Sara Carter Is Back And She Lets On That Trump Wiretap Traces To The top

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then please, offer an alternative.

"I believe"

"I think"

"It could be"

"Possibly"

How many weasel words can one work into a simple paragraph?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The logical fallacies in these TrumpCult positions are absurd.

Here's a reasonable statement that most logical people can agree with:

"Some Trump staff members have been the focus of investigations (including surveillance) carried out by the FBI/DOJ."

What we here from CrazyTrumpTown is:

"The Trump Campaign was spied on by the Obama Regime!!!!"

One is reasonable based on the facts we know, one is utter rhetorical horsefeces.

I know right? Trying to keep my head on top of the logic wrangling being attempted here is making my head spin...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, I read a number of articles. I just figured this way I could provide one link that shows that there will be no charges against Flynn (even if there should be).

a reply to: SBMcG

Whomever ordered it, it was done while Obama was president.

But that's not what you said:

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

I think any reasonable person would find it completely incredulous to believe that Obama did not at least know about the wiretapping.

The word you are looking for is incredible. But you've gone from "ordering" to "knowing about." Nice.

Tell me again, who was actually being survielled? Who was being monitored? Was it Trump Tower, or the Russian ambassador?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then please, offer an alternative.

Ummmm... No. Neither your nor my opinion of Obama as a leader is relevant to if Obama acted in an illegal manner in accordance with wiretapping or survailing Trump Tower. So I will not be providing it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
You continue to be completely wrong.

You continue to not be able to stick to one criminal charge and constantly shift the goal posts on me.

The crime is the UNMASKING of surveillance targets and the widespread dissemination of that intelligence to inappropriate parties.

Trump said he was illegally wiretapped not that names in an investigation into Russian mob ties 3 years ago were illegally unmasked (which has no proven connection to Obama).

My "interpretation" of the evidence available is spot-on. Simple proof: The Obama Regime "wiretapped" Flynn and illegally leaked that intel.

Saying things like "Obama Regime" also prove your bias.

I have been 100% consistent in my interpretation of the evidence we have available. My "bias" against Obama is irrelevant. My loathing of socialists and communists has nothing to do with the fact that the Obama Regime did what they did.

Your defense of Obama shows your bias. You continue to ignore the evidence and make excuses for a truly inexcusable act.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, all of those statements are so bad, they involve thinking and pondering. It's much better when you can just parrot the talking points as though they're fact.

Pro tip: If you don't want any conjecture, don't comment on threads where not all of the facts are currently known.

a reply to: SBMcG

What evidence? You haven't proved that Obama is connected to anything besides that you think he is because you think Socialists are evil. I'm not buying it, and a court of law would laugh you away. Nunes didn't say what you think he said. Unmasking of names ISN'T the crime of the century for Obama that you think it is. After all, you don't even know whose names were unmasked. And you CERTAINLY don't know who did the unmasking. So saying Obama is guilty of anything here is 100% dishonest according to all evidence presented. ETA: Hell I can't even find the reason to even SUSPECT Obama of anything let alone declare him guilty of something.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because there isn't one. Either he's a sh#ty leader or a criminal. Were this an isolated event you could say someone went rogue, but we all know it was one scandal after another with Obama.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, I read a number of articles. I just figured this way I could provide one link that shows that there will be no charges against Flynn (even if there should be).

You take a list of articles as proof that a man who lied to the Vice President of the United States and waited months to declare himself a foreign agent while sitting in on security briefings with the President Elect will be ignored because of a few article titles on Google search.

That's almost as absurd as your claim that I was wrong about FISA warrants.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Whomever ordered it, it was done while Obama was president.

But that's not what you said:

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

 

I think any reasonable person would find it completely incredulous to believe that Obama did not at least know about the wiretapping.

The word you are looking for is incredible. But you've gone from "ordering" to "knowing about." Nice.

Tell me again, who was actually being survielled? Who was being monitored? Was it Trump Tower, or the Russian ambassador?

It doesn't matter who was being surveilled by the Obama Regime. The CRIME was the leaking of Flynn's call.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because there isn't one. Either he's a sh#ty leader or a criminal. Were this an isolated event you could say someone went rogue, but we all know it was one scandal after another with Obama.

That's a false dichotomy that you created in your head.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, all of those statements are so bad, they involve thinking and pondering. It's much better when you can just parrot the talking points as though they're fact.

Pro tip: If you don't want any conjecture, don't comment on threads where not all of the facts are currently known.

Cool, what "pro" did you crib that from? You should take note of it.

I have no problem with conjecture. I have a problem with calling conjecture evidence. I have a problem with people who think they can lie one minute and not be called on it the next. I have a problem with hyper-partisan nutjobs who deny reality and think that little sophomoric internet debate tactics are going to impress anyone.

a reply to: SBMcG

The CRIME was the leaking of Flynn's call.

Yes. We know that is illegal. It would be good if they can find out who did it.

In the meantime, it will be good if they can also find out more about Russian attempts to influence the election.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How about we make a wager. 1 year of no ATS for the loser. If Flynn is charged with a felony relating to his role in the lead up to and first month of the Trump presidency I will not post here for 1 year.

If Flynn is not charged with a felony relating to his role in the lead up to and first month of the Trump presidency you don't post here for 1 year.

Agree? What's the timeline for charges, by the end of 2017?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Whomever ordered it, it was done while Obama was president.

But that's not what you said:

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

 

I think any reasonable person would find it completely incredulous to believe that Obama did not at least know about the wiretapping.

The word you are looking for is incredible. But you've gone from "ordering" to "knowing about." Nice.

Tell me again, who was actually being survielled? Who was being monitored? Was it Trump Tower, or the Russian ambassador?

It doesn't matter who was being surveilled by the Obama Regime. The CRIME was the leaking of Flynn's call.

So who committed that crime?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, captain kettle himself! Meet Lieutenant Pot.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Whomever ordered it, it was done while Obama was president.

But that's not what you said:

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

 

I think any reasonable person would find it completely incredulous to believe that Obama did not at least know about the wiretapping.

The word you are looking for is incredible. But you've gone from "ordering" to "knowing about." Nice.

Tell me again, who was actually being survielled? Who was being monitored? Was it Trump Tower, or the Russian ambassador?

Oh -- and as for the English lesson, the term "incredulous" is commonly used to mean "beyond belief". My use of that term in the context of that statement was completely correct.