Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[TheBlondBomber]

Ya you first.

Provide the facts you hold that Mueller hasn't found any evidence?

i am not playing the game you won't play because you don't care about results or facts. You like to troll people by making them run on errands and then you ignore the results once presented.

You made the assertion that Manafort sharing polling data, in of itself, is a crime first. It’s not. Go ahead and cite a statute to prove me wrong.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Uh yeah, conspiracy is a codified crime with actual elements.



All of this is speculative and has nothing to do with the fact that it's not a crime for Manafort to share polling data. You can speculate all you want about why Manafort gave that polling data to the Ukrainian, but there’s no statute or common law basis for charging him for giving the Ukranian the polling data.

semantic garbage.

Conspiracy is one very specific crime related to betraying the country.

Conspiracy is also used as a general umbrella terms outside that by Prosecutors. So in the Enron example above if there is a suspicion that Enron had instructed Arthur Anderson to destroy documents the Prosecutor may task investigators to look for evidence of a conspiracy between the two to destroy documents.

Idiots like you would keep repeating 'conspiracy is not a crime in this regard therefore nothing is wrong', when in fact they would look for that conspiracy and then charge them with the appropriate violation.

YOu guys are clinging to semantic nitpicks 'conspiracy' 'coordination', 'Leaks' are not crimes or will not be leveled in the charges as if anyone said they would.

What a prosecutor would argue to get a conviction is 'this was the conspiratorial ('coordination', 'leaks')elements that lead to this specific statute being broken'.

And if they established that and get the conviction no amount of 'but they did not get him him for 'conspiracy' or 'coordination' or 'leaks' specifically as per what was written in the Mueller mandate, so therefore this is a big nothing burger and fail, is just something stupid people like you tell your self.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Keep moving those goalposts and changing the subject. Let’s talk about your erroneous assumption that sharing polling data with a foreign national is a crime. That’s how this entire conversation was started and my only argument.

It i a crime. A campaign cannot even share it with their own super pacs. They cannot share it with any outside groups.

So now lets talk about how you know Mueller has nothing else and see your proof?

 

[MikeMcMann]

You made the assertion that Manafort sharing polling data, in of itself, is a crime first. It’s not. Go ahead and cite a statute to prove me wrong.

You made this assertion...

"But he (Mueller) hasn't found any evidence to show that the Trump Campaign and Russia colluded. "

tell me how many times you need me to quote your own words and ask you to provide your proof before you will do it?

Because as long as you feel free to make assertions and run away from substantiating them you can expect I won't put one iota of time in substantiating anything for you. This is not a one way game.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

semantic garbage.

Conspiracy is one very specific crime related to betraying the country.

Conspiracy is also used as a general umbrella terms outside that by Prosecutors. So in the Enron example above if there is a suspicion that Enron had instructed Arthur Anderson to destroy documents the Prosecutor may task investigators to look for evidence of a conspiracy between the two to destroy documents.

Idiots like you would keep repeating 'conspiracy is not a crime in this regard therefore nothing is wrong', when in fact they would look for that conspiracy and then charge them with the appropriate violation.

YOu guys are clinging to semantic nitpicks 'conspiracy' 'coordination', 'Leaks' are not crimes or will not be leveled in the charges as if anyone said they would.

What a prosecutor would argue to get a conviction is 'this was the conspiratorial ('coordination', 'leaks')elements that lead to this specific statute being broken'.

And if they established that and get the conviction no amount of 'but they did not get him him for 'conspiracy' or 'coordination' or 'leaks' specifically as per what was written in the Mueller mandate, so therefore this is a big nothing burger and fail, is just something stupid people like you tell your self.

Once again, you’re wrong. I’ve never said that conspiracy isn’t a crime. Conspiracy is definitely a crime and it’s not very specific crime related to betraying one’s country and it’s not an “umbrella term”. It’s an actual crime when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and take a step furtherance of that crime. Once again you are showing your ignorance.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Ya you first.

Provide the facts you hold that Mueller hasn't found any evidence?

i am not playing the game you won't play because you don't care about results or facts. You like to troll people by making them run on errands and then you ignore the results once presented.

That's not how logic, truth, or reason work.

You made an assertion, now you must back up that assertion with evidence.

If you're unable to do so, then that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You made the assertion, the responsibility to prove it is now on you.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Once again, you’re wrong. I’ve never said that conspiracy isn’t a crime. Conspiracy is definitely a crime and it’s not very specific crime related to betraying one’s country and it’s not an “umbrella term”. It’s an actual crime when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and take a step furtherance of that crime. Once again you are showing your ignorance.

Yes you got me there.I was referring to collusion, not conspiracy in our fast running exchange.

My points all stand and are correct.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

You made this assertion...



tell me how many times you need me to quote your own words and ask you to provide your proof before you will do it?

Because as long as you feel free to make assertions and run away from substantiating them you can expect I won't put one iota of time in substantiating anything for you. This is not a one way game.

I’ll back up my assertion when you back up your assertion that Manafort sharing the polling data is a crime.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's not how logic, truth, or reason work.

You made an assertion, now you must back up that assertion with evidence.

If you're unable to do so, then that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You made the assertion, the responsibility to prove it is now on you.

He made an assertion as well and refuses to back it up while demanding I do. i have no interest in that game because I know the game you guys play.

I want to make something a little clearer here.

I don't really care about the engagement with you guys. I am not trying to prove anything to you guys. I see you as trolls and if not trolls so painfully stupid that no facts will matter.

So my engagement with your posts is merely to expose them as stupid for others to see. Others i might care to see them.

I know Trolls do not care about answers. They often know the answers but just want to make others run around in circles and that is their only purpose.

So a troll will say 'there was no collusion', knowing there was but hold to that until someone runs around and provides the proof. They they will switch and say if there was collusion Trump did not know about it, and demand you run and find proof. When you do they will then switch and say 'well even if he knew it was not a crime'.

Its all a game of deny what you know and make them get proof that even when provided you say means nothing. So why deny up front. Trolling, that is why.

Sorry that is not a one game I am playing with you guys.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I’ll back up my assertion when you back up your assertion that Manafort sharing the polling data is a crime.

Sorry not interested as I do not believe you have that evidence. I believe you are flat out lying in your contention now that you can prove Mueller does not have any evidence that proves Trump campaign and Russia colluded.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Just so people do not get lost in this word vomit thread @TheBlondBomber now states he has demonstomnstarble proof of his quote below that he can provide but he just won't...

"But he (Mueller) hasn't found any evidence to show that the Trump Campaign and Russia colluded. "

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Sorry not interested as I do not believe you have that evidence. I believe you are flat out lying in your contention now that you can prove Mueller does not have any evidence that proves Trump campaign and Russia colluded.

First off why are you using "colluded"? You got onto me earlier for saying that, saying I should be saying "leaks and coordination". Then you went on some rambling about how "leaks and coordination" are elements of crimes, but never cited any crime of which they are elements of. You're really in over your head right now, champ.

I don't have proof that he doesn't because I'm not privy to his findings. It's impossible to prove a negative, just like I can't prove he's not a lizard person. However, it doesn't seem like he has anything to prove collusion between Trump and Russia. Every person he has charged are charged with crimes unrelated to direct collusion between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.

So what's your excuse for your ignorant claim that Manafort sharing polling data with a foreign national is illegal?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

He made an assertion as well and refuses to back it up while demanding I do. i have no interest in that game because I know the game you guys play.

I want to make something a little clearer here.

I don't really care about the engagement with you guys. I am not trying to prove anything to you guys. I see you as trolls and if not trolls so painfully stupid that no facts will matter.

So my engagement with your posts is merely to expose them as stupid for others to see. Others i might care to see them.

I know Trolls do not care about answers. They often know the answers but just want to make others run around in circles and that is their only purpose.

So a troll will say 'there was no collusion', knowing there was but hold to that until someone runs around and provides the proof. They they will switch and say if there was collusion Trump did not know about it, and demand you run and find proof. When you do they will then switch and say 'well even if he knew it was not a crime'.

Its all a game of deny what you know and make them get proof that even when provided you say means nothing. So why deny up front. Trolling, that is why.

Sorry that is not a one game I am playing with you guys.

Dude, you don't know dick about the law. You have no idea what the elements of a crime are. You say that conspiracy isn't a crime unless it's in relation to betraying the US. You say that Mueller is investigating the crime of "leaks and coordination", then backtrack and say they are elements of a crime but fail to cite which crimes they are elements of. It's laughable.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

He made an assertion as well and refuses to back it up while demanding I do. i have no interest in that game because I know the game you guys play.

I want to make something a little clearer here.

I don't really care about the engagement with you guys. I am not trying to prove anything to you guys. I see you as trolls and if not trolls so painfully stupid that no facts will matter.

So my engagement with your posts is merely to expose them as stupid for others to see. Others i might care to see them.

I know Trolls do not care about answers. They often know the answers but just want to make others run around in circles and that is their only purpose.

So a troll will say 'there was no collusion', knowing there was but hold to that until someone runs around and provides the proof. They they will switch and say if there was collusion Trump did not know about it, and demand you run and find proof. When you do they will then switch and say 'well even if he knew it was not a crime'.

Its all a game of deny what you know and make them get proof that even when provided you say means nothing. So why deny up front. Trolling, that is why.

Sorry that is not a one game I am playing with you guys.

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't made any assertions about the subject of your conversation.

I'm pointing out that you've made an assertion and your repeatedly refusing to support it.

If that's the case, then that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

If you refuse to put in the basic time necessary to support your own position, then there's no reason for anyone else to take your position seriously or give it consideration.

The burden of proof of any claim is on the claimant.

 

[Rematch]

do you know how many days Watergate took? Whitewater?

Are you arguing that all investigations should take as long as those investigations if nothing is found?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

It i a crime. A campaign cannot even share it with their own super pacs. They cannot share it with any outside groups.

Okay. So cite the statute that makes it illegal for a person to share polling data. I'm still waiting on that.

That would have a slam dunk charge that Mueller could have levied against Manafort. The way you describe the illegality of sharing polling data, it sounds like its illegal per se v. His own lawyers admitted to it. Why wasn't he charged?

 

[Darkballs]

Yes, you are missing something.
Given how media is always blowing up news that in any negative way may affect this admin, releasing this piece of seemingly positive news for them and from "anonymous sources" is more than a certainty that they know it and laying the ground for the backtracking and new propaganda.

So it's not just one talking head on the MSM giving his opinion? Instead, it is a covert way for the MSM to acknowledge that they've been wrong about the results of an investigation that hasn't even concluded yet?

You aren't just spiking the football in your own endzone. You're outside the stadium, spiking the football in the parking lot, and wondering why the crowd isn't cheering.

 

[grizzard2bid]

So it's not just one talking head on the MSM giving his opinion? Instead, it is a covert way for the MSM to acknowledge that they've been wrong about the results of an investigation that hasn't even concluded yet?

You aren't just spiking the football in your own endzone. You're outside the stadium, spiking the football in the parking lot, and wondering why the crowd isn't cheering.

I'm not spiking anything.
The nostradamuses on both sides have been doing this for years even before investigation started. The media has been trying to squeeze ever drop of juice out of this subject to suddenly fall back onto anonymous sources that don't corroborate their agenda...right.

 

[Darkballs]

I'm not spiking anything.
The nostradamuses on both sides have been doing this for years even before investigation started.

Then seriously, why do you think the media give air times to pundits who attempt to predict the outcome of an investigation that hasn't concluded? Could it be that the story gets good ratings? No, couldn't be that. Must be a secret attempt for the MSM to all get together (through one dude giving his opinion on an NBC morning show) and tip their hand that the investigation will clear trump, all while still laying the ground work for future propaganda?

It's not that you're over thinking it. You're just making shit up as you go along.

 

[JamesRussler]

Give them Intel from inside the campaign, share data, influence WH appointments, etc.

None of that is criminal. A conspiracy, succinctly stated, is an agreement to commit a crime. Notwithstanding that, no I don't believe there was any level of cooperation or "collusion" between Trump and Russia.