• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

Deacon923 said:
Wrangor
Click to expand...

Wrangor never posts in the Tunnels anymore.

Creamy is a non-troll conservative poster, but also rarely posts.

I don't think either of them left because the Tunnels are too partisan for them, but rather because the conservative movement in American has gone off the rails into racism and tax cut lala land and they don't care to defend the indefensible.
 
SD3 is also in that camp, though he may not necessarily agree that he is.
 
Yup. Lotta “non-partisans” these days who claim to not be aligned to the Republican Party but coincidentally drop in to defend them.
 
And people have convinced themselves that Trump’s campaign manager giving polling data to a Russian contact is not evidence of the Trump campaign working with Russians.

 
Last edited:
Even if this claim is true (again, as ABJ noted, Manafort’s team made this claim at a time when Mueller would not have an opportunity to correct the record), it would mean the data may have been just 15 days old. Dated, but not necessarily months old as the NYT likes to parrot.

Then, a totally redacted footnote further describes the data. While the description is redacted, the pagination of the exhibit is not. It shows that there are 75 pages of polling data.

This last filing also says a bit about the emails that Mr. Kilimnik sent, discussing his access to the data. Two footnotes make it clear there are at least 6 Kilimnik emails referring to the polling data.

Again — that’s not what I’m saying, or Amy Berman Jackson, or Andrew Weissmann. That’s how Manafort’s own lawyers describe the data and the emails where Kilimnik discussed having received it.

It’s when you couple that data with what Weissmann and ABJ go on to say about it that the data is more damning. As I’ve noted before, Rick Gates testified that Manafort walked Kilimnik through the data at that clandestine August 2 meeting.

And the logic of ABJ’s judgment makes clear that this sharing of poll data amounts to a link to the Russian government.
Click to expand...
 
 
The Hoax is coming to an end and the infinitely slappable cucksuckers,Ted Lie and Adam Shift are beside themselves with bug-eyed apoplexy at the prospect their charade of Russian Collusion is about to draw the curtain for the last time.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...a_case_there_is_no_evidence_of_collusion.html

As Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley puts it..the are “one charge of collusion” away from having a case.

2 years in and we have some bullshit process crimes and ginned-up political payback in the cases of Manafort-Stone.
Be that as it may..there is still no basis for the initial charge.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: Doesn't the absence of additional indictments against [Roger] Stone suggest, as the President would say, no collusion?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: Well, it does. You have to call them as you see them. There is no evidence thus far of collusion between the Trump campaign or President Trump and the Russians and hacking these computer systems. And moreover, it's really quite unlikely, right? If you were a KGB spymaster, would you really collude with Donald Trump and put yourself one tweet away from destruction, on perhaps the most secret operation in its recent history? The answer is no they wouldn't do that. Would you hold a hypersensitive meeting at Trump Tower with half the media downstairs and not actually produce the evidence promised, instead, talk about adoptions? No. The most obvious explanation is probably the right one.

That there was not collusion in the hacking of the system. What appears to be the case is that Stone wanted to get access to this information. That's not illegal. Journalists, operatives, even academics, all try to get their hands on material like this, whether it's whistleblowing or it came from one source or another. There is nothing illegal in that. I think so far we're one collusion short of making that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top