(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?

lad -- is there *any* communication between a Trump campaign person and a Russian that you wont spin into proof of collusion?

What value is there exactly about polling data (first assuming it *was* transmitted, and second assuming it *was* transmitted to 'the Russian government') that has you breathing hard, fast, and furious?

Thirdly, assuming this is the fing equivalent of atomic secrets in your book, which by the tenacity you chaw this to death I assume you do, is there *any* communication or any data in your worldview that isnt proof at this point?

Again, you reach frantically with pendantics of 'private data about American voters', when it appears that no individual private data was at issue. The only 'private' cover on polling data was that of its client -- it would be 'private' to the Republican party or the Trump campaign in this case.

Most polling data is simply expected numbers on a race --- how many people the pollster expects to vote one way or the other. Good god, this is the **** you are 'breathless' about?

Why would anyone really care *what* numbers the Trump campaign saw? This is like some fing military secret to you I guess?

As for HRC 'contacting the Russians'? Well, she fing did. She was just cagey enough to use a cutout or two and have the lawfirm falsify the billing aspects of it.

(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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

(01-09-2019 05:22 PM)tanqtonic 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?

lad -- is there *any* communication between a Trump campaign person and a Russian that you wont spin into proof of collusion?

What value is there exactly about polling data (first assuming it *was* transmitted, and second assuming it *was* transmitted to 'the Russian government') that has you breathing hard, fast, and furious?

Thirdly, assuming this is the fing equivalent of atomic secrets in your book, which by the tenacity you chaw this to death I assume you do, is there *any* communication or any data in your worldview that isnt proof at this point?

Again, you reach frantically with pendantics of 'private data about American voters', when it appears that no individual private data was at issue. The only 'private' cover on polling data was that of its client -- it would be 'private' to the Republican party or the Trump campaign in this case.

Most polling data is simply expected numbers on a race --- how many people the pollster expects to vote one way or the other. Good god, this is the **** you are 'breathless' about?

Why would anyone really care *what* numbers the Trump campaign saw? This is like some fing military secret to you I guess?

As for HRC 'contacting the Russians'? Well, she fing did. She was just cagey enough to use a cutout or two and have the lawfirm falsify the billing aspects of it.

Why do you put breathless in quotes? I don't think I ever said that word, yet you're attributing it to me and trying to use it to frame my state of mind about it. I'm not breathing heavy about anything, but I'm glad you're so concerned.

The reason someone would care about private polling is that it can give insight into the election that isn't available through public polls. It can inform someone how to act, what areas to target, what people to target, etc. The act of private polling has been used by campaigns for decades to help them make these decisions. So is it that far of a stretch to assume that, if private polling data was given to Russian intelligence, they used it to inform their actions?

We know that the Russian disinformation campaign targeted certain areas and populations. With this revelation, it's plausible that they did that because of the data they received from Manafort.

Also, I quickly found this blog that describes how public and private polling results can differ, and the implications that had in this election. https://blog.predictwise.com/2016/11/pub...e-polling/

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.

I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

(01-09-2019 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.
I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

Or there could have been no polling data at all.

Keep in mind that what has been stated here is not that there was an actual transfer of data but that there was an allegation of a transfer. And that allegation occurred presumably in the context of some communication between Mueller's team and Manafort. It's pretty common in plea bargain negotiations for investigators to allege things for which they have no evidence. "We could charge you with A, but if you will plead guilty to B, we will drop the A charges."

The filing is not an admission that any data was transferred. It's an "admission" that Mueller has accused Manafort of doing so. That's a huge, huge evidentiary gap.

(01-09-2019 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.

I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

Thank you for admitting you are making **** up that you have no first hand knowledge of. Cute little petulant defensive snipey comment at the end, but again, thank you for the admission that you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

(01-09-2019 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.
I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

Or there could have been no polling data at all.

Keep in mind that what has been stated here is not an actual transfer but a allegation of a transfer. And that allegation occurred presumably in the context of some communication between Mueller's team and Manafort. It's pretty common in plea bargain negotiations for investigators to allege things for which they ave no evidence. "We could charge you with A, but if you will plead guilty to B, we will drop the A charges."

The filing is not an admission that any data was transferred. It's an "admission" that Mueller has accused Manafort of doing so. That's a huge, huge evidentiary gap.

Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.

I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.

As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.

And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

(01-09-2019 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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 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 think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.

I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

Thank you for admitting you are making **** up that you have no first hand knowledge of. Cute little petulant defensive snipey comment at the end, but again, thank you for the admission that you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

Ah yes, I am making **** up.

What the allegation states: Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik (who is linked to Russian intelligence) and shared polling data related to the 2016 presidential campaign

**** I'm Making Up: that the polling data had useful information about the 2016 presidential campaign

Well, using deductive reasoning, one would assume that there was something useful in the data set Manafort allegedly gave. If there wasn't, why else would he have given it to Kilimnik?

I haven't made up what exact data was, I've instead offered my analysis of why Manafort providing internal polling related to the election could have been useful to Russia.

And I'm glad you found my snipey comment cute, just trying to keep up with the king.

(01-09-2019 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

You give somebody a bag of sugar and tell him it's cocaine. who goes to jail for possession?

But still...collusion is not a crime. How does intent to commit a noncrime become intent to commit a crime?

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.

And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.

And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.

And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

(01-09-2019 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 05:27 PM)tanqtonic 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.

I think it is awesome that you know precisely what type and exactly the contents of any polling data. Can you use the super duper ESP power to call the stock market for the next week or so?

You're right that I'm making an assumption on what the polling data for a campaign included.

I mean, it could have just been a poll of whether or not people in Oregon prefer mayo to Miracle Whip.

Thank you for admitting you are making **** up that you have no first hand knowledge of. Cute little petulant defensive snipey comment at the end, but again, thank you for the admission that you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

Ah yes, I am making **** up.

What the allegation states: Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik (who is linked to Russian intelligence) and shared polling data related to the 2016 presidential campaign

**** I'm Making Up: that the polling data had useful information about the 2016 presidential campaign

Well, using deductive reasoning, one would assume that there was something useful in the data set Manafort allegedly gave. If there wasn't, why else would he have given it to Kilimnik?

I haven't made up what exact data was, I've instead offered my analysis of why Manafort providing internal polling related to the election could have been useful to Russia.

And I'm glad you found my snipey comment cute, just trying to keep up with the king.

More (stuff) you are making up: turning an allegation into a fact. Bummer, you forgot about that one.

Aside from the one stated above, all you are doing is (and apparently feel absolutely defensive about be called out about) is pulling *exactly* what was *allegedly* passed out of thin air. As I said, you have any picks for the stock market next week with that ESP power?

By the way lad, did you figure out the timing trick on your amazing 'low fruit' subsidy? You know, the timing issue that wipes out any sort of transfer to the producer? If you still think that is such an amazing transfer of wealth as a subsidy, tell me how to find one of those money trees and I can get my tax guy on it 'pronto'. Moolah is awasting.....

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.

And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.

And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.

And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

I cant decide whether:

"Im sure you cant"

or

"Im not surprised"

is the more pithy and pointed remark to the bolded.

Btw, I am fairly certain that either or both responses are plagiarized from 'somewhere'....

Funny thing lad, you have seen the NYT correction in the last couple of hours, right?

Quote:Mr. Manafort asked Mr. Gates to tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, the person said. The oligarchs had financed Russian-aligned Ukrainian political parties that had hired Mr. Manafort as a political consultant.

Along with:

Quote:He might have hoped that any proof that he was managing a winning candidate would help him collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties.

I guess the NYT is now printing what you seemingly term '***** and giggles'

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.
And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

Sounds like you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet.

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.
And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.
And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.
The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.
Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.
And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I agree.

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep, and I am keeping this in mind and I think that's a very valid point.
I will, however, refute the more ridiculous points that have been made about how this is a big nothing burger, or how the lack of evidence of Russian influence affecting the election renders these potential actions moot, etc.
As I said in another response, this point you made isn't really relevant to the discussion of the severity of the allegation. It's relevant in regards to Manafort's guilt, but not whether what was alleged to have happened was serious or not. Because in this case, we're talking about the allegation, which is that Manafort transferred private polling data.

Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.
And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Podesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.
Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Number one, it is at least questionable whether they were hacked or a disgruntled staffer extracted the information on a dumb drive. Either is arguably a crime, but they would be two vastly different criminal scenarios.

Number two, the whole thrust of this investigation has been away from that event. If that's the crime they are investigating, why have they investigated everything but it?

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well, the severity of the allegation is zero if there are no facts to support.
And even if some data were transferred, the severity would depend upon precisely what was transferred and how it could/might have been used and who was actually involved in the transfer on both sides.

To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?