I also meant that you generally poll voters. Otherwise there is no point in polling.
Maybe the GRU was merely interested in Trump's internal polling numbers. You know, whether the GOP's in-house pollsters had him ahead or not.
But since that makes no goddam sense (why would they want that?) - and since Mueller would not care one bit about that - it is not likely the only data they wanted.
See?
Replies to: "Miscommunication - I meant "polling" was the word his attorneys used"
- Hysterical. All you do is have to wait 5 mins & the reporting gets shot to bits. Chris, feel stupid? [NT]
[LINK]
- Cole - 2:22pm 1/9/19
(39) [View All]
- You don’t have to feel it. You are it. - Frank L - 4:00pm 1/9/19
- You’ll note that he backed away from his original claim pretty fast - Chris94 - 6:06pm 1/9/19
- You didn't read the NYTimes reporting. You have your facts wrong. [NT]
- Cole - 4:28pm 1/9/19
- What facts might they be genius? [NT]
- Frank L - 4:39pm 1/9/19
- 1. Polling, not voter data. 2. Shared to please Manafort's Ukrainian friends, not Putin. But Orange - Cole - 6:20pm 1/9/19
- you refuse to learn - Chris94 - 8:18pm 1/9/19
- You are wrong so often that you should be banned. [NT] [LINK] - Cole - 7:38am 1/10/19
- I said internal polling data genius. Passed to a GRU operative. - Frank L - 8:14pm 1/9/19
- You should be embarassed. [NT]
[LINK]
- Cole - 8:26am 1/10/19
- Uhm how? Like these two weren’t Putin allies? Like he didn’t give internal campaign data to a GRU - Frank L - 11:15am 1/10/19
- You should be embarassed. [NT]
[LINK]
- Cole - 8:26am 1/10/19
- you refuse to learn - Chris94 - 8:18pm 1/9/19
- 1. Polling, not voter data. 2. Shared to please Manafort's Ukrainian friends, not Putin. But Orange - Cole - 6:20pm 1/9/19
- Cole not answering an inconvenient question? Shocking! - Chris94 - 4:32pm 1/9/19
- He’s the worst type of enabler/apologist, but fun to mess with. [NT]
- Frank L - 4:46pm 1/9/19
- You voted for a rapist's enabler. [NT]
- Cole - 6:18pm 1/9/19
- Against an actual rapist, yeah. [NT]
- Frank L - 8:15pm 1/9/19
- If he was convicted, then he must have already paid his debt to society. Otherwise, he'd be in jail. [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 9:06pm 1/9/19
- You mean the one who was enabled? [NT] - Frank L - 9:32pm 1/9/19
- If he was convicted, then he must have already paid his debt to society. Otherwise, he'd be in jail. [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 9:06pm 1/9/19
- Against an actual rapist, yeah. [NT]
- Frank L - 8:15pm 1/9/19
- You know why con men rarely get caught? - Rooney - 4:55pm 1/9/19
- Amen. [NT] - ND1IRISH - 8:41pm 1/9/19
- You voted for a rapist's enabler. [NT]
- Cole - 6:18pm 1/9/19
- He’s the worst type of enabler/apologist, but fun to mess with. [NT]
- Frank L - 4:46pm 1/9/19
- What facts might they be genius? [NT]
- Frank L - 4:39pm 1/9/19
- Hard as this is to believe, you do not understand what this means. - Chris94 - 2:32pm 1/9/19
- It might be something. It might not. More fun to think it might be something, though, am I right? [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 2:41pm 1/9/19
- Mueller apparently thinks it is something - Chris94 - 2:45pm 1/9/19
- He thinks it is something that was lied about, not that the something was a crime. - NedoftheHill - 4:26pm 1/9/19
- As I keep saying we don’t know what he has or what he thinks. - Frank L - 4:44pm 1/9/19
- That's what I've been saying. We don't know. You sure do act like you know, though. - NedoftheHill - 6:40pm 1/9/19
- Really? None of that matters. - Frank L - 8:17pm 1/9/19
- I just gave you 8 different imlications that explain away what we know. Now, you can make your case. - NedoftheHill - 9:10pm 1/9/19
- Then give me an innocent explanation for what they did. C’mon boy you can do it. - Frank L - 9:35pm 1/9/19
- No law has been alleged to be violated. That's a good explanation most of the time. [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 10:40pm 1/9/19
- Which means you can’t. Figures. [NT] - Frank L - 8:24am 1/10/19
- No law has been alleged to be violated. That's a good explanation most of the time. [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 10:40pm 1/9/19
- Then give me an innocent explanation for what they did. C’mon boy you can do it. - Frank L - 9:35pm 1/9/19
- I just gave you 8 different imlications that explain away what we know. Now, you can make your case. - NedoftheHill - 9:10pm 1/9/19
- Really? None of that matters. - Frank L - 8:17pm 1/9/19
- That's what I've been saying. We don't know. You sure do act like you know, though. - NedoftheHill - 6:40pm 1/9/19
- And how exactly do you know that? - Chris94 - 4:29pm 1/9/19
- You call me out in this thread where you were just pantsed for your comments yesterday? - BaronVonZemo - 5:59pm 1/9/19
- Uh, what now? [NT] - Chris94 - 6:04pm 1/9/19
- Just reading portions of what you posted. [NT] - NedoftheHill - 4:33pm 1/9/19
- You call me out in this thread where you were just pantsed for your comments yesterday? - BaronVonZemo - 5:59pm 1/9/19
- As I keep saying we don’t know what he has or what he thinks. - Frank L - 4:44pm 1/9/19
- He thinks it is something that was lied about, not that the something was a crime. - NedoftheHill - 4:26pm 1/9/19
- Mueller apparently thinks it is something - Chris94 - 2:45pm 1/9/19
- Again, worthless "polling" data, not "voter" data, which is the mistake you keep making - Cole - 2:36pm 1/9/19
- This is like watching Clemson on Alabama in the 4th Q. Let's see if Chris gives up like Bama did. [NT] - BaronVonZemo - 6:00pm 1/9/19
- Worthless? Bwahahahaha [NT] - Frank L - 4:02pm 1/9/19
- Those are the words Manafort's lawyers used - Chris94 - 2:44pm 1/9/19
- They used the word "polling." Please provide a link where they used "voter." [LINK]
- Cole - 2:47pm 1/9/19
- Miscommunication - I meant "polling" was the word his attorneys used - Chris94 - 2:55pm 1/9/19
- They used the word "polling." Please provide a link where they used "voter." [LINK]
- Cole - 2:47pm 1/9/19
- It might be something. It might not. More fun to think it might be something, though, am I right? [NT]
- NedoftheHill - 2:41pm 1/9/19
- You don’t have to feel it. You are it. - Frank L - 4:00pm 1/9/19
