RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 22, 2020 14:52:37 GMT -8
Wow. This is a stumper. No one is even trying. Because you know you're wrong. So following your logic, you admit you took young boys to Vilepagans apartment to be abused, since you didn't try to refute it. Why would you do such a thing to young boys? What is wrong with you libs, you always claim to care about people and then you abuse the least among us. Such a stumper. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 22, 2020 15:27:10 GMT -8
Since bostondave did such a spectacular job of mucking up a perfectly good thread I started many months ago, I will make an attempt to clean up the mess--without engaging in insults. BOSTONDAVE: you insist on referring to our President as "Traitor," so I ask you to provide some evidence to back up that claim. 1. Provide ONE example of anyone from the Trump campaign coordinating with any official of the Russian government in an effort to "interfere" in the 2016 election. 2. Provide ONE example (with proof) of any action taken by the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election in an effort to aid Donald Trump. Is there any evidence that such assistance helped Trump win the election? 3. Provide ONE example of any American citizen charged or convicted of any crime directly connected to Russian interference in the 2016 election. 4. What reason do you think the Russian government would have to prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election? What's your theory of who initiated the alleged collusion? This should be easy for you, considering your self-proclaimed debating skills. I will unblock your posts in order to read and respond. It may not be right away, but I will. I don’t read his posts, but I know with surety he will not... possibly CAN NOT... answer your challenge intelligently. such is the predictable path, if not the misery of a troll like he is. See? I told you. |
|
|
|
Post by bostondave on Mar 22, 2020 15:32:15 GMT -8
There's an outstanding question nobody seems to be able to confront. A stumper.
|
|
|
|
Post by bostondave on Mar 22, 2020 17:44:55 GMT -8
1. Stone and Wikileaks, Manafort and Russian intelligence. 2. That was well documented with the Russian hack and dump. And their social media campaign 3. Roger Stone, Richard Pinedo, George Papadop, lying to investigators about Russia. 4. They had Traitor compromised and amenable to blackmail because of it. And Putin knows a soft touch when he sees one. And Traitor wanted a tower in Russia. Doesn't matter who intiated, Traitor invited and received assistance from Russia. Traitorous conduct.
5. What explanation do you have for almost 300 contacts and almost 40 meetings that were ALL lied about? Answer that the way I answered your questions.
Bostondave, Good to my word, I am unblocking your posts so that I can address this issue of so-called Trump-Russia Collusion. thank you for at least giving answers to my questions. I think it best to address these one at a time, so let's start with #1: 1. Coordination between members of the Trump campaign and officials of the Russian government for the purpose of interfering on Trump's behalf in the 2016 election. Before my counter-response, I need a little more information: First, Roger Stone was never part of the Trump campaign, nor is Wikileaks part of the Russian government, so pleas explain what you're alleging here. Second, who exactly did Paul Manafort meet with from Russian intelligence, when and where did this happen, and what was the purpose of this meeting? I respectfully await your response, at which time I will address both of these allegations more fully. Credo p.s. I have a wife and two small kids at home and am a full-time teacher so forgive me if these duties prevent me from responding right away. But I will make good on my word. 1. Stone was a campaign associate. Wikileaks has been acknowledged to've been a Russian tool. But with Manafort there's no doubt... I'm still in amazement at the shit this cabal did that apparently isn't illegal. But I know you'd never resort to "well he broke no laws" cheapness. Or "well Mueller was biased" bullshit. You're interested in something more serious than that. I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 22, 2020 18:40:21 GMT -8
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 22, 2020 19:52:33 GMT -8
There's an outstanding question nobody seems to be able to confront. A stumper. You are correct, that question is why would you take hundreds of young boys to Vilepagans apartment for him to abuse? That is reprehensible behavior and actually quite dumb because VP is gay, not a pedophile. Why would you insult the entire gay community by continually bringing young boys to his apartment despite his objections? Well, I guess that leads to another question - Did VilePagan object to you bringing young boys to his apartment or did he encourage you to continue? I would have to think it is the latter, but only you two know the truth. It is a stumper. |
|
|
|
Post by bostondave on Mar 22, 2020 20:55:47 GMT -8
Hey thanks for that. I knew the report was out there but I didn't really know this little tidbit of information that you helped me with.
See I didn't know the Manafort defense team acknowledged Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnik. I just thought it was one of those assertions of Mueller. Come to find out Manafort's own defense team locks it up. That is now settled. Manafort gave polling data to Kilimnik. Amazing what is legal no? Americans working with a foreign adversary to undermine an American election is apparently perfectly legal.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,384
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 22, 2020 20:58:31 GMT -8
Wow. This is a stumper. No one is even trying. Because you know you're wrong. About what......  ?? Oh....  |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 22, 2020 23:29:06 GMT -8
Bostondave, Good to my word, I am unblocking your posts so that I can address this issue of so-called Trump-Russia Collusion. thank you for at least giving answers to my questions. I think it best to address these one at a time, so let's start with #1: 1. Coordination between members of the Trump campaign and officials of the Russian government for the purpose of interfering on Trump's behalf in the 2016 election. Before my counter-response, I need a little more information: First, Roger Stone was never part of the Trump campaign, nor is Wikileaks part of the Russian government, so pleas explain what you're alleging here. Second, who exactly did Paul Manafort meet with from Russian intelligence, when and where did this happen, and what was the purpose of this meeting? 1. Stone was a campaign associate. Wikileaks has been acknowledged to've been a Russian tool. But with Manafort there's no doubt... If you don't mind, I'd like to start by addressing the allegations surrounding Paul Manafort. You're right, there's "no doubt" Paul Manafort shared that polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik in 2016. But what exactly does that establish? Manafort and Kilimnik were longtime associates and political operatives who had worked for various Ukrainian politicians in the past. Manafort worked for all kinds of campaigns throughout the world going back to the 1970's--and for Trump for only a couple of months before Trump fired him in August 2016. And the idea that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence is highly dubious, as even this NY Times story shows. Kilimnik probably let people believe he had greater ties to Russian intelligence than he really did.......because it gave him more clout with potential clients. Mueller himself never even provided evidence that Kilimnik was connected to Russian intelligence. The more likely reason for Manafort's sharing of this polling date was simply to bolster his credibility in an effort to get more political consulting contracts in Ukraine. That was the man's business. So sharing this data would be no more sinister than you or I sharing our success with a current employer with a prospective future employer. Look what I did for Trump--I can do the same for you. That's all. The other problem with the Manafort-Kilimnik connection somehow "proving" Trump and Russia were somehow "allied" is that the purpose of their meeting seems to indicate the exact opposite: So, far from bolstering the case of Trump-Russia Collusion, the Manafort case actually weakens it. Manafort's work with Kilimnik was not in any way friendly to Russia but was in fact in opposition to the interests of Russia. You--or I--may not care for an American helping politicians in a foreign country like Ukraine, but it's not illegal and is practiced by political operatives on both sides of the aisle. Being friendly with a guy with a Slavic name is not a crime the last time I checked. In the end, as the story above from The Nation (not exactly a Trump-friendly publication) notes: "None of Manafort’s charges—those he was convicted of in his first trial, and those he pled guilty to in order to avoid a second trial—concern the Trump campaign or collusion with Russia. Manafort’s legal woes instead pertain to bank and tax fraud, as well as unregistered foreign lobbying, stemming from his political work in Ukraine, and to subsequent obstruction charges after Mueller’s initial indictment."This seems to fit Mueller's strategy with all his indictments: charge someone associated with Trump on process crimes unrelated to Russian collusion in order to further fan the flames of the "established" (except by the facts, that is) narrative that Donald Trump worked with Russia to "cheat" in the 2016 election. Problem is, it never happened--and no one has ever brought forth evidence to prove such an accusation.It's late now, so I apologize for any syntax errors in my response. I will address the Roger Stone / Wikileaks accusation tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by bostondave on Mar 23, 2020 2:36:46 GMT -8
1. Stone was a campaign associate. Wikileaks has been acknowledged to've been a Russian tool. But with Manafort there's no doubt... If you don't mind, I'd like to start by addressing the allegations surrounding Paul Manafort. You're right, there's "no doubt" Paul Manafort shared that polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik in 2016. But what exactly does that establish? Manafort and Kilimnik were longtime associates and political operatives who had worked for various Ukrainian politicians in the past. Manafort worked for all kinds of campaigns throughout the world going back to the 1970's--and for Trump for only a couple of months before Trump fired him in August 2016. And the idea that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence is highly dubious, as even this NY Times story shows. Kilimnik probably let people believe he had greater ties to Russian intelligence than he really did.......because it gave him more clout with potential clients. Mueller himself never even provided evidence that Kilimnik was connected to Russian intelligence. The more likely reason for Manafort's sharing of this polling date was simply to bolster his credibility in an effort to get more political consulting contracts in Ukraine. That was the man's business. So sharing this data would be no more sinister than you or I sharing our success with a current employer with a prospective future employer. Look what I did for Trump--I can do the same for you. That's all. The other problem with the Manafort-Kilimnik connection somehow "proving" Trump and Russia were somehow "allied" is that the purpose of their meeting seems to indicate the exact opposite: So, far from bolstering the case of Trump-Russia Collusion, the Manafort case actually weakens it. Manafort's work with Kilimnik was not in any way friendly to Russia but was in fact in opposition to the interests of Russia. You--or I--may not care for an American helping politicians in a foreign country like Ukraine, but it's not illegal and is practiced by political operatives on both sides of the aisle. Being friendly with a guy with a Slavic name is not a crime the last time I checked. In the end, as the story above from The Nation (not exactly a Trump-friendly publication) notes: "None of Manafort’s charges—those he was convicted of in his first trial, and those he pled guilty to in order to avoid a second trial—concern the Trump campaign or collusion with Russia. Manafort’s legal woes instead pertain to bank and tax fraud, as well as unregistered foreign lobbying, stemming from his political work in Ukraine, and to subsequent obstruction charges after Mueller’s initial indictment."This seems to fit Mueller's strategy with all his indictments: charge someone associated with Trump on process crimes unrelated to Russian collusion in order to further fan the flames of the "established" (except by the facts, that is) narrative that Donald Trump worked with Russia to "cheat" in the 2016 election. Problem is, it never happened--and no one has ever brought forth evidence to prove such an accusation.It's late now, so I apologize for any syntax errors in my response. I will address the Roger Stone / Wikileaks accusation tomorrow. Ok, at least two major points there, and one glaring error. One point you're stressing on is whether or not Kilimnick was Russian intelligence. Mueller says yes, some others not privy to his information, like some journalists, say no. When it comes to our intel. I'll side with what our intel. says over any "journalist" and most definitely the accused and his allies. We don't have to bend ourselves into pretzel shapes and contort explanations. Most times the simplest explanation is the best. And so here's something I want you to squarely confront regarding this : where did kilimnik run to when he had to save his ass? Where is he holed up now? I think the case is strong he indeed had ties to Russian intelligence.
To the second point you contort and twist an implausible explanation when the simplest is most likely the correct one. Manafort gave polling data to Kilimnik who forwarded it to his contacts in Russia. Your notion that Manafort wanted to somehow show his bonafides in getting the polling data is tortured to say the least. Why wouldn't the campaign chair have that information? He would not need to "show off" or prove anything to Kilimnick. It'd be like a master mechanic showing off how he fixed a bicycle flat. Not plausible in the least.
To the glaring error. It's well known Manafort was working with pro-Russia Ukranian groups. Where in the holy name of hell are you getting the information that he was working AGAINST Russia? That's a bad hit on your part for including that drabble.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 23, 2020 6:11:35 GMT -8
I’m not sure why you fellows are even bothering. Credo, I admire the effort, but without even reading BostonFakes response, I know with surety he will overlook the parts he cannot respond to, and misdirect anything else.
I, in the other hand, do enjoy the facts you present, some of which I knew, some of which I did not. The fact that these facts also provide an ass-whipping to this Vile-doppelgänger is just extra frosting.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,384
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 23, 2020 6:25:00 GMT -8
Soon BostonRave will realize that Russia, Russia, Russia book is closed and he will pick up another titles China, China, China.......  |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 23, 2020 12:57:31 GMT -8
I’m not sure why you fellows are even bothering. Credo, I admire the effort, but without even reading BostonFakes response, I know with surety he will overlook the parts he cannot respond to, and misdirect anything else. I, in the other hand, do enjoy the facts you present, some of which I knew, some of which I did not. The fact that these facts also provide an ass-whipping to this Vile-doppelgänger is just extra frosting. I simply asked him prove his case. What you will see over the course of this week is a systematic defenestration of the entire ludicrous theory which inspired this thread in the first place. The facts, evidence, and common sense speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 23, 2020 13:51:01 GMT -8
I’m not sure why you fellows are even bothering. Credo, I admire the effort, but without even reading BostonFakes response, I know with surety he will overlook the parts he cannot respond to, and misdirect anything else. I, in the other hand, do enjoy the facts you present, some of which I knew, some of which I did not. The fact that these facts also provide an ass-whipping to this Vile-doppelgänger is just extra frosting. I simply asked him prove his case. What you will see over the course of this week is a systematic defenestration of the entire ludicrous theory which inspired this thread in the first place. The facts, evidence, and common sense speak for themselves. True, but you are wasting your effort, responding to things nobody cares about anymore.
In Mueller's own words, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or co-ordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."That's not AG Bill Barr summarizing...It's a direct quote from the Mueller report itself. Mic drop! End of story. As someone already pointed out here, everyone has moved on. Nobody cares about this crap except leftist loonies who still can't except that Trump won the 2016 election, and that their coup attempt has failed. |
|
|
|
Post by bostondave on Mar 23, 2020 14:51:21 GMT -8
I’m not sure why you fellows are even bothering. Credo, I admire the effort, but without even reading BostonFakes response, I know with surety he will overlook the parts he cannot respond to, and misdirect anything else. I, in the other hand, do enjoy the facts you present, some of which I knew, some of which I did not. The fact that these facts also provide an ass-whipping to this Vile-doppelgänger is just extra frosting. I simply asked him prove his case. What you will see over the course of this week is a systematic defenestration of the entire ludicrous theory which inspired this thread in the first place. The facts, evidence, and common sense speak for themselves. Thats it?? You're done? You don't even see your arguments were smashed to smithereens?? let me help you now and in the future. if you find yourself having to make up tortured, contorted, strained and implausible explanations about something it's most likely wrong. Your notion that the reason Manafort gave internal polling data to a Russian operative is because he wanted to kind of show off is ludicrous and strains credulity and credibility past breaking. The minute you have to resort to bullshit you've lost I'm sorry to say.
**And you even included "common sense". We didn't even get to my #5. Which was why the hell was there almost 300 contacts and almost 40 clandestine meetings which were ALL lied about? I thought we going to go through each item ending with that question. Common sense tells one with common sense there was something between traitor and Russia.
|
|
??