Jump to content

Sleepy J refuses to acknowledge his granddaughter who was conceived in Hunter's drug fueled relations with a stripper


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

LOL - i've never claimed otherwise - but i ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED that there's nothing "collusionary" about sharing your strategy or polling data that ANYONE COULD GET  :P

 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This is now, I think the third time I've posted from the report, for the very slow among us:
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.

 

And you lose right there. Zero evidence of collusion. None at all.

We've been over this a million times. I realize your tribal belief in your echo chamber makes this hard to undrestand - but none of that is evidence of collusion at all.  Where'd they use this data? Where did it show up?  We can see where the steel dossier went - where was this info used? How was it 'collusion'?

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

^^The hacks which, BTW, were fed back to Roger Stone through Wikileaks to further coordinate the attack on Clinton. 

but they didn't and the committee admitted that.

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

The committe says they don't know that. Sorry. It's right in your quote

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

And what reason is that? What did they actually do with the data?

It wasn't collusion from the looks of it.

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Again, jackass, I'm not covering up any blunder.

Sure you are. You're lying and trying to cover up your first statement - which i pointed out was false and the concept of mes rea was a real legal thing.  And THEN after some frantic googling you come back with "oh .. .er... yah... er.. well of COURSE it is... what i meant is ..

And it's bullshit. Sorry you didn't know how the law worked before hand but covering that up now isn't working for you

 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Except that it's an exact match to the definition you shared, lol.

it is the polar opposite of the definition. THere's no scheme, there's no working together, none of that.  It's litearlly missing ALL the elements required to be collusion :)

 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

My life is pretty great. Lovely family. Nice house. Big job

Sure - but you can' be asleep and dreaming ALL the time :)

(also - big job? What, you work for trump now? :)  "My job is bigly!" )

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And I don't doubt that you're more intelligent educated than a 5th grader.

Well i'm both. Sadly only one of us can say either of those thigns :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - i've never claimed otherwise - but i ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED that there's nothing "collusionary" about sharing your strategy or polling data that ANYONE COULD GET  :P

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.

Quote

And you lose right there. Zero evidence of collusion. None at all.

We've been over this a million times. I realize your tribal belief in your echo chamber makes this hard to undrestand - but none of that is evidence of collusion at all.  Where'd they use this data? Where did it show up?  We can see where the steel dossier went - where was this info used? How was it 'collusion'?

but they didn't and the committee admitted that.

The committe says they don't know that. Sorry. It's right in your quote

And what reason is that? What did they actually do with the data?

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." 

 

 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Liar. CdnFox, meet CdnFox: "But they were pretty clear that all that was shared was stragegy."

 

Ahhh taking stuff out of context from previous posts :)  How very leftist of you :)

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

And for the probably the 12th time, it was not publicly available polling.

And for the 12th time sure it was - ANYONE could commission the same poling to be done. So you're a liar.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I did. You just can't cope with the truth of what the report says. You have to add your own spin. Here - lets read some together.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

"(he 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;

So they're talking about how trump could win. That is NOT collusion. That is just two people talking about whether or not his boss could win. And they noted that some of the negatives for clinton were high.  EVERY POLL AT THE TIME SHOWED THAT.  And ANYONE COULD PAY FOR  A POLL AND FIND THAT OUT.  There's NOTHING secret there.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

that Manafort's plan for victory called for focusing on Clinton's negatives as much as possible;

Hardly a secret - and again that's manifords plan. IT's not collusion to share your plan :)

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

 

and that given Clinton's high negatives, there was a chance that Trump could win. "

 

Again - bragging his boss could win. (which he did).  No collusion.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

"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.

 

And was the ukraine accused of collusion? Nope.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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 "

Sure he could - because it's NOT SENSITIVE INFORMATION.  Its just polling data. ANYONE can pay to get polling data.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

^^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.

With no connection between that and any "polling data".  And for it to be collusion they would have to have agreed that the polling data would be used somehow to hurt clinton and there's no indication of that.

Your OWN REPORT says they don't know who it was given to or if it was used for anything.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

 

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?

They didn't. That's pretty obvious. At best they took it as evidence that trump had a good chance of winning and i'm sure they found that interesting. But that's about all that info would have been useful for.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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).

Do you think it was because some !diot would accuse him of something ? :)  

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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.

It's more like giving someone a wooden spoon and a public phone book and then having someone claim you are guilty in the knife attack based on the logic that a wooden spoon is kind of cutlery too soo....

 

let me make this simple for you.

The committee reports are clear. There was no indicaiton of collusion. Manafort bragged to a russian that trump was going to win. The information provided would have been of no real use to the russians in attacking anyone.

You cannot show how the information was used - unlike the steel dossier for example.  Nor can you even show how it WOULD be used specifically.

None of this is "collusion" or anything close to it.  Collusion requires two parties to agree to carry out some sort of plot or scheme usually illegal or the like.  No scheme is in evidence here.  Manafort just says "hey my boss is totally going to win and the other guy is like 'oh that's interesting', BUT NO REPORT AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF DEAL OR PLOT OR SCHEME.

If anything, this tends to prove that there WAS no plot. If there was they would have discussed it.

No collusion. Sorry kiddo - i know your brain melts thinking about this stuff but there simply is no collusion and CERTAINLY nothing inappropriate or illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh taking stuff out of context from previous posts :)  How very leftist of you :)

And for the 12th time sure it was - ANYONE could commission the same poling to be done. So you're a liar.

I did. You just can't cope with the truth of what the report says. You have to add your own spin. Here - lets read some together.

So they're talking about how trump could win. That is NOT collusion. That is just two people talking about whether or not his boss could win. And they noted that some of the negatives for clinton were high.  EVERY POLL AT THE TIME SHOWED THAT.  And ANYONE COULD PAY FOR  A POLL AND FIND THAT OUT.  There's NOTHING secret there.

Hardly a secret - and again that's manifords plan. IT's not collusion to share your plan :)

Again - bragging his boss could win. (which he did).  No collusion.

And was the ukraine accused of collusion? Nope.

Sure he could - because it's NOT SENSITIVE INFORMATION.  Its just polling data. ANYONE can pay to get polling data.

With no connection between that and any "polling data".  And for it to be collusion they would have to have agreed that the polling data would be used somehow to hurt clinton and there's no indication of that.

Your OWN REPORT says they don't know who it was given to or if it was used for anything.

They didn't. That's pretty obvious. At best they took it as evidence that trump had a good chance of winning and i'm sure they found that interesting. But that's about all that info would have been useful for.

Do you think it was because some !diot would accuse him of something ? :)  

It's more like giving someone a wooden spoon and a public phone book and then having someone claim you are guilty in the knife attack based on the logic that a wooden spoon is kind of cutlery too soo....

 

let me make this simple for you.

The committee reports are clear. There was no indicaiton of collusion. Manafort bragged to a russian that trump was going to win. The information provided would have been of no real use to the russians in attacking anyone.

You cannot show how the information was used - unlike the steel dossier for example.  Nor can you even show how it WOULD be used specifically.

None of this is "collusion" or anything close to it.  Collusion requires two parties to agree to carry out some sort of plot or scheme usually illegal or the like.  No scheme is in evidence here.  Manafort just says "hey my boss is totally going to win and the other guy is like 'oh that's interesting', BUT NO REPORT AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF DEAL OR PLOT OR SCHEME.

If anything, this tends to prove that there WAS no plot. If there was they would have discussed it.

No collusion. Sorry kiddo - i know your brain melts thinking about this stuff but there simply is no collusion and CERTAINLY nothing inappropriate or illegal.

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Again, you are an utterly shameless liar.

Sounds like you're talking to your mirror.

This is  pointless. I posted line for line where everything i said is true from your own report. Line for line.

The only lying sack of shit here is you. There is NOTHING in that report that claims collusion. And considering that's ALL they talked about for 4 years before that if they COULD have they would - but it's CLEAR that they have NO evidence of collusion.

A guy talked to another guy about how well the campaign was going and that they thought they'd win. That's it.

You are delusional and frothing at the mouth. You have proven with the report YOU posted that there was no collusion.

If they found collusion - point to me where it says that in the report. Go on.

And the FBI report agrees - NO evidence of any kind of conspiracy AT ALL.

You need to get professional help - this level of self delusion is not healthy.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds like you're talking to your mirror.

This is  pointless. I posted line for line where everything i said is true from your own report. Line for line.

The only lying sack of shit here is you. There is NOTHING in that report that claims collusion. And considering that's ALL they talked about for 4 years before that if they COULD have they would - but it's CLEAR that they have NO evidence of collusion.

A guy talked to another guy about how well the campaign was going and that they thought they'd win. That's it.

You are delusional and frothing at the mouth. You have proven with the report YOU posted that there was no collusion.

If they found collusion - point to me where it says that in the report. Go on.

And the FBI report agrees - NO evidence of any kind of conspiracy AT ALL.

You need to get professional help - this level of self delusion is not healthy.

 

"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. 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hodad said:

"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.

Yes it's so obvious that the senate report didn't conclude there was any collusion - the fbi didn't, - nobody who investigated it for years said there was - that's how obvious it was,

And throwing fake terms in doesn't change it. The guy passed nothing important on to the russians, they coudln't use what he did pass to help him win - they DIDN'T actually do so in any detectable way, and the senate and the fbi said he did nothing wrong.

You fail kiddo. There was no collusion, there was no crime, it was all a fabricated lie from the dems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes it's so obvious that the senate report didn't conclude there was any collusion - the fbi didn't, - nobody who investigated it for years said there was - that's how obvious it was,

And throwing fake terms in doesn't change it. The guy passed nothing important on to the russians, they coudln't use what he did pass to help him win - they DIDN'T actually do so in any detectable way, and the senate and the fbi said he did nothing wrong.

You fail kiddo. There was no collusion, there was no crime, it was all a fabricated lie from the dems

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.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Your lie: The guy passed nothing important on to the russians,

Nope. The committee said so. Polling data and trump's strategy - which was 'be mean to hillary'.  I'm sure that came as a shock to the russians, NOBODY saw that coming :)_

So you're the liar it would seem.

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Your lie: Lie: they coudln't use what he did pass to help him win -

100 percent true.  Despite the fact you've foamed at the mouth like a rabid dog every time this has been pointed out - you have not been able to point to anything at all that indicates the info was ever intended to be used or even WAS used to help trump.  And the senate noted that

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Your lie: they DIDN'T actually do so in any detectable way,

Nope - sorry 100 percent true again.  There's not even a hint that the russians used that info in their attacks. And the senate noted as much.  The russians definitely interfered but it has been noted many times that their attempts didnt' actually acheive anything at all - and NOTHING about them suggested the trump information was used or would have been useful.

So - once again that would make you the liar.

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Your lie: senate and the fbi said he did nothing wrong.

Not for collusion or sharing information.  And that's maniford. Did trump go to jail? No? Was he charged with anything? no?

Hmmm. So - trump did nothing wrong, Passing the information was not wrong, Meeting with the guy was not wrong. Nothing trump did was wrong.

So every step of the way you have to lie to make your point.
 

All you can do is accuse others of what you are doing yourself - lying.  There was no collusion, trump did nothing wrong,

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. The committee said so. Polling data and trump's strategy - which was 'be mean to hillary'.  I'm sure that came as a shock to the russians, NOBODY saw that coming :)_

So you're the liar it would seem.

100 percent true.  Despite the fact you've foamed at the mouth like a rabid dog every time this has been pointed out - you have not been able to point to anything at all that indicates the info was ever intended to be used or even WAS used to help trump.  And the senate noted that

Nope - sorry 100 percent true again.  There's not even a hint that the russians used that info in their attacks. And the senate noted as much.  The russians definitely interfered but it has been noted many times that their attempts didnt' actually acheive anything at all - and NOTHING about them suggested the trump information was used or would have been useful.

So - once again that would make you the liar.

Not for collusion or sharing information.  And that's maniford. Did trump go to jail? No? Was he charged with anything? no?

Hmmm. So - trump did nothing wrong, Passing the information was not wrong, Meeting with the guy was not wrong. Nothing trump did was wrong.

So every step of the way you have to lie to make your point.
 

All you can do is accuse others of what you are doing yourself - lying.  There was no collusion, trump did nothing wrong,

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

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

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

Awwww little guy :) 

My comments are fully supported - by the very information YOU posted. The senate report clearly says what it says and i quoted it line for line.

Your problem is that YOUR position requires you to write a little unsupported fantasy to get to your conclusion.

Mine:  Senate did not claim collusion (true), Senate noted information was given but none of it inappropriate and couldn't verify the intent of giving it or identify that it was used anywhere (true). Therefore no evidence of 'collusion', which is when two parties conspire to act together towards a common goal, usually illegal or immoral. (true).

 

Yours:  Manafort gave information to person who was connected to russians (true).  The ONLY POSSIBLE USE FOR THIS WAS TO ATTACK CLINTON AND THE FACT HE GAVE IT IS PROOF THAT HE AND THE RUSSIANS WERE WORKING TOGETHER ON A NEFAROUS SCHEME AND DESPITE THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE AND DESPITE THE COMMITTEE NOT COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION ITS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION POSSIBLE!!!!!   Yeah... no.  Not true.

Sorry kiddo. Manafort didn't give anything important to the Russians at all. The polling data is information easily available, and trump's strategy was no real secret either. Sounds like he was bragging his boss would win. And he did. I'm sure the russians found that interesting. But that's not collusion.

No collusion, trump did nothing wrong. And 3 years of fbi investigation and the senate hearing proves that.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...