Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[MikeMcMann]

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:

THE ARTICLE:


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?

lol. So is that something you want to bet on? If i can provide a different article referencing that stuff do I win?

Yes that is core of the argument in that article but without as much being explained as in the other.

it has been established factually that Russia was meddling in the election. That is not a question. It has been established that Trump asked them to meddle. That is not in question.

So sending internal polling data to that group is against the law. Even if they do not use it, it is against the law. It cannot even be sent as that would be breaking a law. That is FACT.

 

[JamesRussler]

lol. So is that something you want to bet on? If i can provide a different article referencing that stuff do I win?

Type it into Google with quotes. The source for the quote is one Elie Honig—the interviewee in the article I linked. You're the only other person to use that combination of words. I am convinced that Ms. Honig (a CNN commentator) is your source.

Yes that is core of the argument in that article but without as much being explained as in the other.

it has been established factually that Russia was meddling in the election. That is not a question. It has been established that Trump asked them to meddle. That is not in question.

Your factual premises are false. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to point out that your factual premises are false.
Moreover, it's not clear what you mean by "meddling." Is it different from "collusion?" Is it a form of conspiracy? Sounds like the same tired innuendo we've been hearing for years. Give it a rest.

So sending internal polling data to that group is against the law. Even if they do not use it, it is against the law. It cannot even be sent as that would be breaking a law. That is FACT.

You're attempting to make the same argument Ms. Honig did. However, I suggest you read what she said again. She said "Could it be a crime? Yes.” In other words, it is not an ipso facto crime. IMO, it's not clear that it could even constitute the actus reus (the guilty act) by itself. At best it could be used as circumstantial evidence of intent, or perhaps used to prove the existence of a common plan/scheme or overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy. Nothing in the law supports your argument that "sending internal polling data to that [Russia or anyone else] is against the law."

 

[MikeMcMann]

Type it into Google with quotes. The source for the quote is one Elie Honig—the interviewee in the article I linked. You're the only other person to use that combination of words. I am convinced that Ms. Honig (a CNN commentator) is your source.



Your factual premises are false. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to point out that your factual premises are false.
Moreover, it's not clear what you mean by "meddling." Is it different from "collusion?" Is it a form of conspiracy? Sounds like the same tired innuendo we've been hearing for years. Give it a rest.



You're attempting to make the same argument Ms. Honig did. However, I suggest you read what she said again. She said "Could it be a crime? Yes.” In other words, it is not an ipso facto crime. IMO, it's not clear that it could even constitute the actus reus (the guilty act) by itself. At best it could be used as circumstantial evidence of intent, or perhaps used to prove the existence of a common plan/scheme or overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy. Nothing in the law supports your argument that "sending internal polling data to that [Russia or anyone else] is against the law."

No its factually accurate.

Trump asked Russia to get data on Hilary to use against her in her campaign. That is FACT we can pull up on video.

it has been established as FACT by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland security (unanimously) that Russia then, that day began meddling and hacking into Hilary's emails and to do targeted social media marketing to sway districts away from voting for Hilary and towards voting for Trump.

It is FACT that Manafort then gave them key polling data and it is against the law to do so when they are using it to effect an ongoing election.

nothing I say above is in dispute. it proves for FACT the Trump campaign engaged illegally with russians to affect the election.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

So sending internal polling data to that group is against the law. Even if they do not use it, it is against the law. It cannot even be sent as that would be breaking a law. That is FACT.

Got a source for that yet?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Got a source for that yet?

yes

 

[JamesRussler]

No its factually accurate.

Trump asked Russia to get data on Hilary to use against her in her campaign. That is FACT we can pull up on video.

it has been established as FACT by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland security (unanimously) that Russia then, that day began meddling and hacking into Hilary's emails and to do targeted social media marketing to sway districts away from voting for Hilary and towards voting for Trump.

It is FACT that Manafort then gave them key polling data and it is against the law to do so when they are using it to effect an ongoing election.

nothing I say above is in dispute. it proves for FACT the Trump campaign engaged illegally with russians to affect the election.

What will it take for you to just admit you're wrong? You can still hate Trump, but clinging to this debunked "Russia" narrative is delusional.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

yes

Don’t be shy. We’ve been waiting for a while. I accepted your sig bet. Go ahead and share it.

Or we can up the ante to an account bet.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

You're right.

And I should probably clarify that my comment is not directed at you, it's really more of an observation on how people generally work.

If you can convince people that something fishy is going on, say collusion with Russia, all their future interpretations, interactions and judgments are channeled through that particular canal, even if you flat out tell them later that you misspoke, or even lied. They'll continue to live and act as though that person or group has acted dishonorably or illegally because you've trained them to carry that filter for so long.

After two years of making "collusion" the most googled term in America, they've done their job- which is to make people hate Trump.

I'm not oblivious to what kind of person Trump is. He's a disgusting, unsavory guy. There is absolutely no question about it. But if you take a step back, away from it all and just look objectively at all the absolute shit that has been thrown at him... and all the people they've brainwashed into foaming at the mouth over him, the precision with which this laser is focused is troubling.

Have you ever seen such a concerted effort to destroy someone? Ever? Have you ever witnessed a situation in which so many people in places of inconceivable wealth and power, want more than anything to utterly destroy someone? These people are obsessed. And they have scrubbed all of their followers' brains over cheese graters and they're all obsessed too. They sit at home and hate Trump.

Do you know what happened the other day? A group of lunatics killed a dog because its owner named it "Donald Trump."
I think it's awful to name your dog "Donald Trump".
I think it is batshit insane to kill a dog because its name is "Donald Trump."

And this is not an outlier, at least in terms of unreasonable, unfounded rage. I'm back in school and a kid in my accounting class made a joke. The two 28 year old women immediately went into banshee mode plus. I used to think that this kind of thing was limited to Twitter and I imagine maybe Twitter houses most of this kind of animosity but it is there, and people are slowly starting to pull it over from their social media personae into their everyday interactions.

And I knew exactly what they were going to say before they spoke a single coherent word. The NPC meme is not funny- it's real. Because these people have been programmed.

Sorry to get a little off track there but all of that is to say that tons, tons of people have been conditioned and primed in only two years. If the investigation brings back nothing they will still think Trump colluded. If CNN gets on the news and says "Guys no, we fucking lied to you. We played you like bitches" they will still need to hate Trump.

Goebbels number one rule.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

yes

Are you citing your CFL professor from law school? Go ahead and enlighten us.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What will it take for you to just admit you're wrong? You can still hate Trump, but clinging to this debunked "Russia" narrative is delusional.

it would take me being wrong which I am not.

I laid out the facts. Lets see you dispute them.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Don’t be shy. We’ve been waiting for a while. I accepted your sig bet. Go ahead and share it.

Or we can up the ante to an account bet.

Well we have to agree on the framing and facts of the bet.

I have laid out the facts above. DO you agree they are the basis of the bet and the question is 'that the very act of sending the internal polling data even if not used (which we cannot prove but does not need to be) is a crime'?

 

[glenwo2]

Well now they can invent something new to impeach him with.

They can use this :

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Well we have to agree on the framing and facts of the bet.

I have laid out the facts above. DO you agree they are the basis of the bet and the question is 'that the very act of sending the internal polling data even if not used (which we cannot prove but does not need to be) is a crime'?

To be even more clear, your position is this:

All the prosecution would need to prove to show that Manafort committed a crime is that he sent polling data to a foreign national


My position is that in of itself, sending polling data to a foreign national would not constitute a crime.

You bear the burden.

Fair? Account bet. I’m willing to bet my nearly 13 year account on this. Are you?

 

[MikeMcMann]

To be even more clear, your position is this:

All the prosecution would need to prove to show that Manafort committed a crime is that he sent polling data to a foreign national


My position is that in of itself, sending polling data to a foreign national would not constitute a crime.

You bear the burden.

Fair? Account bet. I’m willing to bet my nearly 13 year account on this. Are you?

yes but the context matters. just as you would not leave out 'foreign national' you would not leave out the situation on the ground prior to him sending.

Already established was that Trump had called for Russia's aid. Already established was that Russia was hacking into the DNC and also starting a Social media campaign.

So it is absolutely illegal for Manafort (the Trump Campaign) to send internal polling Data to Russia even if they ultimately never even used it.

I am ready to bet when you accept those terms.

 

[glenwo2]

Nyet Comrade.

 

[King in the North]

Trump supporters are (still) retarded and as expected spiked the ball on the 50 yard line.

Manafort Found to Have Lied to Prosecutors While Under a Cooperation Agreement
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/manafort-mueller.html

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, repeatedly lied to prosecutors after he agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of United States District Court may affect the sentence she hands out in the coming weeks to Mr. Manafort, 69. Judge Jackson said that Mr. Manafort had intentionally lied about his contacts with a Russian associate during the campaign and after Mr. Trump was elected.

Prosecutors have said that the associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, has ties to Russian intelligence services. The judge also found that Mr. Manafort had lied about a payment that was routed through a pro-Trump political action committee to cover his legal bills, and about information relevant to another undisclosed investigation underway at the Justice Department.

Gee I wonder what he was lying about.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

yes but the context matters. just as you would not leave out 'foreign national' you would not leave out the situation on the ground prior to him sending.

Already established was that Trump had called for Russia's aid. Already established was that Russia was hacking into the DNC and also starting a Social media campaign.

So it is absolutely illegal for Manafort (the Trump Campaign) to send internal polling Data to Russia even if they ultimately never even used it.

I am ready to bet when you accept those terms.

So now you’re disputing that Manafort sending the polling data is illegal per se, as you have indicated before?

 

[JamesRussler]

To be even more clear, your position is this:

All the prosecution would need to prove to show that Manafort committed a crime is that he sent polling data to a foreign national


My position is that in of itself, sending polling data to a foreign national would not constitute a crime.

You bear the burden.

Fair? Account bet. I’m willing to bet my nearly 13 year account on this. Are you?

Sounds like a fair bet to me.

 

[glenwo2]

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?

Look at the rest, Bomber :

The word "could" is used a lot.

This "could" happen.

This "could" be this.

This "could" be that.


And I "could" win the lottery.

You keep nailing those uppercuts to Mike and he just continues to come back for more.

Maybe @SBJJ is right about the concussion thing.

 

[SBJJ]

So now you’re disputing that Manafort sending the polling data is illegal per se, as you have indicated before?

He will never actually bet you man. He will keep changing it up.

It's the reason the guy has never actually made a bet even though he's constantly screaming about it