Hodad

1. Worst conspiracy theory ever is that the Republicans running the Maricopa county elections rigged it to sabotage themselves. But if you insist, you should probably move this to a thread about Republican election cheating. 2. Even accusations against Republicans should be from a reputable source, not this garbage.

Republicans had a chance to clean up that mess themselves, but chose not to. Pretty gross.

Useless troll. Just keep repeating your unsupported lies and nauseum, like a sociopath reciting the rosary.

Hey look, the liar also lied about his "ignore" list. Apparently a coward too. Stop your insane, innumerate ranting and just deal with the fact that, apples to apples, people with the vaccine fare*dramatically* better than those without. Your dumb crusade doesn't change that well documented fact.

Your lie: The guy passed nothing important on to the russians, Truth: The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign at;td proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat. Your lie: Lie: they coudln't use what he did pass to help him win - Truth: ^^This is just too stupid to be any thinking person's honest opinion. How to help a candidate win is literally the entire point of polling and strategy. Jeebus. I don't even have to link that. Your lie: they DIDN'T actually do so in any detectable way, and the Truth: In her analysis of five million paid, issue-based Facebook ads—which covered such hot-button issues as gun rights, abortion, gay rights, immigration, terrorism, and race—during a six-week period of the 2016 Presidential campaign, the University of Wisconsin professor Young Mie Kim discovered that “the most highly targeted states—especially Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—generally overlap with the battleground states with razor thin margins.” These were ads placed by two hundred and twenty-eight groups, many of which were later linked to the Internet Research Agency. Kim also found that these efforts were calibrated to appeal to certain demographics. Low-income white voters, for example, were targeted with ads focussing on immigration and race. An even more comprehensive analysis, by Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project, which was released last month, shows just how pervasive Russia’s inflammatory targeting was. “On Facebook, the five most shared and the five most liked posts focused on divisive issues, with pro-gun ownership content, anti-immigration content pitting immigrants against veterans, content decrying police violence against African Americans, and content that was anti-Muslim, anti-refugee, anti-Obama, and pro-Trump,” the researchers wrote. The posts developed by the Internet Research Agency “tended to mimic conservative views against gun control and for increased regulation of immigrants. In some cases, terms such as ‘parasites’ were used to reference immigrants and others expressed some tolerance of extremist views.” These posts increased almost seven-fold between 2015—before Manafort joined Trump’s team—and 2016, when he, and the pollsters he hired, were guiding the campaign. Your lie: senate and the fbi said he did nothing wrong. Truth: Manafort went to prison. The buddy he shared the intel with? Kilimnik was designated pursuant to E.O. 13848 for having engaged in foreign interference in the U.S. 2020 presidential election. Kilimnik was also designated pursuant to E.O. 13660 for acting for or on behalf of Yanukovych. Yanukovych, who is currently hiding in exile in Russia, was designated in 2014 pursuant to E.O. 13660 for his role in violating Ukrainian sovereignty. The FBI is offering a reward of up to $250,000 for information leading to the arrest of Kilimnik.

"A guy talked to another guy" = multilayer secrecy and security protocols on repeated communications of sensitive data that "the other guy" fed to his colleagues in Russian intelligence who were trying to help the first guy win the election by targeting Americans. And then the first guy lied about all of it under oath multiple times. GTFO, troll. You're the same kind of liar that says the insurrection was a lovely tourist event.

Hey, lunatic. The case remains that the vaccines dramatically reduced hospitalizations and deaths among the infected. The lengths you go to to talk about anything but efficacy are extraordinary--and ludicrous. You know politic have made you stupid when you pass on something that makes you 5x less likely to die if you get infected. Wear your seatbelt. Take your vaccine.

FOX viewers were not "pissed" because they questioned the decision desk's statistical methodology. Neither were you or Baier. In all of those cases it was for purely political--and commercial--reasons. Once again, you're just dishonest. That's why you pat Baier on the back for the same reasons others find him repugnant.

Around the country, decision desks race to be 1. accurate and 2. fast. Imagine calling oneself a journalist while simultaneously chastising your decision desk for achieving both of those goals. Imagine calling yourself a news channel while trying to avoid reporting the biggest news of the day. -- "I don't care if the call is correct. If the truth will upset our audience let's be the last to report it." Bret Baier's reputation didn't just take a hit. It's basically dead. I don't think he'd get an anchor job anywhere outside of FOX, where this kind of behavior is celebrated.

Again, you are an utterly shameless liar. You lie about what is in the report and what isn't. You lie about the conclusions of the report. You pretend not to know about the Treasury sanctions that followed the Intelligence committee report and confirmed what Kilimnik did with the intel, even though it's been posted multiple times. And you lie about the sensitive polling data, which the report specifically identifies as sensitive information. Literally nothing you say here is true--and demonstrably so as substantiated by evidence provided. And you will literally pretend that multilayer secrecy and security protocols and multiple lies under oath are just in the nature casual conversation. You are a complete waste of time, troll. Not an honest bone in your body.

Liar. CdnFox, meet CdnFox: "But they were pretty clear that all that was shared was stragegy." And for the probably the 12th time, it was not publicly available polling. It was sensitive, proprietary polling data, a recipe for how to target Clinton in key swing states. Which is exactly what the Russian interference effort proceeded to do. I wonder how they knew where to focus their efforts and on what topics?? You should actually read the farking report. "(U) At the meeting, Manafort walked Kilimnik through the internal polling data from Fabrizio in detail.453 According to Gates, Kilimnik wanted to know how Trump could win.454 Manafort explained his strategy in the battleground states and told Kilimnik about polls that identified voter bases in blue-collar, democratic-leaning states which Trump could swing.455 Manafort said these voters could be reached by Trump on issues like economics, but the Campaign needed to implement a ground game.456 Gates recalled that Manafort further discussed the "battleground" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.457 (U) The Committee sought to determine with specificity what information Kilimnik actually gleaned from Manafort on August 2, 2016. Information suggests Kilimnik understood that some of the polling data showed that Clinton's negatives were particularly high; that Manafort's plan for victory called for focusing on Clinton's negatives as much as possible; and that given Clinton's high negatives, there was a chance that Trump could win. " "The Committee also sought to understand the purpose of sharing the .polling data, as well as what, if anything, Kilimnik did with the information about internal Trump polling and strategy. As noted, Gates understood that Kilimnik would share the polling data with Ukrainian oligarchs affiliated with the OB and with Deripaska. However, Gates ultimately claimed that he did not trust Kilimnik, that he did not know why Manafort was sharing internal polling data with him, and that Kilimnik could have given the data to anyone.460 " ^^And yet again, for the very, very slow, it has since been confirmed that Kilimnik was involved in the election interference scheme (and the 2020 encore) and took the intel directly to his associates in Russian intelligence. See the Treasury sanctions. Jeebus. Kilimnik shared the data directly with Russian intelligence while they were running their election interference scheme. We can't exactly ask the Russians, but how do YOU suppose they used polling and strategy data that was the exact information they needed to interfere effectively? Manafort took extraordinary steps to do all this secretly and untraceably. And he lied about it over and over again after he was caught. And was pardoned for it. It's a mystery (for very stupid people). It's like secretly giving a stalker a knife and a map to find their stalkee and then pretending to be innocent when the victim is stabbed at that location. "Where's the evidence of collusion? Hyuk. I was just secretly giving a gift and some information to my associate. Hyuk hyuk."

You can't even keep your lies straight. You've already acknowledged that they also shared polling. They shared detailed campaign strategy AND sensitive, proprietary polling data. This is now, I think the third time I've posted from the report, for the very slow among us: "Prior to joining the Trump Campaign in March 2016 and continuing throughout his time 6n the Campaign, Manafort directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik, Deripaska, and the pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. The Committee was unable to reliably determine why Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy with Kilimnik or with whom Kilimnik further shared that information. The Committee had limited insight into Kilimnik's communications with Manafort and into Kilimnik's communications with other individuals connected to Russian influence operations, all of whom used communications security practices. The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU's hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election." ^^The hacks which, BTW, were fed back to Roger Stone through Wikileaks to further coordinate the attack on Clinton. And again, for the very slow among us, it has since been confirmed--not just suspected, but confirmed--that Kilimnik did, in fact, take the Manafort intel straight to the Kremlin. Again, you'd have to be willfully obtuse or massively stupid to think that Manafort didn't know why his Russian comrade wanted Manafort to keep feeding him information in secret. This is not dinner chit-chat. It's coordinated, clandestine information sharing. The Trump campaign worked to help the Russians target Americans with campaign interference to tilt the election to Trump. It happened. Deal with it. Again, jackass, I'm not covering up any blunder. You can't KNOW what is in a person's mind. We must make inferences and assumptions based on external action. Which is exactly what I explained to you before you posted your google scavenger hunt prize. Like, literally anyone in this thread can click the back arrows and see that you are lying. Except that it's an exact match to the definition you shared, lol. The only way it could be more obviously collusion is if Manafort and Kilimnik had grown mustaches for twirling. You can lie till you die, and it won't change this recorded history. My life is pretty great. Lovely family. Nice house. Big job. Unlike you, I have more important things to do post on this forum 20 or 30 times a day. And I don't doubt that you're more intelligent educated than a 5th grader. But it's all for naught, as you're wildly dishonest. There's no value in being intelligent or educated if you simply put those gifts to work spinning lies and making the world a shittier place.

You are being (I hope for your sake) deliberately--and massively--obtuse. Sharing information about campaign strategy isn't only useful for targeting the Trump campaign. It's useful (and this is a YUGE "duh!") for coordinating your efforts. Which was the entire point. The Russians were trying to help Trump win and Manafort was trying to help them. Deeply skeptical that you are telling the truth about 35 years ago, because you casually lying now about something I said just the same day. It's right there in writing. Just go look. Again, this is what I posted: "And you are surely dumber than you present if you think guilt is only established if authorities can prove what was in a defendant's brain. We have always relied on the actions of the individuals under suspicion to reveal what we can reasonably assume they knew." ^^WTF do you think I am explaining to you there? We don't have to know what is in a person's mind through confession. We can infer it. Jeebus. And in this case it's unbelievably obvious that Manafort that manafort knew that his actions were wrong. Clandestine meeting, a shared email account, encrypted messages, burner phones, and other means of concealing the communication that you, stupidly, still try to represent as casual and insignificant. These were NOT casual meetings and they were certainly significant enough for Manafort to take extraordinary steps to conceal. I'm imagining you right now discovering that your husband has a secret burner phone full of text messages to his yoga instructor about when and where he'll be at certain hotels. "No, big deal. Nothing suspicious or incriminating there. She was probably just curious and that information is useless and she could have figured it out in other ways. Hyuk" Complete bullshit. The ONLY way it's not collusion is if you can turn off the reasoning part of your brain and pretend that Manafort didn't know what he was doing. That he went to extraordinary lengths to hide his communications and contacts for no reason. Which beggars belief. ^^This is exactly what I mean when I say you are dishonest. You'd have to be too stupid to tie your shoes to honestly believe that Manafort did not understand how serious his actions were. All of those precautions and protections were NOT just the trappings of a casual conversation. The repeated information deliveries were not just coffee talk. I assume you do not wear velcro shoes, but rather tie your laces. Yet you are so dishonest that you would rather appear unbelievably stupid than to admit what plainly happened. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

That's a lot of taking Enrique. Sounds like you need to hydrate for the weekends.

As you know by now, but continue to lie about, it wasn't just polling data. It was sensitive strategy and targeting data, you know, exactly what the Russians would need to align strategically and more effectively target Americans in key swing states. But you just keep lying. And while you seem super proud of yourself for googling "mens rea" you seem to understand that about as well as anything else, which is to say not at all. People are regularly convicted of crimes without confessing, because their knowledge and state of mind can be inferred from their actions. That's why I explained at some length the number of behaviors Manafort exhibited which make it painfully obvious that he knew what he was doing was wrong. One does not establish multilayer secrecy protocols unless there is activity and information one must keep hidden. And then lying about it over and over again. (You and Manafort seem to be cut from the same cloth in that regard.) It takes a MASSIVE willing suspension of disbelief to pretend that Manafort didn't know exactly what he was doing. And, again, get yourself a damn dictionary. Collusion may not be a legal term, but Manafort's behavior is the very definition of collusion. Sorry, "kid" but your obsequious self debasement is of no value in an actual debate.

Have you considered that Roberts may want nothing to do with the Biden family? They may have even asked Hunter to terminate parental rights. That sort of situation is not at all uncommon. It's happened in my extended family, even. Anyway, I don't know what's going on there either, but you folks are pretty quick to call it "snubbing" when you don't really know what the situation is with the family dynamics.

Are you illiterate? It says right in the paragraph to which you responded that Kilimnik passed the Manafort intel to Russian intelligence. That is, after all, the entire job of an intelligence officer. Jeebus. And you are surely dumber than you present if you think guilt is only established if authorities can prove what was in a defendant's brain. We have always relied on the actions of the individuals under suspicion to reveal what we can reasonably assume they knew. The evidence is indisputably collusion, no matter how much you lie about it. -- Think for a moment just how farking far you've gone to defend and dismiss what is plainly written in official reports. Manafort is feeding Kilimnik information through elaborate secrecy methods and then lying about feeding him information and you want to pretend it's about two buddies just talking strategy. Holy shite, you're unbelievably dishonest.

Yeah, casually talking with somebody about your strategy is exactly like having secretive communications channels to feed targeting information to people engaged in the Russian election interference campaign. lol You're pathetic.

WTF? Are you day drinking? I haven't mentioned Jeff Sessions once.

1. Nope. The US government knows exactly what Kilimnik did with the intelligence from Manafort. Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. 2. No one can prove what was in Manafort's brain, but we certainly know he lied about passing the information to Kilimnik, indicating that he was hiding something untoward. We also know that Manafort and Gates went to extraordinary lengths to maintain secrecy, again indicating that they did not want to be caught. It was not information of a casual nature nor were they casual chats. Still from the senate report: During the 2016 campaign,-Kilimnik flew to the United States in order to discuss sensitive topics with Manafort in person, rather than rely on electronic communications. When they did communicate electronically, Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik used a variety of encrypted applications, eliminating a documentary record of many communications that almost certainly would have had high investigative value. 86 Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik also shared an email account in order to practice foldering, a technique used to avoid detection when communicating.87 The three used coded language in other, less secure communications.88 After he was indicted, Manafort purchased a pay-as-you-go phone specifically fqr the purpose of communicating with Kilimnik and Gates. ... Lastly, Manafort, who was interviewed by the SCO approximately a dozen times, lied consistently to the SCO during these interviews about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik, the Russian intelligence officerat the center of the Committee's investigation.91 These lies violated Manafort's plea agreement, which obligated him to be truthful in his cooperation with the government, and exposed him to a more severe prison sentence than the agreement contemplated.92 Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services. Manafort' s true motive in deciding to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik is unknown, but the result is that many interactions between Manafort and Kilimnik remain hidden. ^^And Trump gave him a pardon for his discretion. 3. Again, from the Senate Intelligence report The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process. So I say again, how much more obvious does the collusion have to be before you stop lying about it. Does Trump have to sign a confession in his own blood? Jeebus.

You are such a weasly troll. You will literally look at documented findings of collusion and then repeat "no collusion!" like some kind of parrot. It's literally right there in front of you. From the damn report, again. "On numerous occasions over the course of his time on the Trump Campaign, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. Gates, who served as Manafort' s deputy on the Campaign, aided Manafort in this effort. Manafort communicated electronically with Kilimnik and met Kilimnik in person twice while serving on the Trump Campaign. Manafort briefed Kilimnik on sensitive Campaign polling data and the Campaign's strategy for beating Hiliary Clinton. At Manafort's direction, Gates used an encrypted messaging application to send additional Campaign polling data to Kilimnik. " ^^ In what way does that not meet the definition of collusion? Jeebus. Manafort was farking feeding the Russian election interference efforts--efforts intended to help Trump win. What more would one have to do to constitute collusion??

I didn't say that Republicans said there was collusion. I said that the Republican-led committee investigation documented collusion. Which is factually correct. -- How some of the Republicans attempted to spin it after the fact finding of the full committee report is purely political. They can say anything they want in that section, even if it is obviously untrue. I mean, try to be honest for a moment, when you look at the facts of that report, with Manafort feeding intel into Kiliminik's pro-Trump Russian interference effort, and say that it's not collusion? That's absurd. And as a reminder, your claim was that no one on the Trump campaign had any contact with the Russians. Which, you know, is wildly untrue. Completely divorced from reality. But you're sticking with the "no collusion" position as if your understanding of the situation didn't just turn upside down.

I think you and the author of that piece have both missed the mark considerably. That a flamboyant gay man and a performer/entertainer has become a flamboyant trans woman and a performer/entertainer should surprise no one. It doesn't sound like she's doing a campy parody of a woman any more than she was doing a campy parody of a gay man. It doesn't speak to Mulvaney's seriousness of transition at all. She didn't get a personality transplant. Nor did she change professions. If a gravely serious accountant transitions do we not expect that they will no longer be a gravely serious accountant? No, of course not. What's really going on here is that the flamboyant or performative qualities of this individual's personality rub some people the wrong way--and it's the exact same people who would have found Mulvaney obnoxious as a flamboyant gay may. It's like when white folks used to complain about "uppity" Blacks. They feel the "lesser" should know their place. They feel that deviance should be hidden and closeted rather than proud and public.

It's neither the committee report nor the committee reporting, jackass. As explained now several times.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. It's not a statement from the committee nor a finding of fact in the report. The section label explains exactly what it is and identified exactly which members agreed to that statement. It's quite like a dissenting or concurring opinion on a SCOTUS case. It's an expression of one or several member opinions outside of the binding opinion, or in this case, outside of the facts and conclusions in the report.