, they're not a figment of someone's imagination either.

You have to remember that people with TDS can see nothingnthat would make trump innocent of anything.
Wait till this thing is done and as typical we know the end result there is no collusion except by the dnc and Hillary clinton with the Russians.

Yet you don't see their faux outrage about that.

 

[The Prof]

dots

i'd be happy to connect them for you, always at your service

romeo and juliet shopped for a judge, they settled on "rudy"

when america learned romeo and juliet weren't as innocent as, say, emma gonzales, "rudy" abruptly recused himself from flynn

sullivan, a stickler on discovery cuzza stevens, took over for rudy and immediately pressed the prosecution for anything "exculpatory" to the defense which the offense may have withheld

the doj's trouble per discovery goes back---weissman got busted in the 90's by edny, busted in the 5th circuit by judge hughes, humiliated before scotus and written out by rehnquist---always for failure to disclose, among other frightening abuses

the doj went 0 for 4 vs clive bundy, same problems

links above

thanks for asking

by the way, did you hear clapper leaked the dossier to cnn?

that's another big problem

stay tuned

 

[Thoreau72]

Holy Cow, the cynical bastards like myself, those who have known for years how rotten the FBI is have been right.

 

[haymarket]

Every bogus, untrue and unsupported piece of crap rumor used to justify the witch hunt.

That makes no sense as we have lots of very real evidence including cooperation form witnesses , Trump emails, and their own public pronouncements.

 

[Chomsky]

So you are saying that it didn't happen or exist?
Your TDS has gotten the better of you.

The fact is these people hated trump so much that they have corrupted the entire investigation.
There is no way the mueller evidence stands up on anything.

Any defense lawyer can shoot holes through anything he is doing because of these people.

i don't see how. Each case stands on it's own merit.

 

[MrShangles]

Someone had a friend? OMG, collusion, lock her up!

You guys.

Let’s say you have been charged by FBI agent that doesn’t like you and wants to take you out and when you get charged for the crime that you say you didn’t do by they judge, then you find out the judge and FBI agent are good friends, would you feel the same.
But you probably only hate Trump so you don’t care!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

That makes no sense as we have lots of very real evidence including cooperation form witnesses , Trump emails, and their own public pronouncements.

Please link to anything that supports your statement.

 

[haymarket]

Please link to anything that supports your statement.

You know damn well what the evidence is so don't play dumb like you just got off the turnip truck and this is all brand new to you.

We have the very public Trump invitation to the Russians to help him.

We have the emails from Trump top people agreeing to collude with the Russians illegally.

We have the actual meeting that took place where there was collusion to break the law.

We have repeated and public lies from Trump himself denying any Russian connections and then we subsequently found lots and lots and lots of them.

But then , you were well aware of all that before you pretending to play ostrich.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Not sure who you're talking about here--to whom would you deny the vote? And by "corps" (rather than "core"), I'm assuming you mean "rank-and-file." If so, I disagree. The rank-and-file aren't part of this.

it's a play on words if you want to know

The last line is a joke.

 

[Mach]

Let’s say you have been charged by FBI agent that doesn’t like you and wants to take you out and when you get charged for the crime that you say you didn’t do by they judge, then you find out the judge and FBI agent are good friends, would you feel the same.
But you probably only hate Trump so you don’t care!ent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That two people in the legal community are friends would mean what, probably 50% of all cases would be invalid, if that were a cause for improper conduct.

You are falling for the right wing idiotic narratives. People in every industry, including in government, and law enforcement, and other branches of government, know one another, and get this...they have political leanings. And yet we seem to function this way without issue.
What profession are you in that you don't understand how professionals operate?

 

[The Prof]

You know damn well what the evidence is so don't play dumb like you just got off the turnip truck and this is all brand new to you.

We have the very public Trump invitation to the Russians to help him.

We have the emails from Trump top people agreeing to collude with the Russians illegally.

We have the actual meeting that took place where there was collusion to break the law.

We have repeated and public lies from Trump himself denying any Russian connections and then we subsequently found lots and lots and lots of them.

links are the expression of self respect

if people know damn well, you should be able to find those links quite readily

google search can take 60 seconds

you should read the entire article first tho to make sure none of your enemies can get in there and find something to use against you

but it's still not that much work, you can do it

is being lazy respecting yourself?

is lack of authentication respecting yourself?

it's certainly disrespectful to your audience to pop off without backing, but i know you don't care about them

party on

 

[The Prof]

mccabe is a criminal

he lied---under oath---to the fbi---multiple times

mccabe is in extreme legal peril

in addition, the IG report is coming

mccabe, in a long interview with politico earlier this month "predicted [the IG report] will attempt to bolster the claims of trump allies that previous fbi leadership was corrupt, politically biased, politically motivated, for some people like the president and others who are intent on undermining me for the reasons i've stated it will be very satisfying"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/16/mccabe-fired-fbi-justice-retirement-468647

nothing i didn't already know

i (who know an awful lot more about all these goings on than you) cannot foresee an outcome that does not realize a charge against chris steele for lying to the fbi

a criminal charge against steele is now inevitable

he's testifying in london again soon

Dossier Author Christopher Steele Ordered To | The Daily Caller

his last appearance there was a disaster

steele's gonna get it

and they're gonna try to flip him

a thousand things will follow, please begin contemplating their appearance

flynn's fate is now in the hands of discovery stickler sullivan

mccabe's is done

 

[slick]

There is far less to motivate the Trump "investigation" and that rages on.

"Trump Investigation" says it all. They are not investigating a crime to see whodunnit. They are investigating a hated individual to see if there's anything they can hang on him.

The abuse of power in this is astonishing.

I'm going out on a limb and predicting Trump team will make a deal with the 'resistance' to get rid of the fake
Russian -Trump collusion investigation; by agreeing to also clear Clintons camp of colluding with Russians ,
and to blame the DNC "hack" on the Russians.

Also Mueller will probably be able to minimize any problems for the misdeeds of other FBI officials for
there glaring misdeeds: Strzok, Page, the Ohr's. Comey therefore will only get slaps on the wrists &
hopefully all this nonsense & waist of time & money will come to an end.

 

[post]

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




: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

I had never heard of Sara Carter before yesterday. She is not recently a source meeting
the criteria to build a thread around, according to the forum criteria of this section.
She is associated only with entertainment personalities at Fox, mainly Hannity.
She gets a pass from Hannity in her frequent attribution to unnamed sources, a fault
he continually associated with lying MSM. Ms. Carter is not presented on Fox with Shep
or Bret or Martha of Fox news and she is no longer associated with John Solomon. She is partisan and certainly not MSM.

...Examples include The Drudge Report, ...Huff post, ABC news blog, YouTube...

So, you are presenting a Fox entertainment personalty and linking her personal website and I
expect MSM to be mainstream news media.

You spell her name as Sarah, so if you are not describing Sara A Carter,
please clarify.

 

[Fenton]

I had never heard of Sara Carter before yesterday. She is not recently a source meeting
the criteria to build a thread around, according to the forum criteria of this section.
She is associated only with entertainment personalities at Fox, mainly Hannity.
She gets a pass from Hannity in her frequent attribution to unnamed sources, a fault
he continually associated with lying MSM. Ms. Carter is not presented on Fox with Shep
or Bret or Martha of Fox news and she is no longer associated with John Solomon. She is partisan and certainly not MSM.



So, you are presenting a Fox entertainment personalty and linking her personal website and I
expect MSM to be mainstream news media.

You spell her name as Sarah, so if you are not describing Sara A Carter,
please clarify.

The criteria for this thread ( or any other for that matter ) has nothing to do with you personal familiarity of Sarah Carter or her work

If you have a problem with her article then I suggest you respond to it ( if you can ) instead of trying to play Mod

 

[post]

The criteria for this thread ( or any other for that matter ) has nothing to do with you personal familiarity of Sarah Carter or her work

If you have a problem with her article then I suggest you respond to it ( if you can ) instead of trying to play Mod

Or, you could try to understand my point and reexamine your decision to represent Sara Carter as a reliable source, just as
a reasonable person would if Hannity was cited here as a source. Hannity emphasizes he is an entertainment personality
and for at least four months, Sara Carter has conducted herself similarly. I am sure we agree on very little but this is not an
issue that cannot be discussed. I didn't author this thread and before your reply I did think seeking enforcement was a first
resort, I still do not.

 

[Fenton]

Or, you could try to understand my point and reexamine your decision to represent Sara Carter as a reliable source, just as
a reasonable person would if Hannity was cited here as a source. Hannity emphasizes he is an entertainment personality
and for at least four months, Sara Carter has conducted herself similarly. I am sure we agree on very little but this is not an
issue that cannot be discussed. I didn't author this thread and before your reply I did think seeking enforcement was a first
resort, I still do not.

OR....OR, ( hear me out ) you could actually address the content of Sarah's article, rebut it point by point ( you obviously cant ) and stop wasting peoples time and valuable bandwidth by attacking the source

As a debate strategy, attacking the source is sophmoric at best, and I just know you can do better

 

[code1211]

You know damn well what the evidence is so don't play dumb like you just got off the turnip truck and this is all brand new to you.

We have the very public Trump invitation to the Russians to help him.

We have the emails from Trump top people agreeing to collude with the Russians illegally.

We have the actual meeting that took place where there was collusion to break the law.

We have repeated and public lies from Trump himself denying any Russian connections and then we subsequently found lots and lots and lots of them.

But then , you were well aware of all that before you pretending to play ostrich.

I see you provide no links.

Common sense is not that common and common knowledge is rarely knowledge.

In almost every link you could provide, there is a disclaimer at the end that says that the "facts" presented are not proven.

THAT is why I'm asking you for the links. There are none that say what you think they say.

 

[code1211]

I'm going out on a limb and predicting Trump team will make a deal with the 'resistance' to get rid of the fake
Russian -Trump collusion investigation; by agreeing to also clear Clintons camp of colluding with Russians ,
and to blame the DNC "hack" on the Russians.

Also Mueller will probably be able to minimize any problems for the misdeeds of other FBI officials for
there glaring misdeeds: Strzok, Page, the Ohr's. Comey therefore will only get slaps on the wrists &
hopefully all this nonsense & waist of time & money will come to an end.

Looks like we agree that the corruption and bias in this is beyond any rational reckoning.

 

[haymarket]

I see you provide no links.

Common sense is not that common and common knowledge is rarely knowledge.

In almost every link you could provide, there is a disclaimer at the end that says that the "facts" presented are not proven.

THAT is why I'm asking you for the links. There are none that say what you think they say.

Links to what that is in dispute? You and I both know that the evidence I referred to is NOT IN DISPUTE.

We know that Trump invited the Russians into the election process to help him because we have that on tape. There is NO DISPUTE that such a thing happened.

But you want to play ostrich and you need a link you have already seen a hundred times? sure thing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fe509430c39_story.html?utm_term=.261d9a914e8a

We know that the Trump top campaign official colluded with the Russians because we have the chain of emails in which they agreed to do so and their admission that they attended the meeting for that purpose. There is NO DISPUTE that such a thing happened.

But you want to play ostrich and pretend you need a link to what you have already been well informed about? whatever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign–Russian_meetings

This events are NOT IN DISPUTE and well established.

 

[code1211]

Links to what that is in dispute? You and I both know that the evidence I referred to is NOT IN DISPUTE.

We know that Trump invited the Russians into the election process to help him because we have that on tape. There is NO DISPUTE that such a thing happened.

But you want to play ostrich and you need a link you have already seen a hundred times? sure thing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fe509430c39_story.html?utm_term=.261d9a914e8a

We know that the Trump top campaign official colluded with the Russians because we have the chain of emails in which they agreed to do so and their admission that they attended the meeting for that purpose. There is NO DISPUTE that such a thing happened.

But you want to play ostrich and pretend you need a link to what you have already been well informed about? whatever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign–Russian_meetings

This events are NOT IN DISPUTE and well established.

Your first link is to a joke told by Trump. That you are incapable of knowing what is joke and what is not a joke is more revealing of you limitations than of any real world facts.

Regarding your second link, the word "perceived" is a qualifier that means "not proven" and therefore, fictitious. It's in the first line of the entry.

Why are you blind to what's real and open to what's not?

 

[haymarket]

Your first link is to a joke told by Trump. That you are incapable of knowing what is joke and what is not a joke is more revealing of you limitations than of any real world facts.

NOPE. Not gonna fly. Every time Trumps mouth gets a bad case of oral diarrhea you apologists play the supposed ace card of "he was just joking". The reality is that Trump has supposedly told more "jokes" than a Vegas comedian in a six year old tux that was rented but never returned.

Lets look at some of the supposed gaffes Trumps mouth spewed out that were an embarrassment to the nation and made him look incredibly stupid but you guys want to excuse.

Jus recently we had the stupid nonsense about the Japanese bowling ball test on the hood of a car. Some joke. Yes, the world laughed... at Trumps ignorance.

So Trump was "just joking" about killing people in broad daylight and it not hurting his popularity?

And Trump was "just joking " when he invited the Russians into the election to help him and then they did just that?

And Trump was "just joking" about grabbing women by the vagina and how he could not help himself from doing it?

And Trump was "just joking" about peeping in on minors half undressed at beauty pageants because he had the power to do it since it was his pageant?

And Trump was "just joking" about punching protesters at his rallies and having them carried out on stretchers like the old days?

And Trump was "just joking" about congressmen being guilty of treason for not clapping loud enough reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

And Trump was “just joking” when he said that police should rough up arrested suspects instead of respecting their constitutional rights?

And Trump was “just joking: when he said he challenged Sec of State Rex Tillerson to an IQ test to show he was smarter?

And Trump was “just joking” he accused Obama of being a founder of ISIS?

And Trump was “just joking” when he suggested a Second Amendment solution to dealing with Hillary Clinton?

The guy seems to be one living breathing joke - and a bad one at that. Sadly, that is a joke on the American people.

 

[OpportunityCost]

NOPE. Not gonna fly. Every time Trumps mouth gets a bad case of oral diarrhea you apologists play the supposed ace card of "he was just joking". The reality is that Trump has supposedly told more "jokes" than a Vegas comedian in a six year old tux that was rented but never returned.

Lets look at some of the supposed gaffes Trumps mouth spewed out that were an embarrassment to the nation and made him look incredibly stupid but you guys want to excuse.

Jus recently we had the stupid nonsense about the Japanese bowling ball test on the hood of a car. Some joke. Yes, the world laughed... at Trumps ignorance.

So Trump was "just joking" about killing people in broad daylight and it not hurting his popularity?

And Trump was "just joking " when he invited the Russians into the election to help him and then they did just that?

And Trump was "just joking" about grabbing women by the vagina and how he could not help himself from doing it?

And Trump was "just joking" about peeping in on minors half undressed at beauty pageants because he had the power to do it since it was his pageant?

And Trump was "just joking" about punching protesters at his rallies and having them carried out on stretchers like the old days?

And Trump was "just joking" about congressmen being guilty of treason for not clapping loud enough reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

And Trump was “just joking” when he said that police should rough up arrested suspects instead of respecting their constitutional rights?

And Trump was “just joking: when he said he challenged Sec of State Rex Tillerson to an IQ test to show he was smarter?

And Trump was “just joking” he accused Obama of being a founder of ISIS?

And Trump was “just joking” when he suggested a Second Amendment solution to dealing with Hillary Clinton?

The guy seems to be one living breathing joke - and a bad one at that. Sadly, that is a joke on the American people.

:failpail:

Arguing that a joke is being made in one instance does not mean he is making the argument that a joke is the case in every instance. Such a wide open, obvious and ****ing fail of a straw man that it is amazing you would have the audacity to bring this failure of an argument---AGAIN.