• 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

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

Why would I waste my time on this alternative reality content, "point by point"? It is meaningless right wing pixie dust, despite how it titillates and fascinates you.
This is well supported analysis....just ask Sen. Ron Johnson, after he blew himself up with his frenzied interpretation of it.:

In Context: Ron Johnson's 'secret society' | PolitiFact Wisconsin
In Context: Ron Johnson's 'secret society' | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Jan 25, 2018 - On Jan. 23, 2018, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson charged that an informant had told the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he heads, that a "secret society" was set up within the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice shortly after Donald Trump was elected ...

Sen. Johnson backs off 'secret society' claim - CNNPolitics - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/ron-johnson-secret-society-texts/index.html
Jan 25, 2018 - Washington (CNN) The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee acknowledged Thursday that a reference made between two FBI employees of a "secret society" could have been said in jest as opposed to evidence of an anti-Donald Trump plot. "It's a real possibility," Sen. Ron Johnson ...

Consider broadening your audience..... Sen. Johnson and Sara Carter are diminishing themselves and their careers through their focus and biased messaging.
If you think you can turn the color of the Page and Peter texts from brown to gold, ignore how it has worked out for Sen . Johnson and a host of others on the extreme
right of the political spectrum.
 
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.

I don't know about all the rest. I was only talking about the joke he made about Hillary's emails.

Wow! Talk about oral diarrhea! You seem to have a fatal case of it. Drink plenty of liquids before you dehydrate.
 
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

They say that one can't make something out of nothing. I admire your ability to try and try.
 
They say that one can't make something out of nothing. I admire your ability to try and try.

You and your ilk would know about making something out of nothing.

After a 14 month investigation with no evidence of collusion, your still calling for impeachment

If you had a fraction of the evidence thats being uncovered against Obama's FBI and DOJ, you would probably have gotten your wish by now.....but you dont
 
Why would I waste my time on this alternative reality content, "point by point"? It is meaningless right wing pixie dust, despite how it titillates and fascinates you.
This is well supported analysis....just ask Sen. Ron Johnson, after he blew himself up with his frenzied interpretation of it.:



Consider broadening your audience..... Sen. Johnson and Sara Carter are diminishing themselves and their careers through their focus and biased messaging.
If you think you can turn the color of the Page and Peter texts from brown to gold, ignore how it has worked out for Sen . Johnson and a host of others on the extreme
right of the political spectrum.

No, you just want to waste everyone else's time including mine

Attacking the source is a emotional response to any information that challenges your bias. This is a debate forum, try to remember that.

You either address the specific points made in the article, or you can continue to make a fool out of yourself while lending credibility to source, your choice
 
I don't know about all the rest. I was only talking about the joke he made about Hillary's emails.

Wow! Talk about oral diarrhea! You seem to have a fatal case of it. Drink plenty of liquids before you dehydrate.

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.
 
I really dont expect partisan hacks and TDS sufferers ( A distinction without a difference ) to find anything inappropriate here

Everyone else who cares about reigning in Govt corruption knows Contreras should have never taken the Flynn case and only recused himself when he learned Sztroks and Page's text were going to be made public.

Contreras was also a FISA judge when Carter Page's FISA warrants were approved and Im betting his signature is on at least 1 of those warrants



You realize that is 100% unsubstantiated OPINION?

What have I ever done to make you think I believe you?
 
yes you have.

More and more your responses are pat rehearsed remarks that are fallacies that you should know better than to attempt once, let alone multiple times. Such as this one where you couldn't bother to answer the gaping hole in your argument.
 
Poor OP, he should lay off the Fox and Friends. Its breakfast TV for those who do not have an independent thought.

He
 
More and more your responses are pat rehearsed remarks that are fallacies that you should know better than to attempt once, let alone multiple times. Such as this one where you couldn't bother to answer the gaping hole in your argument.

what so called gaping hole are you referring to?
 
what so called gaping hole are you referring to?

Look at the president of the college debate club ignoring his multiple straw man broadside of fail. Argue what he said, not things other people said.
 
Look at the president of the college debate club ignoring his multiple straw man broadside of fail. Argue what he said, not things other people said.

I see you were impotent to answer the question posed to you and simply resorted to attack.


As usual.
 
I see you were impotent to answer the question posed to you and simply resorted to attack.


As usual.

My "attack" was to point out you fancy yourself a debate expert, yet you launched a gigantic multiple bullet point straw man and ignored his singular argument. A fallacy is a gaping hole in your argument, quit the deflection bull****.
 
My "attack" was to point out you fancy yourself a debate expert, yet you launched a gigantic multiple bullet point straw man and ignored his singular argument. A fallacy is a gaping hole in your argument, quit the deflection bull****.

But yet you are impotent to identify just what this so called "gaping hole is" when challenged.

Typical.
 
But yet you are impotent to identify just what this so called "gaping hole is" when challenged.

Typical.

Do you not understand English? The hole is your entire argument is a fallacy known as a straw man. He did not make all of those arguments, he made one of them which you broadened to multiple things he never said.

Address argument made and ONLY the argument made.
 
Do you not understand English? The hole is your entire argument is a fallacy known as a straw man. He did not make all of those arguments, he made one of them which you broadened to multiple things he never said.

Address argument made and ONLY the argument made.

You are factually wrong and engaging in blatant falsehoods as Trump invoked all those things on my list and all were later excused as "just joking". That is the historical record.

Everything I wrote is true and factual. No straw man is present. Trump has repeatedly said a litany of offensive things that make him look worse than stupid - or as Tillerson described him... a MORON ... and then his apologists come along and offer the lamest of lame excuses that he was "just joking". This has not happened once or even twice or even three times but over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Pointing that reality out is NOT a strawman or any other fallacy. Its using the historical record to show just how dishonest the "just joking" lame excuse really is.

You really demonstrate how do NOT know what a fallacy is when you do this.
 
You are factually wrong and engaging in blatant falsehoods as Trump invoked all those things on my list and all were later excused as "just joking". That is the historical record.

Everything I wrote is true and factual. No straw man is present. Trump has repeatedly said a litany of offensive things that make him look worse than stupid - or as Tillerson described him... a MORON ... and then his apologists come along and offer the lamest of lame excuses that he was "just joking". This has not happened once or even twice or even three times but over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Pointing that reality out is NOT a strawman or any other fallacy. Its using the historical record to show just how dishonest the "just joking" lame excuse really is.

You really demonstrate how do NOT know what a fallacy is when you do this.

The poster in question did not make those arguments. You are saying he did. Until you PROVE he did, which you haven't, you have no business saying he did make those arguments. Until you do, you are engaging in a straw man that he did make those arguments.

Historical record, what a joke.
 
You and your ilk would know about making something out of nothing.

After a 14 month investigation with no evidence of collusion, your still calling for impeachment

If you had a fraction of the evidence thats being uncovered against Obama's FBI and DOJ, you would probably have gotten your wish by now.....but you dont
I am delighted that you have access to the special prosecutor's evidence file -- because that's the only way you would know whether there is evidence or not. Of course, if you have no access to the secret investigation, your assertion is baseless.

What we do know is that the president said that "nobody in my campaign met with Russians" but we know that nearly all of them met with Russians including a number of top Trump aides. I know, there is nothing to see here.

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

Not really most of these findings came from what should be considered planted evidence.
Which means it is now longer no good in a any Court.
 
Do you not understand English? The hole is your entire argument is a fallacy known as a straw man. He did not make all of those arguments, he made one of them which you broadened to multiple things he never said.

Address argument made and ONLY the argument made.

Ray Bolger just called. He's tired of being used by those who his persona to attack those with a brain and the courage to act for what is right.
 
Ray Bolger just called. He's tired of being used by those who his persona to attack those with a brain and the courage to act for what is right.

Dennis Miller called, he doesn't like people using obscure pop culture references to insult someone, he said quit stealing his act.
 
Ray Bolger just called. He's tired of being used by those who his persona to attack those with a brain and the courage to act for what is right.

Dennis Miller called, he doesn't like people using obscure pop culture references to insult someone, he said quit stealing his act.

Moderator's Warning:
CaptainCourtesy is calling both of you and telling both of you to knock it off.
 
Back
Top Bottom