Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[TheBlondBomber]

You are being a pedant, and exactly, you have no idea how that polling data would have "helped" Kilimnik in his role as a pro-Ukranian (and Russian intelligence connected) political consultant if not for nefarious purposes because it's silly to think that it would, whereas it's overwhelmingly plausible that said data being used by Russian intelligence in their interference in the US elections would have helped the campaign that Manafort was running. Trump won the biggest upset in political history because 78,000 votes went his way in three key states despite losing the general election by 3 million votes, polling data mattered.

Okay. You’re speculating on many things. You have no idea what the data consisted of. You have no idea what the data was used for. You have no idea if Russian Intelligence actually got ahold of the data. You have no idea if it was used, and even less of an idea if it skewed the ejection at all. All you’re doing right now is spitballing. I’m dealing with facts.

You made that claim that Manafort sharing that data was illegal. It’s not. Then you double down and try and cite an inapplicable statute to support your erroneous claim and when called out on your ignorance, you obfuscate. It’s almost comical.

 

[ocean size]

Okay. You’re speculating on many things. You have no idea what the data consisted of. You have no idea what the data was used for. You have no idea if Russian Intelligence actually got ahold of the data. You have no idea if it was used, and even less of an idea if it skewed the ejection at all. All you’re doing right now is spitballing. I’m dealing with facts.

You made that claim that Manafort sharing that data was illegal. It’s not. Then you double down and try and cite an inapplicable statute to support your erroneous claim and when called out on your ignorance, you obfuscate. It’s almost comical.

I agree with you it probably isn't illegal with the public facts as they stand, but it would be hard to make a case that it isn't worth investigating. Especially with Manafort and the Russian lying about their meetings, witness tampering, other Russian agents interfering with the election in different ways polling data contribute to, the campaigns willingness to meet Russians that want to discuss assistance etc.

I think any objectiveish person with the facts could admit that there's a chance Manafort (and maybe Gates who was with him) were doing this for their own benefit, there's a good chance it was for the campaign, and there is also a chance Trump was aware/involved.

Without the content of in person meetings (i.e. witness accounts) it is really hard to determine intent so its a pretty important distinction here that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But who knows, the relevant facts are in court as we speak and only some are public, Mueller could very well have a few pieces that would make the info sharing a crime.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Wow. A quick google search will show that no person has ever been charged with “coordination” because it’s not a fucking crime. Cite a statute saying that coordination is crime. Your “coordination” example would be under bribery or corruption statutes.

And no, it was not a crime for Manafort to share his polling data with a Russian Associate. Can you show me where he was charged with the crime of leaking polling data? Can you show me what statute prohibits a person from sharing polling data with a foreign national? If it was a crime to share polling data, why was Manafort’s lawyer forthright in admitting that Manafort shared the data? It’s comical how off you are on this subject.

Are you just acting this dumb to hide from the fact that you you posted a diagram that alleged Ivanka’s friendship with Wendi Deng or Fedor fighting in Affliction was proof of Putin rigging the election for Trump?

Go to sleep, you had a rough night, kid.

What would be a good reason to share polling data?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

are you high, if he did something illegal it would be in the list of 18 charges...point it out because I can't find it

Manafort had his bail revoked for attempting to tamper with a witness. Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Okay. You’re speculating on many things. You have no idea what the data consisted of. You have no idea what the data was used for. You have no idea if Russian Intelligence actually got ahold of the data. You have no idea if it was used, and even less of an idea if it skewed the ejection at all. All you’re doing right now is spitballing. I’m dealing with facts.

You made that claim that Manafort sharing that data was illegal. It’s not. Then you double down and try and cite an inapplicable statute to support your erroneous claim and when called out on your ignorance, you obfuscate. It’s almost comical.

I am saying that Manafort giving Kilimnik that data was for the purposes of Russia giving the Trump campaign a thing of value (and the statute states "directly or indirectly", no?), namely interfering on Trump's behalf in the election. And of course I'm speculating, this info came from Manafort's lawyers fucking up redacting info in their documents, we don't know shit about what Mueller or US intelligence knows about this interaction, how they know what they know about that interaction, what evidence they have that could be used against Manafort is a court of law, or if they would want to expose how they know what they know in a court of law, we just got a peek behind the curtain due to the incompetence of Manafort's lawyer.

Now, you said that Manafort sharing the data was to "help" Kilimnik, and I am asking you to give a plausible reason why Manafort would have shared that data if not for it later being used by the Russian intelligence forces that interfered in the US election, and that Kilimnik is connected to.

 

[ShinkanPo]

CNN headline.

“Although no collusion was found an unnamed source say that does not mean there was no collusion.”

I am not saying there is a collusion but I think its Aliens.

 

[ocean size]

are you high, if he did something illegal it would be in the list of 18 charges...point it out because I can't find it

@glenwo2 why are you liking this dude's ignorance

 

[ocean size]

Manafort had his bail revoked for attempting to tamper with a witness. Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.

Manafort fully pled guilty to the charge of witness tampering with the Russian.

 

[panamaican]

Do you realize that if you keep ignoring every single point a person brings up when replying to them that the conversation will not only never move forward but you will continue to show them that you are laughably ignorant.

I already countered you twice. Try countering me at least once.

I didn't ignore any of it. You simply typed a pointless screed that had nothing to do with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Just because you're typing things doesn't mean they're relevant to the conversation.

This is a common problem on this board. Someone types some random deflection from the topic at hand in a response to me. Then they get upset when I don't go down their personal rabbit hole. At this point I think it should be obvious - I don't respond to strawmen and deflections. I type my point, if you respond to the merits of my point, I'll engage (assuming I have the time). If you type something that is tangential or irrelevant I don't.

I don't have the time or the interest for posts that can't keep their responses on point.

To wit: I might type "I think dogs are boring pets for X, Y, Z reasons." Someone responds "Did you ever consider how dogs are helpful in various industries?" That response is irrelevant to why I think dogs are boring pets so I will disregard it. That someone will then complain "Why are you not countering my post." Because it has nothing to do with my original statement. It doesn't warrant a response and the person who typed it lacks the self-awareness to realize why.

 

[nac386]

This is a common problem on this board. Someone types some random deflection from the topic at hand in a response to me. Then they get upset when I don't go down their personal rabbit hole. At this point I think it should be obvious - I don't respond to strawmen and deflections. I type my point, if you respond to my merits o my point, I'll engage. If you type something that is tangential or irrelevant I don't.

I was just saying this the other day. Instead of acknowledging they've been proven wrong, they just ask an unrelated question to push the conversation in a different direction. If you refuse to go down the completely unnecessary and unrelated rabbit hole, they go, "Ha, you're dodging a simple question. I'm outta here!"

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I didn't ignore any of it. You simply typed a pointless screed.

Stay golden Ponyboy. You will win over masses to your side with your ability to present new information...

 

[WhiteMousse]

I'm not moving goalposts, I'm saying that Mueller's investigation hasn't finished yet. We have to wait and see where it goes before we know what it's conclusions and recommendations are. Is there really any doubt about that?

This congressional investigation is not the same thing, as much as anyone might hope that it is.

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.

 

[PEB]

The reporter who reported this is back peddling but he's trying to defend his position. Now he trying to explain what is direct evidence vs indirect? What does that mean you can tell there is questions about his report. He's rolling in his own BS right now on Morning Joe.

 

[Hard To Tell]

People are still putting their trust and faith in the guy who testified before The Senate where he lied through his teeth about about Saddam Hussein having WMD's in order to start an illegal war that has killed about half a million people.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Lefty's really embarrassing themselves in this thread. Kind of hilarious. Just proves that everyone is susceptible to conspiracy theories if it furthers their desires.

Right wingers looked dumb with the birther movement and Lefty's look even worse with this Russia shit because they're being egged on by the media that is only using them for views/revenue.

The more you idiots eat this Russia stuff up, the more the media is going to push it. They're making money off of you.

Not gonna celebrate too much though, the pendulum will swing and in 6 years, right wingers will be doing the same thing. Rinse and fucking repeat.

Good post. People are dumb and predictable.... your post might have pushed me back into not following politics again.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I never bought into the collusion because I know how much Putin hated Hillary Clinton and blamed her for trying to interfere in his election.
Whoever the Republican nominee was, they were going to benefit from Russia trying to meddle in the election... As long as Hillary Clinton was the Democrat nominee, atleast.

 

[vengeful]

People are still putting their trust and faith in the guy who testified before The Senate where he lied through his teeth about about Saddam Hussein having WMD's in order to start an illegal war that has killed about half a million people.

Please quote Mueller lying to Congress about Saddam having WMDs. I'm sure you'll fail to do so.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Wow. A quick google search will show that no person has ever been charged with “coordination” because it’s not a fucking crime. Cite a statute saying that coordination is crime. Your “coordination” example would be under bribery or corruption statutes.

And no, it was not a crime for Manafort to share his polling data with a Russian Associate. Can you show me where he was charged with the crime of leaking polling data? Can you show me what statute prohibits a person from sharing polling data with a foreign national? If it was a crime to share polling data, why was Manafort’s lawyer forthright in admitting that Manafort shared the data? It’s comical how off you are on this subject.

Are you just acting this dumb to hide from the fact that you you posted a diagram that alleged Ivanka’s friendship with Wendi Deng or Fedor fighting in Affliction was proof of Putin rigging the election for Trump?

Go to sleep, you had a rough night, kid.

Ha ha, You are playing that stupid game eh?

I don't play that stupid game.

Everyone knows Mueller's office was constituted to pursue crimes. They use umbrella terms that will lead to actually SPECIFIC charges because THEY DO NOT KNOW at the TIME what specific laws have been broken. So they are not going to try and write a bunch of SPECIFIC legal terms in the mandate and say 'those are what Mueller is to pursue' and then Mueller finds something else and people say 'that is not what he was tasked to look for.'

NO they are smarter than that and smarted than you. Mueller has a brood mandate and that mandate is to look for ;leaks and coordination' which are elements of collusion and which often are elements of crimes. And Mueller is to determine if indeed those leaks and coordinations WERE crimes.

Not every leak is a crime, not every coordination is a crime. Thus the investigation.

HOWEVER the 'leak' by Manafort of polling data WAS a crime. You will say 'the charge wont say 'leak' so its not a crime, gotcha,', but that is because you are stupid. The leak is the technical element of the crime that made it illegal. Thus why Mueller was looking for leaks. If Mueller has proof that the Trump Campaign and Russia were orchestrated a coordinated effort to provide data, to then target voting districts to then try to sway votes from Hilary to Trump that is COORDINATION and its a crime. Again it won't prosecuted as 'Coordination' and you again saying 'see i win it was prosecuted as something else' is still equally as stupid as it is the 'coordination' that will be presented in court that will get them convicted.

So this whole line of 'show me where that shows up as a crime' that the stupidest Trumptards play is just that, stupid. The people who put together the Mueller task force are not stupid. They understand the law and they did not purposely give Mueller a mandate that involves no crimes to investigate because they did not quot every potential law that could have been broken. And they did it the way they did purposely. Its a broad mandate that asks Mueller to find elements of crimes and then ATTACH those elements IF FOUND to the applicable crime for prosecution. Which is exactly what he has done to great effect.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Please quote Mueller lying to Congress about Saddam having WMDs. I'm sure you'll fail to do so.

OK, my bad, it was just Congress he testified before where he is on video lying trough his teeth.



What a lovely person, really the kind of guy you'd want to get behind.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Why didn’t Mueller charge him, then?

If it was Manafort giving the data to the Russian, how is that a campaign accepting help or soliciting help from a foreign government? Is it against federal law for a political campaign to help a foreign government? Robby Mook couldn’t send a donation to Haiti if he wanted to?

Also, cite the federal statute.

It is against the law for campaigns to share internal polling data with anyone even including their own Super Pac's. It is against the law for an outside groups, even including their own Super Pacs to share data with the Campaign. If they want to provide data back and forth it must be done at full market value rates (the cost of gathering that data) and then declared as a campaign contribution. Otherwise the law is being broken.