(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.