Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

Further reminder:  the judge invited Flynn to pursue his claims about the investigation with testimony, evidence and etc.  However, Flynn declined and in fact repudiated those arguments in open court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Further reminder:  the judge invited Flynn to pursue his claims about the investigation with testimony, evidence and etc.  However, Flynn declined and in fact repudiated those arguments in open court.

It is really interesting that we see this a lot publicly until they are in a courtroom (and oftentimes after).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 1:03 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

More importantly these morons leave voice mails while criming.

Stupid Watergate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rantingly said:

YOU HAVE LESS FREQUENT UPDATES!

The correct syntax on this board would be:  YOUR FACE HAS LESS FREQUENT UPDATES!

You have much to learn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, timschochet said:

Is there any chance at all that Bill Barr would actually indict people for what Trump is calling "treason"? Is this all just political talk, or will there really be some sort of criminal prosecution?

No chance but his word usage is important to note. "Treason" is a serious term that most people could define for you. So, using it, people understand it, people know it's bad. Just by using the term, people will associate negative emotions to the person(s) that is being described with that term.

FOX news has been "weakening" the seriousness of words for a long time. Too many examples to even mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ren hoek said:

So what are you saying.  That Manafort gave polling data to Kilimnik as meme targeting data?  What are you suggesting here?

Well I asked you a question above you didn't answer (not that you have to but it's relevant to the convo) - what kind of polling data - about what states particularly - did Manafort deliver? I think you know the answer to this but I'd like to hear a coherent explanation why it was randomly provided. And how about the frequency, do you know anything about that?

My point was that you were making a conclusion what was proved while overwriting in your own post key information - that Manafort's explanation was considered unbelievable by the OSC, and further that what Deripaska did with it was inaccessible. 

There are moments like that in Vol. I. Another is where Flynn tells the OSC that yeah he told Trump about the convos with Kislyak... but then when pressed couldn't remember specifics enough to prove it. Also in that section there are redactions for "ongoing matter" indicating Flynn has been given leniency for assistance.

These are both 'close". No cigar, but not what is made in the Ukraine statement - not a target, not involved, no there there, no evidence - such as is claimed.

i also think your attempt to bifurcate Vol. I from Vol. II is misguided. Vol. II is filled with people constantly lying and obstructing about events in Vol. I. 

Again you haven't read the thing or even any part of it, so I'm probably just hopefully explaining parts to you you have not had made available to you.

 
Quote

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

 

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well I asked you a question above you didn't answer (not that you have to but it's relevant to the convo) - what kind of polling data - about what states particularly - did Manafort deliver? I think you know the answer to this but I'd like to hear a coherent explanation why it was randomly provided. And how about the frequency, do you know anything about that?

My point was that you were making a conclusion what was proved while overwriting in your own post key information - that Manafort's explanation was considered unbelievable by the OSC, and further that what Deripaska did with it was inaccessible. 

There are moments like that in Vol. I. Another is where Flynn tells the OSC that yeah he told Trump about the convos with Kislyak... but then when pressed couldn't remember specifics enough to prove it. Also in that section there are redactions for "ongoing matter" indicating Flynn has been given leniency for assistance.

These are both 'close". No cigar, but not what is made in the Ukraine statement - not a target, not involved, no there there, no evidence - such as is claimed.

i also think your attempt to bifurcate Vol. I from Vol. II is misguided. Vol. II is filled with people constantly lying and obstructing about events in Vol. I. 

Again you haven't read the thing or even any part of it, so I'm probably just hopefully explaining parts to you you have not had made available to you.

  Hide contents
  Reveal hidden contents

 

I believe it was about “battleground states”.  Again, what specifically are you suggesting was the point of this transfer- not just to Deripaska, but to Ukrainians that stood to pay Manafort money- can you please say what you think it was?  

Why, if the idea was to somehow influence the election- and this is several months before Trump even got the nomination- wouldn’t he just send it to Prigozhyn?  Was it because it was about showing how his campaign was turning a positive result in blue/purple states and therefore had value as a political consultant, to people that had the means to pay him money after his Party of Regions income had dried up?

I don’t know why this polling data- again, much of which was public information- was transferred to Deripaska/Ukrainians.  But I find it incredibly stupid and honestly a little insulting to suggest it had some sort of connection to a Russian influence op; never mind the fact that the impact of the social media ads was blown way out of proportion.  

I have asked people over and over again to say which ads they thought were the most harmful, and no one ever does because they know it’s a joke.  

Why do you think Mueller found no evidence that it had anything at all to do with “Russian interference” in the 2016 election?  Could it be because it didn’t?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who isn't color blind says the sky is blue but, I refuse to believe them. I've asked them to prove it to me yet they never do. Why do you think that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

https://twitter.com/markamesexiled/status/1129451553201565703

Oh look, it’s some more McCarthyite trash from the Daily Beast.  Thanks russiagate 

McCarthy hasn’t quite yet reached the level of Hitler for bad analogy usage, but you and a few others are helping that along. You really ought to spend some time reading up on McCarthy before you continue on these awful comparisons. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Are you now comparing, or have you ever compared, someone to McCarthy?

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

...  

I have asked people over and over again to say which ads they thought were the most harmful, and no one ever does because they know it’s a joke.  

...

Can you point to any Facebook political add that you felt was meaningful?  Let's get some context here. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really still have people denying the power of advertising and propaganda?  Do you think companies and lobbyists spend millions upon millions on those things because they don’t work?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

I believe it was about “battleground states”.  Again, what specifically are you suggesting was the point of this transfer- not just to Deripaska, but to Ukrainians that stood to pay Manafort money- can you please say what you think it was?  

The “battleground” states, specifically Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

And the exchanges were repeated or frequent, not a one off.

This seems so incredibly obvious that you must know the point. There is zero point to receiving this extremely valuable information except to impact votes. That's why this stuff is sold and why consultants are paid billions for it, that's the sole point of such information.

The OSC specifically rejected Manafort's claims about this having an innocuous purpose.

It was also broader than just data: "Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data."

This is like asking what possibly could a gun be possibly meant for and then being told its to fire bullets. That's its sole, intended purpose.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We really still have people denying the power of advertising and propaganda?  Do you think companies and lobbyists spend millions upon millions on those things because they don’t work?

Are you surprised? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Why, if the idea was to somehow influence the election- and this is several months before Trump even got the nomination- wouldn’t he just send it to Prigozhyn? Was it because it was about showing how his campaign was turning a positive result in blue/purple states and therefore had value as a political consultant, to people that had the means to pay him money after his Party of Regions income had dried up?

...Why do you think Mueller found no evidence that it had anything at all to do with “Russian interference” in the 2016 election?  Could it be because it didn’t?  

Mifsud was in contact with someone from the IRA, not Manafort. Manafort was in touch with Deripaska and Kilimnik. However I do think it's worth noting that Deripaska and Prigozhin aren't exactly strangers who never meet. They do, they're both oligarchs with intersecting interests. Who knows they may even be in business together. At a minimum Deripaska and Kilimnik interact with Russian intelligence which interacts with Prigoizhin. - As I posted above getting insight on what Deripaska actually did with the info was the water's edge for Mueller. Either it's classified and not publishable or it's classified and not available to Mueller, or he just could not get the detail. But what is obvious is the OSC felt there was a criminal motive or purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period, but they could not verify what it was because Manafort was such an inveterate liar and Deripaska's sphere was apparently impenetrable.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Are you surprised? 

No.  Seems to fit the pattern of some .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

No.  Seems to fit the pattern of some .

It definitely didn't happen. Even if it did happen, it didn't have any effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

McCarthy hasn’t quite yet reached the level of Hitler for bad analogy usage, but you and a few others are helping that along. You really ought to spend some time reading up on McCarthy before you continue on these awful comparisons. 

Maybe he means Kevin McCarthy.  He’s not Hitler but as one of his constituents I can say that I’m not a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t know why this polling data- again, much of which was public information- was transferred to Deripaska/Ukrainians.  But I find it incredibly stupid and honestly a little insulting to suggest it had some sort of connection to a Russian influence op; never mind the fact that the impact of the social media ads was blown way out of proportion.  

I have asked people over and over again to say which ads they thought were the most harmful, and no one ever does because they know it’s a joke.  

This conversation must have been had here at least a dozen times. I don't think the point for anyone who really pays attention was "dangerous" memes, it was repeated messaging over time designed to create dissension, resentment, otherwise shape attitudes, and ultimately voter suppression. If you want specific, false impactful claims look to WL's blogging and tweeting for that, though I think on the whole that ultimately had the same purpose.

- eta - And btw I'm not making a claim about whether the election was itself changed. Mueller did not examine that and I don't know if there is an objective report out there about that. I just think talking accurately about what happened is helpful and then of course feel free to debate away, as after that it's all speculation.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, timschochet said:

McCarthy hasn’t quite yet reached the level of Hitler for bad analogy usage, but you and a few others are helping that along. You really ought to spend some time reading up on McCarthy before you continue on these awful comparisons. 

Same country, same Soviet red iconography, same fearmongering, same browbeating smear tactics of dissenting voices.  Same craven disposition toward “the Russians“.  The same evidence-free assertions of treason and traitors.  The same pleas to patriotic jingoism and US nationalism.  The use of federal agencies to prosecute and investigate people for treasonous ties to a foreign govt.  It’s McCarthyism by definition.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This conversation must have been had here at least a dozen times. I don't think the point for anyone who really pays attention was "dangerous" memes, it was repeated messaging over time designed to create dissension, resentment, otherwise shape attitudes, and ultimately voter suppression. If you want specific, false impactful claims look to WL's blogging and tweeting for that, though I think on the whole that ultimately had the same purpose.

- eta - And btw I'm not making a claim about whether the election was itself changed. Mueller did not examine that and I don't know if there is an objective report out there about that. I just think talking accurately about what happened is helpful and then of course feel free to debate away, as after that it's all speculation.

We keep having the same conversation because people don’t want accept how boorish and ineffectual those stupid memes were.  Most of them had no relevance to the actual election, the majority of them were paid for after the election.  They look like they were intended more as clickbait for marketing purposes than a political influence operation.  You think Manafort was giving Deripaska polling data so he’d know where to target the masturbation memes and magically flip people into Trump voters?  Good lord, please spare me.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We really still have people denying the power of advertising and propaganda?  Do you think companies and lobbyists spend millions upon millions on those things because they don’t work?

Good advertising works.  Throwing #### on a wall is not good advertising.  

https://imgur.com/a/T3e8f6N

Does this seem like effective advertising to you?  This is the stuff that flipped the 2016 election?  

 

Edited by ren hoek
URLs not converting to hypertext in the current year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Same country, same Soviet red iconography, same fearmongering, same browbeating smear tactics of dissenting voices.  Same craven disposition toward “the Russians“.  The same evidence-free assertions of treason and traitors.  The same pleas to patriotic jingoism and US nationalism.  The use of federal agencies to prosecute and investigate people for treasonous ties to a foreign govt.  It’s McCarthyism by definition.  

BS - all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Good advertising works.  Throwing #### on a wall is not good advertising.  

https://imgur.com/a/T3e8f6N

Does this seem like effective advertising to you?  This is the stuff that flipped the 2016 election?  

 

We have seen people repeat complete lies and propaganda for over three years...yes even the dumbest stuff can have an effect. And when you just take that extreme and say...”Well that wouldn’t do anything so none of it would.”...You are being quite dishonest.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2017 at 8:01 PM, Mr. Ham said:

Editorial...you will NEVER wash this off.  You will ALWAYS be a lesser American if you continue to divert from the truth here, or avoid it.  Goes for Joe Citizen and GOP Congressman alike.  This means YOU.

At some point it doesn't matter how you came to be an obstinate, traitorous pig -- only that you've ignored the preponderance of evidence and weighting of source, and you are. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We have seen people repeat complete lies and propaganda for over three years...yes even the dumbest stuff can have an effect. And when you just take that extreme and say...”Well that wouldn’t do anything so none of it would.”...You are being quite dishonest.

https://imgur.com/a/7VvgV7z

It was this one wasn’t it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ren hoek said:

https://imgur.com/a/7VvgV7z

It was this one wasn’t it.  

Yes those two were the only ones. 

Somehow you think you are making a solid point here.  Not sure why. Are you under the impression that was the only propaganda used during the lead up to the election?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Same country, same Soviet red iconography, same fearmongering, same browbeating smear tactics of dissenting voices.  Same craven disposition toward “the Russians“.  The same evidence-free assertions of treason and traitors.  The same pleas to patriotic jingoism and US nationalism.  The use of federal agencies to prosecute and investigate people for treasonous ties to a foreign govt.  It’s McCarthyism by definition.  

Well you got the “same country” part right anyhow. The rest of your post runs the gamut from mildly incorrect to complete and total nonsense. But you made a good beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Throwing #### on a wall" is pretty much the definition of good advertising.

No one has any idea which advertising concepts will catch on with the general public. Some of the greatest advertising campaigns in history started out as a "#### on a wall" idea.

Sometimes it's a matter of testing out your slogans (or memes) on a small group of people. If the slogan gets enough positive responses, then you roll it out to a wider audience. And even then it might not flourish.

Of course, your entire theory is ironic because you're basically replicating an ad campaign but on a micro level:

Russian ad exec #1: We need an effective slogan for our next misinformation campaign. Let's throw some #### on a wall in a brainstorming session, and see if anything sticks.

Russian ad exec #2: Hey, wait a second. That would actually good slogan! Let's use that.

Russian ad exec #1: What do you mean?

Russian ad exec #2: Well, how about we call the campaign "Throwing #### On A Wall Is Not Good Advertising"!?

Russian ad exec #1: Brilliant! Let's have some operatives try out the slogan on a few local message boards to see what kind of response it gets. If the response sticks -- pun intended, ha ha -- we'll go nationwide with it in 2020.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes those two were the only ones. 

Somehow you think you are making a solid point here.  Not sure why. Are you under the impression that was the only propaganda used during the lead up to the election?  

Of course- it was this one wasn’t it?  

https://imgur.com/a/4TLHbSW

I’m trying to figure out which ones people think influenced the election.  They said it was a vast influence operation.  Which ones flipped Pennsylvania?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Of course- it was this one wasn’t it?  

https://imgur.com/a/4TLHbSW

I’m trying to figure out which ones people think influenced the election.  They said it was a vast influence operation.  Which ones flipped Pennsylvania?  

Their effectiveness by individual ad isn’t the point.  And I suspect you know it...have a nice day.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Their effectiveness by individual ad isn’t the point.  And I suspect you know it...have a nice day.

 

34 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Their effectiveness by individual ad isn’t the point.  And I suspect you know it...have a nice day.

There was pinpoint targeting of millions in ads based on polling data that the Trump campaign provided. Are we:

A) Pretending this didn’t happen?

B) Pretending it was done, but to no effect?

What are the alternative facts these days?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 2:20 AM, Bozeman Bruiser said:

The leaks that are coming out now about emails between Comey and Brennan in December 2016 with regards to including the dossier in the official intelligence report do not look good. They are pointing the finger and playing hot potato with the dossier, not what you would expect if it was anything more than unverifiable opposition research/Russian disinformation.

Can’t wait until these emails come out. :popcorn: I do tend to lean towards Comey actually being the one telling the truth here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

We keep having the same conversation because people don’t want accept how boorish and ineffectual those stupid memes were.  Most of them had no relevance to the actual election, the majority of them were paid for after the election.  They look like they were intended more as clickbait for marketing purposes than a political influence operation.  You think Manafort was giving Deripaska polling data so he’d know where to target the ...memes and magically flip people into Trump voters?  Good lord, please spare me.  

This is what was going on - and I invite you to look at the report to discuss:

  • Deripaska gets the polling data. As you know he is connected to oligarchs and intelligence, which is how it works in the Putin power world. But it was more than that, "Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election."
  • A pro-Russian peace deal was delivered to Manafort (fwiw there was another one delivered to Cohen, which may or may not be the same one). "That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a “backdoor” means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine." - A good deal of this is redacted for grand jury - so this seems like something that everyone should want Barr to reveal.
  • "Manafort met with Kilimnik personally twice, including in August just a few days (wink wink) before Il Trumpo fired him. They discussed the two above things, plus outstanding financial disputes between Manafort, Deripaska, and Yanukovych, and "how Manafort might be able to obtain payment." I think somewhere these disputes had been estimated at around $20+ million.

So what I see here going on at the same time, looking at the report is: 1. polling data and the internal election strategy, 2. POLICY influence, and 3. Money.

Now you can keep banging away at this question that Mueller, the SIC, you me, the DNC and GOP can never really prove or resolve, but what you can do is realize this: it was worth it to them.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

Can’t wait until these emails come out. :popcorn: I do tend to lean towards Comey actually being the one telling the truth here.

Completely illogical that some deep state plotted against Trump, but whoops, forgot to release anything before the election. It’s bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Ham said:

 

There was pinpoint targeting of millions in ads based on polling data that the Trump campaign provided. Are we:

A) Pretending this didn’t happen?

B) Pretending it was done, but to no effect?

What are the alternative facts these days?

Remember when Trump said his presidency was over?  Even he thought his supporters would finally wake up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess wonders never cease....clearly part of the deep state though, right?  I mean....right?  Can't be anything else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Rep. Jason Amash is a Republican Congressman and he wrote this.

- Please send him a good bootle of scotch or a case of beer or something.

This is what the Democrats needed. 

I would still like to get Mueller’s public testimony first. But if Trump prevents that somehow, start the process. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ren hoek said:

I believe it was about “battleground states”.  Again, what specifically are you suggesting was the point of this transfer- not just to Deripaska, but to Ukrainians that stood to pay Manafort money- can you please say what you think it was?  

Why, if the idea was to somehow influence the election- and this is several months before Trump even got the nomination- wouldn’t he just send it to Prigozhyn?  Was it because it was about showing how his campaign was turning a positive result in blue/purple states and therefore had value as a political consultant, to people that had the means to pay him money after his Party of Regions income had dried up?

I don’t know why this polling data- again, much of which was public information- was transferred to Deripaska/Ukrainians.  But I find it incredibly stupid and honestly a little insulting to suggest it had some sort of connection to a Russian influence op; never mind the fact that the impact of the social media ads was blown way out of proportion.  

I have asked people over and over again to say which ads they thought were the most harmful, and no one ever does because they know it’s a joke.  

Why do you think Mueller found no evidence that it had anything at all to do with “Russian interference” in the 2016 election?  Could it be because it didn’t?  

Sorry... why do you find it “insulting”?

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the guy who thinks an entire forum of posters has been scammed by a nefarious anti-Trump propaganda effort also believes that nefarious propaganda efforts have no impact on people's opinions?

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.