(01-08-2019 06:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 03:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.

Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.

Quote:Mueller’s team alleged that “Manafort lied about sharing polling data with [Konstantin Kilimnik] related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

But did he exchange the info on a tarmac? Or dance in college?

The dancing thing is stupid, I agree, and I really appreciate you attribUTing it to the entire right.

Bytarmac, are you referring to the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in which they discussed grandchildren and the appointment of Lynch to the Supreme Court By President Hillary if only that pesky investigation was derailed? Or some other tarmac,like the one where Hillary came under sniper fire?

Interesting what you guys will dismiss on the basis of party.

The funny thing is that I have seen close to zero chastisement of OC for the dancing video by the right. The biggest hoopla has been complaint *by* OC of that fact --- and now JAAO's chastisement of the non-criticism.

But for the life of me I dont think I have seen any 'right wing' criticism of it or her for it.

I guess it is fine to create your own controversy.

Having seen the video, I personally like it and find it refreshing. In many ways (and I'll stop there before my lech persona takes full control....)

(01-08-2019 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 03:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.

Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

But did he exchange the info on a tarmac? Or dance in college?

If true, how did the polling data cause Hillary to lose?

Does that actually matter to the question of if someone was conspiring against someone else with a hostile foreign power?

Sure it does. This whole hunt is to show that Hillary was robbed of being President by the collusion with the Russians to publish her yoga schedules. So, how does this prove that Hillary was robbed?

No, whole hunt is to investigate whether or not the Trump campaign collided with a hostile foreign actor.

That’s like saying you don’t charge someone with a crime for shooting another person, because that person didn’t die...

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.
Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.

Quote:Mueller’s team alleged that “Manafort lied about sharing polling data with [Konstantin Kilimnik] related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

(01-09-2019 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 03:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  But did he exchange the info on a tarmac? Or dance in college?

If true, how did the polling data cause Hillary to lose?

Does that actually matter to the question of if someone was conspiring against someone else with a hostile foreign power?

Sure it does. This whole hunt is to show that Hillary was robbed of being President by the collusion with the Russians to publish her yoga schedules. So, how does this prove that Hillary was robbed?

No, whole hunt is to investigate whether or not the Trump campaign collided with a hostile foreign actor to steal an election and put somebody in power who was not duly elected.

FIFY

If no election was stolen or the results affected, then it makes as much difference as giving the names of the Democrat precinct captains to the Icelandic Daily News.

Once again, my question, how does this, if true, change the election? Of course, last night the Talking heads on CNN we’re comparing to giving the A-bomb to the Russians. Not on facts,but on supposition.

So, where’s the beef?

(01-09-2019 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.
Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.

Quote:Mueller’s team alleged that “Manafort lied about sharing polling data with [Konstantin Kilimnik] related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser provided private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

(01-09-2019 10:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If true, how did the polling data cause Hillary to lose?

Does that actually matter to the question of if someone was conspiring against someone else with a hostile foreign power?

Sure it does. This whole hunt is to show that Hillary was robbed of being President by the collusion with the Russians to publish her yoga schedules. So, how does this prove that Hillary was robbed?

No, whole hunt is to investigate whether or not the Trump campaign collided with a hostile foreign actor to steal an election and put somebody in power who was not duly elected.

FIFY

If no election was stolen or the results affected, then it makes as much difference as giving the names of the Democrat precinct captains to the Icelandic Daily News.

Once again, my question, how does this, if true, change the election? Of course, last night the Talking heads on CNN we’re comparing to giving the A-bomb to the Russians. Not on facts,but on supposition.

So, where’s the beef?

So if Person A tries to kill Person B, but fails, then a crime wasn't committed because their efforts didn't pay off?

(01-08-2019 06:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dancing thing is stupid, I agree, and I really appreciate you attribUTing it to the entire right.

Bytarmac, are you referring to the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in which they discussed grandchildren and the appointment of Lynch to the Supreme Court By President Hillary if only that pesky investigation was derailed? Or some other tarmac,like the one where Hillary came under sniper fire?

Interesting what you guys will dismiss on the basis of party.

A hilariously ironic statement, given that half this thread is you, Owl60, and Tanq dismissing indictments, confessions, and convictions of Trump officials and associates....

(01-09-2019 11:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dancing thing is stupid, I agree, and I really appreciate you attribUTing it to the entire right.

Bytarmac, are you referring to the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in which they discussed grandchildren and the appointment of Lynch to the Supreme Court By President Hillary if only that pesky investigation was derailed? Or some other tarmac,like the one where Hillary came under sniper fire?

Interesting what you guys will dismiss on the basis of party.

A hilariously ironic statement, given that half this thread is you, Owl60, and Tanq dismissing indictments, confessions, and convictions of Trump officials and associates....

That is quite the novel way of paraphrasing "Investigate. If the allegations are true I will be there calling for his resignation/impeachment."

Please do tell where I have 'dismissed' Manafort's tax evasions?

Or does my pointing out the kind of dubious 'side charges' that the prosecutor loaded up on there rise to the level of 'dismiss' for you? Funny, my thoughts on the excessive use of 'process crimes' seem to be fairly widespread.

Or, shall we add the term 'dismiss' to the set of terms given very odd and contorted definitions to such as 'competition', 'subsidy', and 'redistribute' that seem so in vogue now?

Problem is that your pithy broad brush is pretty much atrociously inaccurate.

On a side note to lad: have you looked up the full provisions (short and long term) of your 'low hanging fruit' of the Intangible Drilling Cost Deduction 'subsidy'? Are we now in full agreement that the net effect is zero, and that no long term benefit is afforded to a producer, and no long term transfer of wealth from a government to a producer occurs?

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.
Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.

Quote:Mueller’s team alleged that “Manafort lied about sharing polling data with [Konstantin Kilimnik] related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser is accused of providing(you said provided) private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

(01-09-2019 11:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 06:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dancing thing is stupid, I agree, and I really appreciate you attribUTing it to the entire right.

Bytarmac, are you referring to the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in which they discussed grandchildren and the appointment of Lynch to the Supreme Court By President Hillary if only that pesky investigation was derailed? Or some other tarmac,like the one where Hillary came under sniper fire?

Interesting what you guys will dismiss on the basis of party.

A hilariously ironic statement, given that half this thread is you, Owl60, and Tanq dismissing indictments, confessions, and convictions of Trump officials and associates....

I knew this would amuse the Resistance. Bingo!

Yes, I dismiss all the confessions that do not say we colluded with Russia. Manafort confessing to money laundering a decade ago has no more weight in proving collusion than the confession of that kid who shot the 7 year old.

I dismiss all the indictments and convictions for crimes unrelated to collusion with Russia.

What's left is nothing. A big nothing that you think is something.

Why do you take them as evidence of a conspiracy with Russia to steal the election?

Answer: Party.

I guess the new narrative is this:

One day in 2015 Trump called Putin, and said, "Vlad, if you will steal Hillary's yoga schedules for me, and get that Swedish guy to publish them exactly as written, without any editing or additions, I am pretty sure that will make the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania vote for me and I'll win the election. If it helps, I'll have one of my guys send you polling data, or you could just read the NYT. I cannot promise you anything in return, but I will be grateful". Putin of course replied "Sure, Donny, anything for you. I hate that broad anyway for the insults she gave me."

I wonder how this makes sense to so many of you.

(01-09-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.
Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.

Quote:Mueller’s team alleged that “Manafort lied about sharing polling data with [Konstantin Kilimnik] related to the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser is accused of providing(you said provided) private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

OO, you're missing the whole point that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. The act of conspiring with a foreign adversary is what matters! So you're saying that if HRC had contacted Russia and conspired with them to try and beat Trump, it wouldn't have mattered because she lost? Heck, based on this definition, even if that mythical phone call you love to reference (the one where Trump calls up Putin and asks for help) happened, it wouldn't be an issue because whatever Russia did, didn't materially help Trump. Again, if Person A tries to kill Person B, they are still gonna get in trouble with the law.

Also, the quality of Trump's private polling data compared to the DNC's doesn't matter.

Please try and actually formulate a rationale as to why the quality of the data and the eventual outcome of the election matter in this instance. The only way I don't see this as being damning for Manafort is if the special counsel is completely incorrect and Manafort didn't provide private polling data to a Russian agent.

Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.
What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser provided private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.
So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

It might be the most significant development yet, since it is at least a factoid about which substantial innuendo can be woven. That doesn't make it significant, just closer to being significant than two years of wild allegations. Then again, it might not.

Mueller alleged =/= it happened.

A person who happens to be Russian =/= "the Russians."

And what is the nature of what is alleged to have been provided and how could/would/should it have been of use?

(01-09-2019 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the new narrative is this:
One day in 2015 Trump called Putin, and said, "Vlad, if you will steal Hillary's yoga schedules for me, and get that Swedish guy to publish them exactly as written, without any editing or additions, I am pretty sure that will make the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania vote for me and I'll win the election. If it helps, I'll have one of my guys send you polling data, or you could just read the NYT. I cannot promise you anything in return, but I will be grateful". Putin of course replied "Sure, Donny, anything for you. I hate that broad anyway for the insults she gave me."
I wonder how this makes sense to so many of you.

Makes as much sense as any of this whole fantasy.

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

Hell, I paid HK$30 for a cab ride for a Russian official in Hong Kong last March. Does that mean Mueller should come talk to me?

Some of this is just reaching so far to find even a tenuous connection.

(01-09-2019 03:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.
What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser provided private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.
So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

It might be the most significant development yet, since it is at least a factoid about which substantial innuendo can be woven. That doesn't make it significant, just closer to being significant than two years of wild allegations. Then again, it might not.

Mueller alleged =/= it happened.

A person who happens to be Russian =/= "the Russians."

And what is the nature of what is alleged to have been provided and how could/would/should it have been of use?

(01-09-2019 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the new narrative is this:
One day in 2015 Trump called Putin, and said, "Vlad, if you will steal Hillary's yoga schedules for me, and get that Swedish guy to publish them exactly as written, without any editing or additions, I am pretty sure that will make the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania vote for me and I'll win the election. If it helps, I'll have one of my guys send you polling data, or you could just read the NYT. I cannot promise you anything in return, but I will be grateful". Putin of course replied "Sure, Donny, anything for you. I hate that broad anyway for the insults she gave me."
I wonder how this makes sense to so many of you.

Makes as much sense as any of this whole fantasy.

The person Manafort shared the polling data with is, if I remember correctly, an ex-Russian intelligence operative. I do know that he is at least believed to be involved with Russian intelligence. So in this case, yeah, this Russian does = Russia.

And you're right that Mueller's accusation is not a proven fact, but I see no reason to act as if the accusation is false when discussing the noteworthy nature of the revelation.

The polling data could have been used by the GRU to inform their disinformation campaign by identifying what populations would be most affected by the fake news they were generating and the disinformation they were populating. The polling information could give them great insight into the American electorate, which they could not have gotten through publicly available data.

(01-09-2019 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

Hell, I paid HK$30 for a cab ride for a Russian official in Hong Kong last March. Does that mean Mueller should come talk to me?

Some of this is just reaching so far to find even a tenuous connection.

What an observation. Sharing private polling data with a foreign agent whose country targeted specific populations of the US is equivalent to paying for a cab ride in Honk Kong.

At this point, as I said, if that mythical phone call came to light, y'all would find a way to argue that it wasn't an issue. Impressive.

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh man, Manafort's lawyers forgot to properly redact their filing, and let some horses out of the barn.
Turns out it is believed, among other things, that he shared polling data with the Russians.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pau...02cb328230

I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser is accused of providing(you said provided) private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

OO, you're missing the whole point that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. The act of conspiring with a foreign adversary is what matters! So you're saying that if HRC had contacted Russia and conspired with them to try and beat Trump, it wouldn't have mattered because she lost? Heck, based on this definition, even if that mythical phone call you love to reference (the one where Trump calls up Putin and asks for help) happened, it wouldn't be an issue because whatever Russia did, didn't materially help Trump. Again, if Person A tries to kill Person B, they are still gonna get in trouble with the law.

Also, the quality of Trump's private polling data compared to the DNC's doesn't matter.

Please try and actually formulate a rationale as to why the quality of the data and the eventual outcome of the election matter in this instance. The only way I don't see this as being damning for Manafort is if the special counsel is completely incorrect and Manafort didn't provide private polling data to a Russian agent.

Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

First you need to decide if he is accused of doing it or if he did it.

But let's go with he did it, for now, since you and CNN and the DNC and Adam Schiff think an accusation against a Trump associate is proof..

What would be the importance of the polling data? It's like accusing somebody of telling the Russians the location of the White House. You can get polling data anywhere - CNN, ABC, the NYT, anywhere. No reason to think this was magic data, has the secret formula to winning.

Giving data is not a crime. You give us data all the time.

Giving nonclassified data is not a crime.

If we were at war, maybe it would be a crime. But we are not at war with Russia.

If it results in damages, then you can be sued for that. But first I have to show that i was damaged. What is the damage here? Can you and the rest of the howling mob show that even one vote was modified due to the data being provided? None of Hillary's emails showed illegal activity, so the problem is that maybe Russia targeted the Johnson house in East Lansing and provided them with factually true information that Hillary had done nothing wrong. Oh, the humanity!!! Did that make the Johnsons vote for Trump? So what is the problem? If I call a Russian and give him soil samples from the side of a road in East Texas, what is the problem?

Hillary lost. It was not collusion. Find another reason.

(01-09-2019 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm trying to understand what is so earth-shattering about this revelation. Revealing that Mueller has alleged something is not an admission that it happened.

I don't even understand how this is an admission of anything, since I'm guessing Mueller and his team are well aware of exactly what they have alleged.

Just another case of taking a factoid and trying to leverage it into something way more significant.

You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser is accused of providing(you said provided) private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

OO, you're missing the whole point that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. The act of conspiring with a foreign adversary is what matters! So you're saying that if HRC had contacted Russia and conspired with them to try and beat Trump, it wouldn't have mattered because she lost? Heck, based on this definition, even if that mythical phone call you love to reference (the one where Trump calls up Putin and asks for help) happened, it wouldn't be an issue because whatever Russia did, didn't materially help Trump. Again, if Person A tries to kill Person B, they are still gonna get in trouble with the law.

Also, the quality of Trump's private polling data compared to the DNC's doesn't matter.

Please try and actually formulate a rationale as to why the quality of the data and the eventual outcome of the election matter in this instance. The only way I don't see this as being damning for Manafort is if the special counsel is completely incorrect and Manafort didn't provide private polling data to a Russian agent.

Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

First you need to decide if he is accused of doing it or if he did it.

But let's go with he did it, for now, since you and CNN and the DNC and Adam Schiff think an accusation against a Trump associate is proof..

What would be the importance of the polling data? It's like accusing somebody of telling the Russians the location of the White House. You can get polling data anywhere - CNN, ABC, the NYT, anywhere. No reason to think this was magic data, has the secret formula to winning.

Giving data is not a crime. You give us data all the time.

Giving nonclassified data is not a crime.

If we were at war, maybe it would be a crime. But we are not at war with Russia.

If it results in damages, then you can be sued for that. But first I have to show that i was damaged. What is the damage here? Can you and the rest of the howling mob show that even one vote was modified due to the data being provided? None of Hillary's emails showed illegal activity, so the problem is that maybe Russia targeted the Johnson house in East Lansing and provided them with factually true information that Hillary had done nothing wrong. Oh, the humanity!!! Did that make the Johnsons vote for Trump? So what is the problem? If I call a Russian and give him soil samples from the side of a road in East Texas, what is the problem?

Hillary lost. It was not collusion. Find another reason.

Why do I first need to decide if Manafort did this or is accused of doing it? What difference does it make in the context of discussing the severity of the allegation?

And you're right that giving the simple act of giving data is not illegal. But this raises the next logical question of why this data was given. What was its purpose and were their strings attached?

Private polling data like this is NOT like giving someone the location of the White House. If the polling data had been public knowledge, there would have been no reason for Manafort to provide it. This is allegedly private polling data, which would include a treasure trove of information that campaigns use regularly to try and win elections. This is the type of information could be very useful for a bunch of intelligence officers to use if they wanted to try and, say, influence an election.

And for the millionth time - is Person A tries to kill Person B and fails, they're still guilty of a crime. The outcome of an effort does not make someone innocent. Why would it here regarding conspiring with a foreign adversary?

Is it fun to continue to play stupid regarding the fact that the intention of an action matters? Between cab rides and soil samples, it's pretty impressive how intentionally obtuse y'all are being.

(01-09-2019 04:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that this revelation is not an admission, but that fact alone doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, especially since so many on here have been asking for evidence of collusion.

What is so earth-shattering that the special counsel is accusing Manafort of having provided private campaign polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence you ask? Well, just that, Trump's campaign adviser is accused of providing(you said provided) private polling data to a hostile foreign government, and what do we know that this foreign government did? They targeted specific populations in the US with propaganda and fake news in an attempt to influence the election.

So since the Russians were planning to execute this disinformation campaign, internal polling data would be beneficial with regards to who to target and this is a clear bit of evidence that Mueller believes that a significant player in the Trump campaign provided something of value regarding the election to the Russians.

I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

OO, you're missing the whole point that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. The act of conspiring with a foreign adversary is what matters! So you're saying that if HRC had contacted Russia and conspired with them to try and beat Trump, it wouldn't have mattered because she lost? Heck, based on this definition, even if that mythical phone call you love to reference (the one where Trump calls up Putin and asks for help) happened, it wouldn't be an issue because whatever Russia did, didn't materially help Trump. Again, if Person A tries to kill Person B, they are still gonna get in trouble with the law.

Also, the quality of Trump's private polling data compared to the DNC's doesn't matter.

Please try and actually formulate a rationale as to why the quality of the data and the eventual outcome of the election matter in this instance. The only way I don't see this as being damning for Manafort is if the special counsel is completely incorrect and Manafort didn't provide private polling data to a Russian agent.

Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

First you need to decide if he is accused of doing it or if he did it.

But let's go with he did it, for now, since you and CNN and the DNC and Adam Schiff think an accusation against a Trump associate is proof..

What would be the importance of the polling data? It's like accusing somebody of telling the Russians the location of the White House. You can get polling data anywhere - CNN, ABC, the NYT, anywhere. No reason to think this was magic data, has the secret formula to winning.

Giving data is not a crime. You give us data all the time.

Giving nonclassified data is not a crime.

If we were at war, maybe it would be a crime. But we are not at war with Russia.

If it results in damages, then you can be sued for that. But first I have to show that i was damaged. What is the damage here? Can you and the rest of the howling mob show that even one vote was modified due to the data being provided? None of Hillary's emails showed illegal activity, so the problem is that maybe Russia targeted the Johnson house in East Lansing and provided them with factually true information that Hillary had done nothing wrong. Oh, the humanity!!! Did that make the Johnsons vote for Trump? So what is the problem? If I call a Russian and give him soil samples from the side of a road in East Texas, what is the problem?

Hillary lost. It was not collusion. Find another reason.

Why do I first need to decide if Manafort did this or is accused of doing it? What difference does it make in the context of discussing the severity of the allegation?

"The act of conspiring" - assumes it happened
" the special counsel is accusing" - Says that somebody thinks it happened
pick one

And you're right that giving the simple act of giving data is not illegal. But this raises the next logical question of why this data was given. What was its purpose and were their strings attached?

Private polling data like this is NOT like giving someone the location of the White House. If the polling data had been public knowledge, there would have been no reason for Manafort to provide it. This is allegedly private polling data, which would include a treasure trove of information that campaigns use regularly to try and win elections. This is the type of information could be very useful for a bunch of intelligence officers to use if they wanted to try and, say, influence an election.

Nice that you think it was better than polling info available publicly or better than what the Russians stole from the DNC. Might as well say they gave a tip sheet for the races to them.

And for the millionth time - is Person A tries to kill Person B and fails, they're still guilty of a crime. The outcome of an effort does not make someone innocent. Why would it here regarding conspiring with a foreign adversary?

Attempted murder is a crime. Attempted collusion is not. Successful collusion is not.

But to show a crime, say, attempted murder, you need more than that the innuendo that is the basis of this.

Is it fun to continue to play stupid regarding the fact that the intention of an action matters? Between cab rides and soil samples, it's pretty impressive how intentionally obtuse y'all are being.

you tell me - is it fun to continue to pretend that collusion between Trump and Russia perverted the election and cause Hillary to lose? Is it fun to continue to assert that that the result of a noncriminal action becomes criminal with intent?

(01-09-2019 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 04:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 04:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I like the way you convert accusations and innuendo into proven facts, Lad. Polling data is so beneficial, it enabled the russians to elect Trump. Good thing they didn't use Hillary's polls they stole, since those showed her winning in a landslide, and they would have just given up. I wonder why Trump's polling data was o dadgum much better than the DNC's. You got a theory on that? Little green martians conspiring to steal the election?



Even if this polling data was provided to Russians, there is no indication it was of any use or if it was used, other than Hillary lost. Everything goes back to that: She was expected to win, she lost, something illegal must have caused it. I have been to the racetrack before, Lad, and seen favorites not only lose, but lose badly. It doesn't mean the race was rigged.

OO, you're missing the whole point that the outcome of the election doesn't matter. The act of conspiring with a foreign adversary is what matters! So you're saying that if HRC had contacted Russia and conspired with them to try and beat Trump, it wouldn't have mattered because she lost? Heck, based on this definition, even if that mythical phone call you love to reference (the one where Trump calls up Putin and asks for help) happened, it wouldn't be an issue because whatever Russia did, didn't materially help Trump. Again, if Person A tries to kill Person B, they are still gonna get in trouble with the law.

Also, the quality of Trump's private polling data compared to the DNC's doesn't matter.

Please try and actually formulate a rationale as to why the quality of the data and the eventual outcome of the election matter in this instance. The only way I don't see this as being damning for Manafort is if the special counsel is completely incorrect and Manafort didn't provide private polling data to a Russian agent.

Right now, the special counsel is accusing the former campaign adviser of providing a suspected Russian agent with private data about American voters, and that's a big nothing burger? If this is true, how is that innocuous?

First you need to decide if he is accused of doing it or if he did it.

But let's go with he did it, for now, since you and CNN and the DNC and Adam Schiff think an accusation against a Trump associate is proof..

What would be the importance of the polling data? It's like accusing somebody of telling the Russians the location of the White House. You can get polling data anywhere - CNN, ABC, the NYT, anywhere. No reason to think this was magic data, has the secret formula to winning.

Giving data is not a crime. You give us data all the time.

Giving nonclassified data is not a crime.

If we were at war, maybe it would be a crime. But we are not at war with Russia.

If it results in damages, then you can be sued for that. But first I have to show that i was damaged. What is the damage here? Can you and the rest of the howling mob show that even one vote was modified due to the data being provided? None of Hillary's emails showed illegal activity, so the problem is that maybe Russia targeted the Johnson house in East Lansing and provided them with factually true information that Hillary had done nothing wrong. Oh, the humanity!!! Did that make the Johnsons vote for Trump? So what is the problem? If I call a Russian and give him soil samples from the side of a road in East Texas, what is the problem?

Hillary lost. It was not collusion. Find another reason.

Why do I first need to decide if Manafort did this or is accused of doing it? What difference does it make in the context of discussing the severity of the allegation?

"The act of conspiring" - assumes it happened
" the special counsel is accusing" - Says that somebody thinks it happened
pick one

And you're right that giving the simple act of giving data is not illegal. But this raises the next logical question of why this data was given. What was its purpose and were their strings attached?

Private polling data like this is NOT like giving someone the location of the White House. If the polling data had been public knowledge, there would have been no reason for Manafort to provide it. This is allegedly private polling data, which would include a treasure trove of information that campaigns use regularly to try and win elections. This is the type of information could be very useful for a bunch of intelligence officers to use if they wanted to try and, say, influence an election.

Nice that you think it was better than polling info available publicly or better than what the Russians stole from the DNC. Might as well say they gave a tip sheet for the races to them.

And for the millionth time - is Person A tries to kill Person B and fails, they're still guilty of a crime. The outcome of an effort does not make someone innocent. Why would it here regarding conspiring with a foreign adversary?

Attempted murder is a crime. Attempted collusion is not. Successful collusion is not.

But to show a crime, say, attempted murder, you need more than that the innuendo that is the basis of this.

Is it fun to continue to play stupid regarding the fact that the intention of an action matters? Between cab rides and soil samples, it's pretty impressive how intentionally obtuse y'all are being.

you tell me - is it fun to continue to pretend that collusion between Trump and Russia perverted the election and cause Hillary to lose? Is it fun to continue to assert that that the result of a noncriminal action becomes criminal with intent?

You hit a baseball through a window of a house. I'm pretty sure you're going to be charged with destruction of property if you drove up to someone's house and intentionally hit the ball through a custom-plate glass window. Less likely you'll be charged if you're playing baseball and your homerun did the same thing.

You punch someone in the face and kill them. If you sucker punched them you're going to be charged with murder. If they jumped you and you fought back, you may be let off because you were defending yourself or standing your ground.

You tell someone the security protocols at a bank. If it turns out you were telling someone who robbed the bank and you knew that and were trying to help, you're probably going to be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. You just tell your friend this info because he's writing a paper and you won't.

See, intent matters.