Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[MikeMcMann]

Lol this made me laugh.

Ya he says something like that for any post I make. If I provide a quote he says it.

When I say something that is FACT, as i have hear, he says it.

Its a troll reply. I ignore it.

I have the FACTS and can present them.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Point me to the number of the post or require it where you answered this.


You lied because its your M.O to say whatever typically whether you can prove it or not and the only reason you are admitting now is because you really want something from me or you would have clung to that lie (trolled) forever. Is that correct?

No. I didn't lie. I gave my opinion regarding whether Mueller had anything on Trump regarding collusion. I was speculating that he didn't have anything on Trump, just like people speculated the reaosn for Manafort giving the Ukrainian the polling information. Of course I don't know that Mueller has nothing on Trump. I'm reiterating this because you're too much of a stooge to admit you were wrong about Manafort giving polling information to a foreign national being illegal. I know you'll never cite a statute and you're too much of a coward to admit you're wrong, but I figured we'd get everything on the table.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

I have the FACTS and can present them.

Doubtful.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No. I didn't lie. I gave my opinion regarding whether Mueller had anything on Trump regarding collusion. I was speculating that he didn't have anything on Trump, just like people speculated the reaosn for Manafort giving the Ukrainian the polling information. Of course I don't know that Mueller has nothing on Trump. I'm reiterating this because you're too much of a stooge to admit you were wrong about Manafort giving polling information to a foreign national being illegal. I know you'll never cite a statute and you're too much of a coward to admit you're wrong, but I figured we'd get everything on the table.

Not how opinion works. That was a statement.

Just as @JamesRussler has made a statement that he knows what statute I was looking at. You notice he does not say 'he thinks...', He says 'THIS IS...'

So as you guys rightly point out the onus is then on you to substantiate it with the facts. If you are going to demand I do so, then you have to ALSO do so. If you won't, then I won't. Simple as that.

You can acknowledged you lied though as can Russler, if indeed your statement was not true.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Doubtful.

OK how about a bet in the bet thread then.

3 months Av and Sig control. I'll take that over you owning up toyour lie.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I don't think Trump "acts like a guilty person" (as if that were the standard)—he acts like a prick, because he's a prick. Always has been. As for the rest of his campaign, no I don't believe a mere connection to Russia constitutes "collusion," let alone conspiracy. Manafort may have had some dirty tax dealings (maybe, I wasn't privy to all the evidence), but it appears he fell victim to that old Communist credo of "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Mueller wants to ruin everyone associated with Trump, and that's the reason he went after Manafort.

Nyet Comrade.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

OK how about a bet in the bet thread then.

3 months Av and Sig control. I'll take that over you owning up toyour lie.

Okay. You gotta show me the applicable statute that makes Manafort's sharing of polling data illegal per se.

 

[SBJJ]

Ya he says something like that for any post I make. If I provide a quote he says it.

When I say something that is FACT, as i have hear, he says it.

Its a troll reply. I ignore it.

I have the FACTS and can present them.

Your recent posts are showing signs of a serious concussion

 

[TheBlondBomber]

I got it from the law and the facts. You know those things you care little about.

No there are tons of rules and laws around what campaigns can do. And it is law and fact that they cannot share internal polling data.

Your FIrst amendment grasp is laughable.

http://time.com/5506815/collusion-crime-obstruction-finance-trump-cohen/


"Experts say this act on its own likely wouldn’t constitute a crime, but it could be a piece of evidence to prove other crimes. In the court filing, it was in the context of a back and forth of Mueller’s team accusing Manafort of lying to them during his cooperation agreement, which could be a crime. But it could also fit into a larger conspiracy to violate election law."

Yikes. Swing and a miss again. Manafort didn't break any laws by giving the polling data to a foreign national. Anything to dispute the notion that it's not illegal?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Okay. You gotta show me the applicable statute that makes Manafort's sharing of polling data illegal per se.

I'm heading out to a meeting shortly but should be back in a hour or so. I will word up the bet then.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

I'm heading out to a meeting shortly but should be back in a hour or so. I will word up the bet then.

Just so we are clear, you are saying it was illegal per se for Manafort to share the polling data with the foreign national? No speculation about his motives or anything.That's what you had previously stated. That just by giving the polling data to Mr. Black Sea, Manafort was committing a crime?

 

[MikeMcMann]

http://time.com/5506815/collusion-crime-obstruction-finance-trump-cohen/


"Experts say this act on its own likely wouldn’t constitute a crime, but it could be a piece of evidence to prove other crimes. In the court filing, it was in the context of a back and forth of Mueller’s team accusing Manafort of lying to them during his cooperation agreement, which could be a crime. But it could also fit into a larger conspiracy to violate election law."

Yikes. Swing and a miss again. Manafort didn't break any laws by giving the polling data to a foreign national. Anything to dispute the notion that it's not illegal?

That's nice. its also not what I am referring to.

Please provide the proof you have that allows you to state what Statute i am referring to?

Lets see your proof. Stop citing guesses and provide your facts that demonstrate how you can state as if fact, what I know and am talking about.

 

[TheGreatA]

Good to know, now they should pour those resources and effort into solving other well-known conspiracy theories, like the JFK assassination or the Moon landings. Could hire Alex Jones as a consultant.

 

[SBJJ]

I'm heading out to a meeting shortly but should be back in a hour or so. I will word up the bet then.

LOFL!

I mean
L
O
F
L!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheBlondBomber]

That's nice. its also not what I am referring to.

Well, you've left us in suspense long enough. Time to spill what you are referring to.

Please provide the proof you have that allows you to state what Statute i am referring to?

Is this English? What are you talking about? You haven't cited a statute or alluded to any statute. You're falling apart at the seams. You honestly should take the rest of the day off and let your life partner lick your wounds.

Lets see your proof. Stop citing guesses and provide your facts that demonstrate how you can state as if fact, what I know and am talking about.

Bruh, you're sounding like you need to have a care and treatment hearing. Once you can form a coherent sentence, get back to me.

You said it was illegal for Manafort to give polling data to a foreign national and have brought forth no statute or anything to support that. TIME's experts disagree with you. Mueller didn't charge him for whatever violation you're alleging. No one besides you has said that it's a crime for Manafort to share that data. Can you cite anything besides the mush in your head to back up your claim?

Where did you go to law school, btw?

 

[JamesRussler]

Not how opinion works. That was a statement.

Just as @JamesRussler has made a statement that he knows what statute I was looking at. You notice he does not say 'he thinks...', He says 'THIS IS...'

So as you guys rightly point out the onus is then on you to substantiate it with the facts. If you are going to demand I do so, then you have to ALSO do so. If you won't, then I won't. Simple as that.

You can acknowledged you lied though as can Russler, if indeed your statement was not true.

Previously, you said the following:

Campaigns cannot share internal polling data with outside parties, not even their own SuperPacs. it is also a federal crime to solicit or attempt to receive foreign election aid.

While researching your specious claim, I came across this article, which states the following:

“The campaign chair is the campaign. The campaign was sharing polling data with someone known to be connected to Russian intelligence,” he said. “Is it collusion in the everyday non-legal sense before Rudy Giuliani started using the word? Sure. What could be more collusive than the top guy in a campaign with a Russian operative giving him the most sensitive data a campaign has?”

“Could it be a crime? Yes,” Honig continued. “It is a federal crime to solicit or attempt to receive foreign election aid.”

What a coincidence that this article would advance the exact same arguments you did, in the exact same order, using some of the exact same language. I came to the conclusion that the source for your claim was either this article, or a reposting of it.

As it so happens, I have been following the "collusion" saga, and I am familiar with this tired legal argument. The argument is that Trump's campaign conspired to solicit a "thing of value" from Russia under 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2), in the form of assistance with the election. That is the what the article means when it refers to "the crime of soliciting foreign election contributions or assistance." For further reference, take a look at this DOJ guide for prosecuting election offenses.

The first problem with your argument is that you aren't clear what it is. The second problem with your argument is that there are no facts suggesting the Trump campaign, let alone Trump himself, solicited a "thing of value" from Russia. In your mind, anyone who communicates with a Russian is "colluding," and anyone who knows Trump is a proxy for Trump himself. By that standard, all of our diplomats would be criminals (to say nothing of the Democrats pandering to Mexican nationals). But that's not the way the law works. At some point, you're going to have to accept that Trump won the election fair and square, and this whole "Muh Russia" saga was a big fat lie.

 

[JamesRussler]

Nyet Comrade.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Previously, you said the following:



While researching your specious claim, I came across this article, which states the following:



What a coincidence that this article would advance the exact same arguments you did, in the exact same order, using some of the exact same language. I came to the conclusion that the source for your claim was either this article, or a reposting of it.

As it so happens, I have been following the "collusion" saga, and I am familiar with this tired legal argument. The argument is that Trump's campaign conspired to solicit a "thing of value" from Russia under 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2), in the form of assistance with the election. That is the what the article means when it refers to "the crime of soliciting foreign election contributions or assistance." For further reference, take a look at this DOJ guide for prosecuting election offenses.

The first problem with your argument is that you aren't clear what it is. The second problem with your argument is that there are no facts suggesting the Trump campaign, let alone Trump himself, solicited a "thing of value" from Russia. In your mind, anyone who communicates with a Russian is "colluding," and anyone who knows Trump is a proxy for Trump himself. By that standard, all of our diplomats would be criminals (to say nothing of the Democrats pandering to Mexican nationals). But that's not the way the law works. At some point, you're going to have to accept that Trump won the election fair and square, and this whole "Muh Russia" saga was a big fat lie.

So if I post a citation about the law dealing with homicide, and you google that citation, you assume any article that pops up is the one I must have been looking at?

More than one article cannot refer to the same set of facts, and expound upon them?

Is that really your position? Is that really your proof?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

So if I post a citation about the law dealing with homicide, and you google that citation, you assume any article that pops up is the one I must have been looking at?

But you never posted the citation you're relying on. So how could he google the citation and then assume that's the one you're looking at? He's assuming that's the case because you never said what source of law you're relying on.

That's kind of what this whole discussion has been about. You saying that Manafort sharing the polling data is illegal, but refusing to cite why that's the case.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JamesRussler]

So if I post a citation about the law dealing with homicide, and you google that citation, you assume any article that pops up is the one I must have been looking at?

More than one article cannot refer to the same set of facts, and expound upon them?

Is that really your position? Is that really your proof?

Your post used a sequence of 12 subject-specific words that match a quote from that article verbatim. You were discussing the same subject, making the same arguments, in the same order.
YOU:

"...a federal crime to solicit or attempt to receive foreign election aid."

THE ARTICLE:

"...a federal crime to solicit or attempt to receive foreign election aid.”

What are the chances of that happening randomly? Very slim indeed.

Anyway, are you disputing my characterization of your argument? Is there another statute you had in mind?