Hysterical. All you do is have to wait 5 mins & the reporting gets shot to bits. Chris, feel stupid?
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1083070872754274305
Replies to: Hysterical. All you do is have to wait 5 mins & the reporting gets shot to bits. Chris, feel stupid?
You don’t have to feel it. You are it.
He’s passing internal campaign polling data to a GRU operative to give to Russian oligarchs. Collusion 101. Give me any possible innocent reason.
You’ll note that he backed away from his original claim pretty fast
Changed the subject. Because his post was even stupider than normal.
You didn't read the NYTimes reporting. You have your facts wrong.
(no message)
What facts might they be genius?
(no message)
1. Polling, not voter data. 2. Shared to please Manafort's Ukrainian friends, not Putin. But Orange
Man Bad!
you refuse to learn
1) the polling data IS voter data
2) the Ukrainians ARE Putin’s guys
Looking forward to explaining it again tomorrow!
You are wrong so often that you should be banned.
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1083332728194510848?s=19
I said internal polling data genius. Passed to a GRU operative.
His excuse for doing it is irrelevant. Collusion 101.
Now answer the question.
You should be embarassed.
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1083336052545409030
Uhm how? Like these two weren’t Putin allies? Like he didn’t give internal campaign data to a GRU
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.
Cole not answering an inconvenient question? Shocking!
Just one clown post after another.
He’s the worst type of enabler/apologist, but fun to mess with.
(no message)
You voted for a rapist's enabler.
(no message)
Against an actual rapist, yeah.
(no message)
If he was convicted, then he must have already paid his debt to society. Otherwise, he'd be in jail.
(no message)
You mean the one who was enabled?
(no message)
You know why con men rarely get caught?
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.
Amen.
(no message)
Hard as this is to believe, you do not understand what this means.
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.
It might be something. It might not. More fun to think it might be something, though, am I right?
(no message)
Mueller apparently thinks it is something
And he knows more than we do.
He thinks it is something that was lied about, not that the something was a crime.
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.
As I keep saying we don’t know what he has or what he thinks.
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?
That's what I've been saying. We don't know. You sure do act like you know, though.
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.
Really? None of that matters.
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.
I just gave you 8 different imlications that explain away what we know. Now, you can make your case.
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.
Then give me an innocent explanation for what they did. C’mon boy you can do it.
You have yet to supply it especially for a prez nominee campaign manager to give internal campaign information to a GRU operative.
No law has been alleged to be violated. That's a good explanation most of the time.
(no message)
Which means you can’t. Figures.
(no message)
And how exactly do you know that?
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!
You call me out in this thread where you were just pantsed for your comments yesterday?
I'll give you this, you have chutzpah.
Uh, what now?
(no message)
Just reading portions of what you posted.
(no message)
Again, worthless "polling" data, not "voter" data, which is the mistake you keep making
because all you do is want to smear Trump.
Read the tweet yourself.
This is like watching Clemson on Alabama in the 4th Q. Let's see if Chris gives up like Bama did.
(no message)
Worthless? Bwahahahaha
(no message)
Those are the words Manafort's lawyers used
No way they would try to paint it in the best light possible.
You're a clown.
They used the word "polling." Please provide a link where they used "voter."
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
Miscommunication - I meant "polling" was the word his attorneys used
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?