Social Even Democrats now agree : No Russian Collusion

[Rematch]

Uhh....Hakuna Matata?

Nothing burger! For hundreds of days
Nothing burger! What a liberal craze

It means investigating any and every which way

It's collusion free
It has no meat
Nothing burger!

 

[TheBlondBomber]

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.

Can you cite the statute? Because Manafort was never charged with anything regarding his sharing of the polling data.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

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.

Lol, so I was right to say that they are looking for collusion?

Also, collusion is not a codified crime and not a crime a common law, so how can "leaks and coordination" be elements of a crime, when the underlying "crime" isn't a crime at all? Can you tell me specifically which crimes "leaks and coordination" are elements of? Cite the codified language. Words matter, and for you to say that they are elements of a crime when not citing which crime they are elements of is dumb, frankly.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

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.

Round 3 goes to @Hard To Tell

 

[grizzard2bid]

So a random talking head from NBC (I thought trumpers said we couldn't trust the msm?) claims that an anonymous source told him that they talked to democratic senators, and those senators said they hadn't seen proof of collusion yet.

And this has caused war room conservatives to spike the football in their own endzone?

Am I missing anything here?

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. Many of their democratic/liberal viewers are going to be depressed and disgruntled and they're trying to make a soft landing for when official report comes.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

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.

Can you cite the statute that makes it illegal for Manafort to share the polling data with the Ukrainian? Until you can, you should stop saying it's illegal, because there's noting to indicate that it is illegal, including the fact that Mueller didn't charge Manafort with that crime.

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 if Mueller finds illegal activity, he will charge? Okay dude, that's a given. But he hasn't found any evidence to show that the Trump Campaign and Russia colluded. There's no indication that Trump knew anything about Manafort sharing the data, and Manafort sharing the data is perfectly legal. Not sure what your argument is.

 

[vengeful]

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.

Are you deaf?

The first thing he said "Secretary Powell presented evidence......" He's not making an empty statement that Iraq has WMDs, he's saying Powell presented evidence they did which is what happened. Now if you want to argue Powell's evidence was fake/doctored or whatever, that doesn't change the fact that he presented that evidence. Not a lie.

 

[franklinstower]

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.

I don't know man. I am sure you are making a decent enough point. On the other hand no one I know has bought the collusion thing in any deep way. The most I've heard is that we will just have to wait and see on that.

I have heard it spoken with sincere conviction that his financial situations if investigated are going to uncover financial crimes including money laundering. I am fairly certain this is the case also, and maybe this is the result of the media campaign you are seeing?

As a person who doesn't buy the collusion with Russia thing at all (unless and until evidence is provided) I can still say that I think every bit of the disgust and fear at having Trump in the white house IS justified. Trump is a terrible base human being. I would not in a million years want that guy in my home or in my life. I learned a long time ago that loud arrogant liars are not worth my time and do no real good in the world (no matter how rich they are).

Having Trump in the office of the presidency is terrible and disgusting and base and is degrading to the whole country. Just because a lying con man is rich and lied his way into office does not mean he is qualified or suited for that office.

Trump is intentionally divisive and not for some grand purpose for the greater american good, but for his own egoic and selfish reasons. Trump is a divider and a degrader.

I think Trump deserves every bit of the derision that he receives, more even.

 

[7437]

Nothing burger! For hundreds of days
Nothingg burger! What a liberal craze

It means investigating any and every which way

It's collusion free
It has no meat
Nothing burger!

do you know how many days Watergate took? Whitewater?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

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.

You seem to can't come to grips with the fact that Manafort sharing the polling data with Mr. Odessa isn't illegal and the statute that you cited was erroneous. Once you admit that you're wrong, then I'll jump into your hypothetical game. Prove you're a rational person and admit you're wrong about what you said earlier and then we can talk.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I am not deflecting, I am pointing out that your argument that he "helped" a foreign national (who is connected to Russian intelligence) is silly, and am asking you to present a single plausible reason for why Kilimnik would have wanted that data if not for nefarious purposes to help Trump get elected, knowing that Russian intelligence later interfered in the US election...I think it's clar that was for the purposes of helping Manafort and Trump, and the payback from Manafort and Trump was the change in the GOP's policy toward Russian interests.

We know for FACT that Russia wanted to help Trump beat Hillary. Putin Admitted it.

We know for FACT that the Russians then targeted key electoral districts to try and sway votes from Hilary to Trump and that is confirmed as fact by every single US Intelligence agency (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc).

We know for FACT Manafort gave the Russians key internal polling data at the same time we KNOW the Russians were looking to target and interfere in the election. You don't have to draw too many lines to get to a quid pro quo that is illegal. It appears pretty clear we already have itt.

 

[MikeMcMann]

so now the charges are Trumped up on Enron?

overturned unanimous by the supreme court...ABSOFUCKINGLUTLY

No surprise that second sight is completely ignorant in what was overturned which had NOTHING to do with Enron's guilt and charges but he has jumped to wrong conclusions anyway.

I am embarrassed for you second sight.

 

[MikeMcMann]

ALL of the convictions were overturned, the same for Auther Anderson

Your lies and or stupidity knows no bounds.

No what was overturned was a procedural point about Arthur Anderson being guilty of shredding documents. The Courts found the process and instruction was not adequate.

That has NOTHING to do with Enrons findings of guilt. Regardless of whether Arthur Anderson was guilty or not of shredding doc's does not change the FACT that Enron WAS guilty and convicted and those convictions stand.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Can you cite the statute? Because Manafort was never charged with anything regarding his sharing of the polling data.

There is a video where Judge Napolitano walks thru on Fox News what are actual crimes and what are not.

He specifically points out that campaigns cannot share their internal polling data with any outside parties, not even their own PAC's as the elections act does not allow it.

Feel free to look for it. I am not going to waste my time because as soon as I dig it up your reply will be 'well he was not charged with that anyway'. So I already know the game you are playing of assuming we already know all the charges Mueller will ultimately level NOW and must pretend nothing else matters. Its a stupid game you can play on your own. thx.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Lol, so I was right to say that they are looking for collusion?

Also, collusion is not a codified crime and not a crime a common law, so how can "leaks and coordination" be elements of a crime, when the underlying "crime" isn't a crime at all? Can you tell me specifically which crimes "leaks and coordination" are elements of? Cite the codified language. Words matter, and for you to say that they are elements of a crime when not citing which crime they are elements of is dumb, frankly.

Again with the stupid games. Killing is not a codified crime. One must determine was it Homicide, Manslaugher, Suicide, Self defense. But we all know that if someone is killed a crime will be investigated and the APPROPRIATE charge laid.

Conspiracy, Coordination, and Leaks are not codified crimes (this is where you pretend you win because of that) and only stupid people accept the spin they need to be codified crimes and keep asking for the statutes.

While searching for conspiracy, coordination and leaks, Mueller will look to determine if such actions breached any specific statutes.

So example : If Manafort leaked polling data to Russians that could breach two laws. The first being providing Campaign polling data to an outside party (illegal). Second is giving it to a Foreign Agent.

Next, if Mueller can establish that Manafort gave it for a quid pro quo where the Russians took it and agreed to use to impact the election, in return for the POTUS establishing a position that would diminish sanctions then that coordination is illegal.


No one creating the Mueller Investigation would be dumb enough to write up at the start 'your mandate is to look if polling data was shared breaching statute XYZ' nor would they say 'your mandate is to find if they had a quid pro quo breaching statute ABC', BECAUSE they did not know at the time what statute breaches may have been compromised.

SO instead as is NORMAL they use umbrella terms 'coordination', 'Leaks' that may or may not lead to specific charges and to date they have lead to specific charges. EVERYONE knows that is how that works.

You stating herr durr but leaks and coordinations are not crimes is just stupid. What you do with leaks and coordinations can certainly be crimes and already have been proven to be so.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

There is a video where Judge Napolitano walks thru on Fox News what are actual crimes and what are not.

He specifically points out that campaigns cannot share their internal polling data with any outside parties, not even their own PAC's as the elections act does not allow it.

Feel free to look for it. I am not going to waste my time because as soon as I dig it up your reply will be 'well he was not charged with that anyway'. So I already know the game you are playing of assuming we already know all the charges Mueller will ultimately level NOW and must pretend nothing else matters. Its a stupid game you can play on your own. thx.

Lol so you make an assertion that something is against the law, with nothing to support it. No statute, no law review article, not even the video you mention. Nothing. One guy in this thread said the same thing, only to cite an erroneous statute. Did any news articles even hint that what Manafort did was against the law? No, because it's not. You have nothing to back up your assertion that it's illegal to give polling data to a foreign national. If you think it's a stupid game to expect someone to have a modicum of proof that what they are saying is factual, by all means, go ahead and call it stupid.

It's illegal for you to make such assertions that something is a crime with nothing to back up that assertion. My source: Go look it up.

Go take a lap, son.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Again with the stupid games. Killing is not a codified crime. One must determine was it Homicide, Manslaugher, Suicide, Self defense. But we all know that if someone is killed a crime will be investigated and the APPROPRIATE charge laid.

Conspiracy, Coordination, and Leaks are not codified crimes (this is where you pretend you win because of that) and only stupid people accept the spin they need to be codified crimes and keep asking for the statutes.

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

So example : If Manafort leaked polling data to Russians that could breach two laws. The first being providing Campaign polling data to an outside party (illegal). Second is giving it to a Foreign Agent.

Next, if Mueller can establish that Manafort gave it for a quid pro quo where the Russians took it and agreed to use to impact the election, in return for the POTUS establishing a position that would diminish sanctions then that coordination is illegal.


No one creating the Mueller Investigation would be dumb enough to write up at the start 'your mandate is to look if polling data was shared breaching statute XYZ' nor would they say 'your mandate is to find if they had a quid pro quo breaching statute ABC', BECAUSE they did not know at the time what statute breaches may have been compromised.

SO instead as is NORMAL they use umbrella terms 'coordination', 'Leaks' that may or may not lead to specific charges and to date they have lead to specific charges. EVERYONE knows that is how that works.

You stating herr durr but leaks and coordinations are not crimes is just stupid. What you do with leaks and coordinations can certainly be crimes and already have been proven to be so.

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.

 

[MikeMcMann]

...


So if Mueller finds illegal activity, he will charge? Okay dude, that's a given. But he hasn't found any evidence to show that the Trump Campaign and Russia colluded. There's no indication that Trump knew anything about Manafort sharing the data, and Manafort sharing the data is perfectly legal. Not sure what your argument is.

You are always asking people to cite facts so please cite your facts on what Mueller has or has not found. Please provide the proof you know for fact what he has.

And again you people need to educate yourself and read the Mueller Mandate.

He was tasked to find out:

- If the Trump Campaign
- and/or if Trump himself

had "...any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals..."

It does not require specific Trump knowledge for Mueller to establish that and his mandate to be fulfilled as a success.

Manafort was the Campaign chair. He was certainly the lead of the 'Trump Campaign' and we already know Manafort had links with Russian gov't and individuals.

Guilty. Done. Success. Mueller has already succeeded in routing out the corruption he went in looking for and more is still to come.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Lol so you make an assertion that something is against the law, with nothing to support it. No statute, no law review article, not even the video you mention. Nothing. One guy in this thread said the same thing, only to cite an erroneous statute. Did any news articles even hint that what Manafort did was against the law? No, because it's not. You have nothing to back up your assertion that it's illegal to give polling data to a foreign national. If you think it's a stupid game to expect someone to have a modicum of proof that what they are saying is factual, by all means, go ahead and call it stupid.

It's illegal for you to make such assertions that something is a crime with nothing to back up that assertion. My source: Go look it up.

Go take a lap, son.

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.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

You are always asking people to cite facts so please cite your facts on what Mueller has or has not found. Please provide the proof you know for fact what he has.

And again you people need to educate yourself and read the Mueller Mandate.

He was tasked to find out:

- If the Trump Campaign
- and/or if Trump himself

had "...any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals..."

It does not require specific Trump knowledge for Mueller to establish that and his mandate to be fulfilled as a success.

Manafort was the Campaign chair. He was certainly the lead of the 'Trump Campaign' and we already know Manafort had links with Russian gov't and individuals.

Guilty. Done. Success. Mueller has already succeeded in routing out the corruption he went in looking for and more is still to come.

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.