Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

[LV426]

You have NO evidence of that.

Well, here's what we know for sure:

Manafort had shared polling data with Russian spies for months.

Manafort had instructed and ordered Gates to continue sharing that information.

Mueller says Because of questions about Manafort' s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it.

So the only reason "no evidence" exists is because Mueller was limited in what they could gather.

You left that out of all your post. I want to know why?

 

[LV426]

Again, you fail to comprehend what you are reading. Saying the FBI 'assesses he has ties' means they are pretty confident he does

OK...and?

THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE SHARED THE DATA

Well, we don't know that because Mueller's ability to look into this was limited, as he says in the report you still haven't read.

We also know that the IRA did launch troll attacks in the same states Manafort shared data.

Why would Manafort share polling data with Russian spies?

Why would he share polling data with someone the FBI determined had ties to Russian Intel?

These questions aren't going to go away.

 

[LV426]

yes, they worked together 10 years. They discussed that and the peace plan

Wait - YOU SAID ALL THEY DISCUSSED WAS THE PEACE PLAN.

You said it right here:

But there is no evidence that they did anything other than discuss his peace plan.

So you lied, yes or no?

You either lied, or you talked out of your ass (which is still lying).

They didn't discuss just the peace plan, "they also discussed the status of the Drumpf Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting. "

So you were bullshitting me when you said this, weren't you?

But there is no evidence that they did anything other than discuss his peace plan.

I really hate it when Conservatives bullshit because it's so lazy and insulting.

 

[LV426]

The Mueller report showed no evidence the data shared was tied to Russian interference.

GOALPOST SHIFT.

First, your position was that Manafort didn't share any polling data

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, but it's not illegal

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with no evidence of Russian ties.

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything.

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything, but Russia didn't do anything with the months of polling data it got.

NEXT, your position will be Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything, but Russia didn't do anything with the months of polling data it got in states where it launched its troll campaign to sway voters.

 

[LV426]

I am not disputing that he talking with his friend and shared data with him.

You were disputing that as recently as two dozen posts ago!

Now, your position has evolved again.

You said, at the beginning of this, that Manafort didn't share any data and there was no evidence he did.

Except that there is evidence he did, an entire section of the Mueller report talks about it, but you wouldn't know that because you still haven't read the Mueller report.

 

[LV426]

I am disputing your claim that there is evidence Kilimnik shared the data with Russians trying to interfere.

Why did Paul Manafort share data with Kilimnik in the first place?

 

[LV426]

The irony of your first sentence is strong. AGAIN MORON... SHOW THE EVIDENCE THAT KILIMNIK SHARED THE DATA WITH RUSSIANS.

p. 31: From June 2016 until the end of the presidential campaign, almost all of the U.S. rallies organized by the IRA focused on the U.S. election, often promoting the Trump Campaign and opposing the Clinton Campaign. Pro-Trump rallies included three in New York; a series of pro-Trump rallies in Florida in August 2016; and a series of pro-Trump rallies in October 2016 in Pennsylvania.

p. 42: Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

p. 138: "Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota."
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

[domer76]

I'm always seeing old cranky white men in trucks out wielding shotguns to promote the general welfare.

Good one, man. Made me laugh

 

[Superfreak]

What does Ukraine vs. Russia have to do with Manafort sharing polling data from PA, MI, WI, and MN with Russian spies for months during the campaign?

Are you saying that Manafort was colluding with Russia to give them polling data to help Trump win and in exchange, they would support Russia's Ukraine position?

That's collusion, isn't it?

Holy crap... Read what is written and try to comprehend. Kilimnik is Ukrainian. There is no evidence he gave the data to Russians.

 

[Superfreak]

Right because of this part that you leave out because, as usual, you exercise nothing but bad faith:

"Because of questions about Manafort' s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik"

Why did you leave that part out of your post? It's because you're a habitual liar, isn't it? So why do you do that? Why do you leave out exculpatory bits from your posts? It's because you're not secure in your argument, is it? Wouldn't it be an exercise in bad faith to deliberately withhold information that damages your argument? I mean, I know you have no character, but do you really lack all ethics?

No moron, because that to states they weren't able to gather evidence. Evidence you idiot. How many times do they have to say they don't have evidence before you realize there is no evidence.

 

[domer76]

Then we have this.
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...ller-criticized-barrs-summary-theres-problem/

"But there’s a problem with how the media are reporting this.

Buried in the Post report and absent from the headline is this pretty important line way down in the body.

“When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.”

In other words, Barr pushed back on Mueller’s silly complaints and got him to admit that Barr hadn’t misrepresented anything. Then we see Mueller fold and say he’s actually just upset with the media for misrepresenting the matter."

Again Mueller needs to testify in front of Congress

So said the liar Barr

 

[Superfreak]

You were disputing that as recently as two dozen posts ago!

Now, your position has evolved again.

You said, at the beginning of this, that Manafort didn't share any data and there was no evidence he did.

Except that there is evidence he did, an entire section of the Mueller report talks about it, but you wouldn't know that because you still haven't read the Mueller report.

No you idiot, you simply lack reading comprehension skills. I said there is no evidence that kilimnik shared the data with Russians

 

[Superfreak]

GOALPOST SHIFT.

First, your position was that Manafort didn't share any polling data

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, but it's not illegal

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with no evidence of Russian ties.

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything.

THEN, your position was that Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything, but Russia didn't do anything with the months of polling data it got.

NEXT, your position will be Manafort shared data, it's not illegal, and the guy he shared it with is a Ukranian with Russian ties, but those "Russian ties" could mean anything, but Russia didn't do anything with the months of polling data it got in states where it launched its troll campaign to sway voters.

That's a lot of lies on your part. You simply can't comprehend what is written.

 

[Superfreak]

Why? The fact that you haven't read the report is your greatest weakness in this debate.

First, you said that Manafort didn't share polling data with Russia - THAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION.

THEN you said that Manafort sharing polling data wasn't illegal - SO I GUESS THAT'S ADMISSION OF COLLUSION

THEN you said that the guy Manafort shared polling data with wasn't tied to Russian Intelligence - EXCEPT THE MUELLER REPORT EXPLICITLY SAYS HE DOES.

So why are you lying so much?

I don't understand why you are going to these lengths?

It makes no sense.

Again, you are an idiot. Manfort did not share data with Russia. He shared them with kilimnik. A Ukrainian. You can't help but lie

 

[Superfreak]

Well, here's what we know for sure:

Manafort had shared polling data with Russian spies for months.

Manafort had instructed and ordered Gates to continue sharing that information.

Mueller says Because of questions about Manafort' s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it.

So the only reason "no evidence" exists is because Mueller was limited in what they could gather.

You left that out of all your post. I want to know why?

Your second sentence is a blatant lie. So no point reading further.

 

[Superfreak]

He expected him to share the polling data with his Russian ties that the FBI says he had.

And he did share that polling data with them; that's what Gates' trial revealed in the footnote I quoted.

Russia took that polling data and used it to direct their troll army in PA, WI, MI, and MN.

LMAO... You are delusional

 

[domer76]

Clinton was already viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy and voters sometimes heard variations on this theme from Sanders and his supporters in the more contentious moments of the Democratic primaries. Clinton still would have been “Crooked Hillary” even without the Russians.

Nope, she sure wouldn’t. No more than “Lying Ted”. No more than “Low energy Jeb”.

Just lies that you idiots buy in to

 

[domer76]

Does your post above somehow disqualifies the link? It doesn't.

Barr said
"The letter’s a bit snitty, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people," he told the Judiciary panel."

Barr did really know the source of the letter. Mueller didn't dispute that the following conversation had taken place is the point.


"I said, 'Bob, what’s with the letter? Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?'" Barr said during his testimony before the panel Wednesday.

"And he said that they were concerned about the way the media was playing this and felt that it was important to get out the summaries, which they felt would put their work in proper context and avoid some of the confusion that was emerging," Barr added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/441655-barr-on-mueller-bob-whats-with-the-letter

Mueller needs to testify

Barr is a liar

 

[Superfreak]

You mean MIS-QUOTING them?

Yeah, your sloppiness is ever-present.

See how you lie. I quoted them from the report, cut and paste then word for word. Then you called me a liar over and over again. Then i cited page and paragraph. Then you admitted your fucked up

 

[Superfreak]

p. 31: From June 2016 until the end of the presidential campaign, almost all of the U.S. rallies organized by the IRA focused on the U.S. election, often promoting the Trump Campaign and opposing the Clinton Campaign. Pro-Trump rallies included three in New York; a series of pro-Trump rallies in Florida in August 2016; and a series of pro-Trump rallies in October 2016 in Pennsylvania.

p. 42: Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

p. 138: "Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota."
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

AGAIN you fucking moron...kilimnik is not Russia. You even quoted the portion that stated they had no evidence kilimnik have it it Russia or that Russia used that data. How stupid and dishonest are you