CNN, Robosmith and Hodad Prove The Left is Batsh1t Crazy

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You're the one who is LYING. What you quoted is NOT from the full report.

They are ONLY "views" of SOME RepubliCON Senators

You completely MISSED the entire history of the Trump Campaign's collusion with Russia starting with chapter 4 on page 47.

"4. (U) Manafort's Activities from 2014 until Joining the Trump Campaign"

"5. (U) Manafort's Activities While Serving on the Trump Campaign"

"6. (U) Manafort's Activities For the Remainder of the Campaign"

Manafort: Trump's CAMPAIGN MANAGER and intermediary with RUSSIA.

Instead you quote LIES from RepubliCONS which were not agreed to by the full committee.

 

🤣 🤣 🤣

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Beyond any doubt, and as a matter of government record, the Trump campaign (his campaign manager, no less) colluded with Russia. 

You can pretend that Trump didn't know about it, but his commentary and his response say otherwise. Rather than condemning them for the betrayal, he pardoned for them or their crimes. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65602909

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-conclusions-trump-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

You are repeating lies that even lwnj news outlets admit isn't true.

[robosmith]

13 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

🤣 🤣 🤣

^MAGA CULT believes Trump betraying the nation is funny. 🤮

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^MAGA CULT believes Trump betraying the nation is funny. 🤮

I just can't believe how far detached from reality you and hodad are. I posted the links from 2 left leaning news outlets that summarized the Muehler and Durham reports as showing Trump DID NOT collude with Russia. And you still act like he did. It's crazy. Literally crazy.

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65602909

Quote

The FBI investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, which was carried out by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, led to dozens of criminal charges against Trump campaign staff and associates for crimes including computer hacking and financial crimes.

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-conclusions-trump-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

You are repeating lies that even lwnj news outlets admit isn't true.

You missed this:

Quote

Attorney General William Barr told Congress on Sunday,

Barr LIED. Mueller investigated and found no CRIMINAL collusion by Trump. Manafort was CONVICTED and pardoned.

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I just can't believe how far detached from reality you and hodad are. I posted the links from 2 left leaning news outlets that summarized the Muehler and Durham reports as showing Trump DID NOT collude with Russia. And you still act like he did. It's crazy. Literally crazy.

Manafort was the MOB bosses' connection to Russia. He was working for Oligarch Deripaska while managing the Trump campaign.

Read the effing report. Duh

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65602909

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-conclusions-trump-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

You are repeating lies that even lwnj news outlets admit isn't true.

I know we're now on page 2 of this thread (and that's a long time to remember) but you know the Mueller report was just the first of at lest 3 relevant reports, right? 

I'm trying to figure out how any remotely rational person still disputes the fact of collusion. 

1. Do you dispute that Manafort was Trump's campaign manager?
2. Do you dispute that regularly had clandestine meetings and communications with Kilimnik? 
3. Do you dispute that at those meetings he gave Kilimnik "sensitive" internal polling and strategy from the Trump campaign?
4. Do you dispute that Kilimnik in turn relayed that information to Russian intelligence services?
5. Do you dispute that Russian intelligence services was running an active election interference and disinformation campaign against US voters with the express aim of helping Trump win?

Those are all facts of historical record at this point. Do you have secret information that indicates that any of them are incorrect? If not, then you must acknowledge collusion.

 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I know we're now on page 2 of this thread (and that's a long time to remember) but you know the Mueller report was just the first of at lest 3 relevant reports, right? 

I'm trying to figure out how any remotely rational person still disputes the fact of collusion. 

1. Do you dispute that Manafort was Trump's campaign manager?
2. Do you dispute that regularly had clandestine meetings and communications with Kilimnik? 
3. Do you dispute that at those meetings he gave Kilimnik "sensitive" internal polling and strategy from the Trump campaign?
4. Do you dispute that Kilimnik in turn relayed that information to Russian intelligence services?
5. Do you dispute that Russian intelligence services was running an active election interference and disinformation campaign against US voters with the express aim of helping Trump win?

Those are all facts of historical record at this point. Do you have secret information that indicates that any of them are incorrect? If not, then you must acknowledge collusion.

 

 

 

Funny, you talk about these three major reports (2 or which I have cited) but you never cite their conclusions. Why is that?

[Hodad]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

Funny, you talk about these three major reports (2 or which I have cited) but you never cite their conclusions. Why is that?

I "never" cite their conclusions? Several posts above I saw you quote the partisan spin section of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I don't think you know how to read the reports. So perhaps stick to the facts of the report rather than the spin. 

Again, do you dispute any of those facts that are a matter of record?

[gatomontes99]

Just now, Hodad said:

I "never" cite their conclusions? Several posts above I saw you quote the partisan spin section of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I don't think you know how to read the reports. So perhaps stick to the facts of the report rather than the spin. 

Again, do you dispute any of those facts that are a matter of record?

I gave you two news articles from lwnj news organizations that say the reports conclude there was no collusion. Just because you want to inflate some coincidences to intent doesn't mean there was actual intent or collusion. 

[Nationalist]

10 year Olds? This is what the Libbues are waving about now?

LOL...

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I gave you two news articles from lwnj news organizations that say the reports conclude there was no collusion. Just because you want to inflate some coincidences to intent doesn't mean there was actual intent or collusion. 

A. The articles do NOT say that. They report that someone else said that. 

B. You are clearly ignorant of the contents of the reports, or you wouldn't have any trouble answering these basic questions.

 

I'm going to do some spoon feeding here:
 

From the  Senate Intelligence Committee report,

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 Committee report also stated: 

While the Committee obtained evidence revealing that Kilimnik shared with [Oleg] Deripaska other information passed on by Manafort–such as links to news articles–the Committee did not obtain records showing that Kilimnik passed on the polling data. However, the Committee has no records of, and extremely limited insight into, Kilimnik’ s communications [redacted]. As a result, this lack of documentary record is not dispositive.

 

By 2021 intelligence had confirmed the link and new sanctions were announced against Kilimnik

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.

__________

 

Now that you have the information right in front of your face, do you dispute any of those points? It's a simple question. You don't have to deflect or post old articles. You have the reports. 

[gatomontes99]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

A. The articles do NOT say that. They report that someone else said that. 

B. You are clearly ignorant of the contents of the reports, or you wouldn't have any trouble answering these basic questions.

 

I'm going to do some spoon feeding here:
 

From the  Senate Intelligence Committee report,

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 Committee report also stated: 

While the Committee obtained evidence revealing that Kilimnik shared with [Oleg] Deripaska other information passed on by Manafort–such as links to news articles–the Committee did not obtain records showing that Kilimnik passed on the polling data. However, the Committee has no records of, and extremely limited insight into, Kilimnik’ s communications [redacted]. As a result, this lack of documentary record is not dispositive.

 

By 2021 intelligence had confirmed the link and new sanctions were announced against Kilimnik

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.

__________

 

Now that you have the information right in front of your face, do you dispute any of those points? It's a simple question. You don't have to deflect or post old articles. You have the reports. 

Manafort admitted he did that to make money and that what he did wasn't sanctioned by Trump or the campaign. You clearly cherry picked some information to try and come to a conclusion that has never been true.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time relitigating something that has already been disproven. If you want to spin your wheels pretending your fantasy world is real...it is really really and truly real...feel free.

Edited September 27, 2024 by gatomontes99

[Hodad]

47 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Manafort admitted he did that to make money and that what he did wasn't sanctioned by Trump or the campaign. You clearly cherry picked some information to try and come to a conclusion that has never been true.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time relitigating something that has already been disproven. If you want to spin your wheels pretending your fantasy world is real...it is really really and truly real...feel free.

Deflect, dodge, duck and weave, but whatever you do, don't answer basic questions. And be sure not to trip over that tucked tail.

1. Do you dispute that Manafort was Trump's campaign manager?
2. Do you dispute that regularly had clandestine meetings and communications with Kilimnik? 
3. Do you dispute that at those meetings he gave Kilimnik "sensitive" internal polling and strategy from the Trump campaign?
4. Do you dispute that Kilimnik in turn relayed that information to Russian intelligence services?
5. Do you dispute that Russian intelligence services was running an active election interference and disinformation campaign against US voters with the express aim of helping Trump win?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I gave you two news articles from lwnj news organizations that say the reports conclude there was no collusion.

No CRIMINAL collusion. AKA could NOT be charged. Duh

Mueller was acting under DoJ RESTRAINTS which prevent charging a sitting POTUS, which is why his list of 10 instances of obstruction of justice were never charged.

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Just because you want to inflate some coincidences to intent doesn't mean there was actual intent or collusion. 

There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, and the Senate Intel Report plainly states that. Duh

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Beyond any doubt, and as a matter of government record, the Trump campaign (his campaign manager, no less) colluded with Russia. 

You can pretend that Trump didn't know about it, but his commentary and his response say otherwise. Rather than condemning them for the betrayal, he pardoned for them or their crimes. 

Wrongo, stupid little liar.

Any American citizen is allowed to talk to Russians, and he didn't do anything at the level of "colluded with Russians to win the election". 

The guy is a campaign manager for people all over the world. He talks to people from different countries. Boo hoo, id10t.

While the FBI was on their crime spree against Trump they tried to coerce false testimony from Manafort and they got nothing. 

Ergo, Trump did not collude with Russia, but Kamala is openly colluding with Ukraine. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Manafort admitted he did that to make money and that what he did wasn't sanctioned by Trump or the campaign. You clearly cherry picked some information to try and come to a conclusion that has never been true.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time relitigating something that has already been disproven. If you want to spin your wheels pretending your fantasy world is real...it is really really and truly real...feel free.

Those guys could talk about Russian collusion all their lives and never mention the fact that the FBI was busy committing crimes to keep that investigation going.

And why would the FBI make such an investigation public in the first place?  

[gatomontes99]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No CRIMINAL collusion. AKA could NOT be charged. Duh

Mueller was acting under DoJ RESTRAINTS which prevent charging a sitting POTUS, which is why his list of 10 instances of obstruction of justice were never charged.

There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, and the Senate Intel Report plainly states that. Duh

 

No it doesn't.

I had to change the title to reflect the content of the thread.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrongo, stupid little liar.

Any American citizen is allowed to talk to Russians, and he didn't do anything at the level of "colluded with Russians to win the election". 

The guy is a campaign manager for people all over the world. He talks to people from different countries. Boo hoo, id10t.

While the FBI was on their crime spree against Trump they tried to coerce false testimony from Manafort and they got nothing. 

Ergo, Trump did not collude with Russia, but Kamala is openly colluding with Ukraine. 

Fast of mouth and slow of thought as you are, not surprised that you can't track your own post, but yes, feeding strategic information to the foreign intelligence service that is using such information in an operation intended to help you win an election is exactly what collusion is. 

Now, you could argue that Manafort didn't know, but that would make him even dumber than you. Improbable.

Edited September 28, 2024 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

When the courts and the Senate Intelligence Committee say Trump's campaign manager colluded with Russia, I believe it. Why don't you? You only like to believe what you want because you don't have the balls to face reality?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/19/yes-there-was-collusion/

All the people that hate him think he colluded with Russia, but the same people who were quite happy to charge him with felony bookkeeping didn't actually charge him with anything to do with Russia

Sure kid

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrongo, stupid little liar.

Any American citizen is allowed to talk to Russians, and he didn't do anything at the level of "colluded with Russians to win the election". 

The guy is a campaign manager for people all over the world. He talks to people from different countries. Boo hoo, id10t.

While the FBI was on their crime spree against Trump they tried to coerce false testimony from Manafort and they got nothing. 

Ergo, Trump did not collude with Russia, but Kamala is openly colluding with Ukraine. 

They got nothing from Manafort cause Trump was PROMISING A PARDON. Duh

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Those guys could talk about Russian collusion all their lives and never mention the fact that the FBI was busy committing crimes to keep that investigation going.

And why would the FBI make such an investigation public in the first place?  

Trump made it public to play the victim like he always does.

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

No it doesn't.

You're LYING.

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I had to change the title to reflect the content of the thread.

^BULLSHIT.

Edited September 28, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

None of this should surprise anyone.

Democrats and their supporters are fueled primarily by hatred and bigotry. That's how the democrat party keeps them in line, that is how they are motivated, that is just the way they are.

This is why such a high percentage of them have mental health issues, vastly more than the republican or conservative side. You cannot hold that much hate in your heart all the time every day without a beginning to affect your mental health.

Republicans say "Democrats are stupid, let's go shoot some ducks"

Democrats say "Republicans are stupid, lets go shoot their leader. "

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They got nothing from Manafort cause Trump was PROMISING A PARDON. Duh

Trump made it public to play the victim like he always doesn.

You're LYING.

^BULLSHIT.

Cite? Your opinion is worthless without PROOF! 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No it doesn't.

I had to change the title to reflect the content of the thread.

In that case you should probably update it to read "KSU afraid to answer basic questions."

Edited September 28, 2024 by Hodad

[Chrissy1979]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All the people that hate him think he colluded with Russia, but the same people who were quite happy to charge him with felony bookkeeping didn't actually charge him with anything to do with Russia

Sure kid

He's still subservient to Putin, as demonstrated by his appearance with Zelenskyy. You are too. 😂 

[gatomontes99]

52 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm that case you should probably update it to read "KSU afraid to answer basic questions."

Actually it would be "Hodad is crying like a little biotch because gatomontes99 won't accept his false premise."

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Actually it would be "Hodad is crying like a little biotch because gatomontes99 won't accept his false premise."

What's the premise? I asked if you disputed any of those facts identified in our official government reports on the subject. 

But apparently you didn't have the cajones to answer. 

And it's pretty plain to see why. If you can't dispute the facts it makes it hard to pretend that collusion didn't happen without looking like gullible fool. So you dodge and dodge again.