Hysterical. All you do is have to wait 5 mins & the reporting gets shot to bits. Chris, feel stupid?

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:22 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Replies to: Hysterical. All you do is have to wait 5 mins & the reporting gets shot to bits. Chris, feel stupid?


Thread Level: 2

You don’t have to feel it. You are it.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:00 pm on Jan 9, 2019

He’s passing internal campaign polling data to a GRU operative to give to Russian oligarchs. Collusion 101. Give me any possible innocent reason.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 3

You’ll note that he backed away from his original claim pretty fast

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:06 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Changed the subject. Because his post was even stupider than normal.

Thread Level: 3

You didn't read the NYTimes reporting. You have your facts wrong.

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 4:28 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

What facts might they be genius?

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:39 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 5

1. Polling, not voter data. 2. Shared to please Manafort's Ukrainian friends, not Putin. But Orange

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 6:20 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Man Bad!

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 6

you refuse to learn

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:18 pm on Jan 9, 2019

1) the polling data IS voter data

2) the Ukrainians ARE Putin’s guys

Looking forward to explaining it again tomorrow!


Thread Level: 7

You are wrong so often that you should be banned.

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 7:38 am on Jan 10, 2019
Thread Level: 6

I said internal polling data genius. Passed to a GRU operative.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 8:14 pm on Jan 9, 2019

His excuse for doing it is irrelevant. Collusion 101.

Now answer the question.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 7

You should be embarassed.

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 8:26 am on Jan 10, 2019
Thread Level: 8

Uhm how? Like these two weren’t Putin allies? Like he didn’t give internal campaign data to a GRU

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 11:15 am on Jan 10, 2019

operative?

Like, he hasn’t been known to lie before.

Like he didn’t offer to brief Oleg before.

You should be embarrassed to have supported such a traitorius campaign.


Thread Level: 4

Cole not answering an inconvenient question? Shocking!

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:32 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Just one clown post after another.

Thread Level: 5

He’s the worst type of enabler/apologist, but fun to mess with.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:46 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 6

You voted for a rapist's enabler.

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 6:18 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Thread Level: 7

Against an actual rapist, yeah.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 8:15 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

If he was convicted, then he must have already paid his debt to society. Otherwise, he'd be in jail.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 9:06 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 9

You mean the one who was enabled?

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 9:32 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 6

You know why con men rarely get caught?

Author: Rooney (4804 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:55 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Because their marks, who think they are smart people, are too embarrassed to admit they got conned as it would reveal that they aren't nearly as smart as they think they are.

I think that description fits a few posters here. Some people have said that describes Cole. I won't say it. But some people are saying it. As you know.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 7

Amen.

Author: ND1IRISH (3242 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:41 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

Hard as this is to believe, you do not understand what this means.

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:32 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Kilimnik is the GRU officer. Manafort can ask him to pass on the GOP voter info to anyone he wants....it is giving it to a Russian intelligence officer in the first place that is the issue.

Look, maybe this is nothing.

But if it is true, then it proves collusion, and is unforgivable.


Thread Level: 3

It might be something. It might not. More fun to think it might be something, though, am I right?

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 2:41 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Mueller apparently thinks it is something

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:45 pm on Jan 9, 2019

And he knows more than we do.

Thread Level: 5

He thinks it is something that was lied about, not that the something was a crime.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 4:26 pm on Jan 9, 2019

Am I wrong? I'm willing to be educated. I just didn't see anything which indicated it was criminal. I saw statements that were ambiguous enough to support impeachment if the underlying facts go one way, and anmbiguous enough to includes sets of facts going the other way which would not support impeachment.

I am not arguing that Trump is innocent on this. I'm only commenting on what we know that Mueller knows.


This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Thread Level: 6

As I keep saying we don’t know what he has or what he thinks.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:44 pm on Jan 9, 2019

We do know that he has everything he wants from NSA.

I will ask you the same question I put to Colebot. Give me an innocent explanation for the campaign manager of a major party nominee giving a GRU operative campaign polling data to give to Russian oligarchs?


Thread Level: 7

That's what I've been saying. We don't know. You sure do act like you know, though.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 6:40 pm on Jan 9, 2019

What was the data? Was it confidential? Was it publicly available? When was it given?...during the campaign?...before he was campaign manager? To whom was it given? To his business partner? Was the guy tied to current Russian intelligence organizations? If so, did he know that? Or, was the recipient just a soviet military intelligence veteran, like so many veterans in the US who have nothing to do with the intelligence community here now? Did he give it with instructions? Or was it just on the server at their company, and thereby accessible to the Ukrainian guy? Do we count Ukrainians as Russians all the time, or just in this case? Was the information for a special purpose for them to exploit? Or, was it incidental to a conversation, and mentioned in passing? Was it the same kind of information that the Dems gave foreign operatives? I think there are a lot of facts which could lean illegal, or which could lean to legal. We'll just have to see.

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Thread Level: 8

Really? None of that matters.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 8:17 pm on Jan 9, 2019

What we know right now damns that campaign.

Give me an innocent explanation for the campaign manager of a major party prez nominee providing internal campaign information to a GRU operative. I really want to hear it.


This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Thread Level: 9

I just gave you 8 different imlications that explain away what we know. Now, you can make your case.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 9:10 pm on Jan 9, 2019

First a few questions: What internal campaign information was provided?

Was the guy a GRU operative when he gave it? What was his name? Are you talking about his business partner?

What law was violated?

Make your case.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 10

Then give me an innocent explanation for what they did. C’mon boy you can do it.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 9:35 pm on Jan 9, 2019

You have yet to supply it especially for a prez nominee campaign manager to give internal campaign information to a GRU operative.

Thread Level: 11

No law has been alleged to be violated. That's a good explanation most of the time.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 10:40 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 12

Which means you can’t. Figures.

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 8:24 am on Jan 10, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 6

And how exactly do you know that?

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:29 pm on Jan 9, 2019

As always, we don't know what Mueller knows, or what he is thinking, or what he is planning.

EDIT: I forgot - Baron and Cole know. No collusion!


Thread Level: 7

You call me out in this thread where you were just pantsed for your comments yesterday?

Author: BaronVonZemo (23041 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 5:59 pm on Jan 9, 2019

I'll give you this, you have chutzpah.

Thread Level: 8

Uh, what now?

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:04 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

Just reading portions of what you posted.

Author: NedoftheHill (21952 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 4:33 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

Again, worthless "polling" data, not "voter" data, which is the mistake you keep making

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:36 pm on Jan 9, 2019

because all you do is want to smear Trump.

Read the tweet yourself.


Thread Level: 4

This is like watching Clemson on Alabama in the 4th Q. Let's see if Chris gives up like Bama did.

Author: BaronVonZemo (23041 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 6:00 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Worthless? Bwahahahaha

Author: Frank L (32916 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 4:02 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Those are the words Manafort's lawyers used

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:44 pm on Jan 9, 2019

No way they would try to paint it in the best light possible.

You're a clown.


Thread Level: 5

They used the word "polling." Please provide a link where they used "voter."

Author: Cole (7592 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:47 pm on Jan 9, 2019

I am ready to be proven wrong on this, but this is from Vox and The Hill:

Manafort's attorneys appeared to acknowledge that the contacts occurred, writing that their client was unable to recall "specific details" about them before having his "recollection refreshed" by the special counsel.

"The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign," they wrote.


Link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18174094/manafort-filing-mueller

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 6

Miscommunication - I meant "polling" was the word his attorneys used

Author: Chris94 (21082 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 2:55 pm on Jan 9, 2019

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?