Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
Paul bemoans the confusion of Americans over the Russia probe, but his fellow travelers contribute much to that confusion.
drummerboy has literally become a J Edgar Hoover/McCarthyite
"Literally". Is it a club? Has Drummerboy paid the application fee to join or the dues? Does he have a membership card?
paulsurovell said:
tom said:
So thinking motives/means/opportunity for a minute. Where did the means for this venture come from? Airfare, lodging, meals, computer hardware, ad buys, AWS rack space, fake documents and whatever else was mentioned in the indictment all costs money.
If it wasn't the Russian government, which had the motive, then who was it that ponied up the cash and why?
You need to ask Mueller why he didn't indict the Russian government.
I do not know how often tom speaks with Mueller, but next time I have lunch with Bob Mueller I'll ask him and we'll both have a good laugh.
Indict a government! 
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
What the f### difference does that make?
All this thrashing misdirection, obfuscation and whattaboutism has just become pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed already?
paulsurovell said:
The indictment appears to be credible -- 13 Russian trolls who didn't affect the outcome, who didn't collude with the Trump campaign. Not much of anything, certainly didn't "undermine our democracy."
Like what I posted from WaPo recently (below).
Here's what Greenwald said:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964615346983489536
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964585333928222721
Trump won the Electoral College by winning a by a few thousand votes in three States. Just about anything and everything done during the campaign affected the outcome.
tom said:
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
What the f### difference does that make?
All this thrashing misdirection, obfuscation and whattaboutism has just become pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed already?
Paul has no sense of embarrassment, about anything. He'll willingly lie and distract at every opportunity. Once you realize that, it makes it a lot easier just to laugh your a$$ off at almost all of what he posts.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
tom said:
So thinking motives/means/opportunity for a minute. Where did the means for this venture come from? Airfare, lodging, meals, computer hardware, ad buys, AWS rack space, fake documents and whatever else was mentioned in the indictment all costs money.
If it wasn't the Russian government, which had the motive, then who was it that ponied up the cash and why?
You need to ask Mueller why he didn't indict the Russian government.
I do not know how often tom speaks with Mueller, but next time I have lunch with Bob Mueller I'll ask him and we'll both have a good laugh.
Indict a government!
Yes, usually that's done by indicting a high-level official, such as Putin.
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
His question implies nothing of the sort.
But if you can believe that Russians did not try to interfere with the election and/or Putin is absolutely innocent in the matter than, I guess, someone can believe that Mueller indicted Putin's cat.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
tom said:
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
What the f### difference does that make?
All this thrashing misdirection, obfuscation and whattaboutism has just become pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed already?
Paul has no sense of embarrassment, about anything. He'll willingly lie and distract at every opportunity. Once you realize that, it makes it a lot easier just to laugh your a$$ off at almost all of what he posts.
Gee Dennis, I know you like to flame and you've got anger issues, but that's the first time you've used the "L" word. Sorry to see you sink so low.
tom said:
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
What the f### difference does that make?
All this thrashing misdirection, obfuscation and whattaboutism has just become pathetic. Aren't you embarrassed already?
From a guy who's failed miserably every time he's tried to prove an argument on this thread, that's a very ironic question.
LOST said:
BTW, Mueller hasn't indicted anyone. A Grand Jury indicts.
As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware of this:
Judge Sol Wachtler:
"Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."
http://izquotes.com/quote/390624
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:His question implies nothing of the sort.
cramer said:Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
But if you can believe that Russians did not try to interfere with the election and/or Putin is absolutely innocent in the matter than, I guess, someone can believe that Mueller indicted Putin's cat.
I asked the question as a follow up to this:
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
The indictment appears to be credible -- 13 Russian trolls who didn't affect the outcome, who didn't collude with the Trump campaign. Not much of anything, certainly didn't "undermine our democracy."
Like what I posted from WaPo recently (below).
Here's what Greenwald said:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964615346983489536
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964585333928222721
Trump won the Electoral College by winning a by a few thousand votes in three States. Just about anything and everything done during the campaign affected the outcome.
I sneezed during the election.
And I said I was mimicking you, like, "yeah, we know, you told us Putin or the government weren't indicted."
paulsurovell said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Paul has no sense of embarrassment, about anything. He'll willingly lie and distract at every opportunity. Once you realize that, it makes it a lot easier just to laugh your a$$ off at almost all of what he posts.
Gee Dennis, I know you like to flame and you've got anger issues, but that's the first time you've used the "L" word. Sorry to see you sink so low.
Gee, Paul, if I have such anger issues, maybe you ought to think twice about inflaming me further. Also, I think I've used the "L" word before, in reference to you, although I am not about to waste time looking for it. However, rest assured I will use it 'Liberally" ( an "L" word you don't know or understand), just about any time I refer to you. Have a nice day.
paulsurovell said:
Judge Sol Wachtler:
"Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."
Not “any good prosecutor.” Prosecutors “by and large.” The original 1985 source, from an interview with The Daily News:
Wachtler, who became the state's top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."
(Eight years later, Judge Wachtler would be indicted.)
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Judge Sol Wachtler:
"Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."
Not “any good prosecutor.” Prosecutors “by and large.” The original 1985 source, from an interview with The Daily News:
Wachtler, who became the state's top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."
(Eight years later, Judge Wachtler would be indicted.)
Even better.
cramer said:
And I said I was mimicking you, like, "yeah, we know, you told us Putin or the government weren't indicted."
You said that after I asked the question, which Lost was concerned about.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Paul has no sense of embarrassment, about anything. He'll willingly lie and distract at every opportunity. Once you realize that, it makes it a lot easier just to laugh your a$$ off at almost all of what he posts.
Gee Dennis, I know you like to flame and you've got anger issues, but that's the first time you've used the "L" word. Sorry to see you sink so low.
Gee, Paul, if I have such anger issues, maybe you ought to think twice about inflaming me further. Also, I think I've used the "L" word before, in reference to you, although I am not about to waste time looking for it. However, rest assured I will use it 'Liberally" ( an "L" word you don't know or understand), just about any time I refer to you. Have a nice day.
I'm inflaming you? You've got even deeper issues than I thought.
Astute observation by Harry Shearer of the Simpsons on the caliber of the 13 Russian trolls:
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
And I said I was mimicking you, like, "yeah, we know, you told us Putin or the government weren't indicted."
You said that after I asked the question, which Lost concerned about.
I was referring to what I wrote just above that about Prigohzin being the financier of Internet Research Agency and the fact that he is a close ally of Putin with close ties to Russian Intelligence. My comment was about you saying that Putin/Russian government not being indicted in spite of the close association between Prigozhin and Putin and the intelligence services. I assume this is still your opinion. I also assume, since you have not answered my question, that there was no Russian interference in the election.
eta - The connection between Prigozhin and Putin re Internet Research Agency will probably not be proved because Putin is a master of plausible deniability.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:That only took a year.
The indictment appears to be credible...
If you consider how half-as*ed the alleged operation was, you can see why Mueller didn't try to blame the Russian government.
Your current tiresome tactic is as inane as your previous ones.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Your current tiresome tactic is as inane as your previous ones.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:That only took a year.
The indictment appears to be credible...
If you consider how half-as*ed the alleged operation was, you can see why Mueller didn't try to blame the Russian government.
Here's a comment last night by former CIA head James Woolsey on US interference in foreign elections:
cramer said:
My comment was about you saying that Putin/Russian government not being indicted in spite of the close association between Prigozhin and Putin and the intelligence services. I assume this is still your opinion. I also assume, since you have not answered my question, that there was no Russian interference in the election.
I've said several times here that I find it credible that Russian trolls posted messages on social media during the election. There were trolls from many countries during the election, including ours:
paulsurovell said:
Here's a comment last night by former CIA head James Woolsey on US interference in foreign elections:https://twitter.com/dcentralized/status/964900521793466374
OK.
paulsurovell said:
Trump won the Electoral College by winning a by a few thousand votes in three States. Just about anything and everything done during the campaign affected the outcome.
I sneezed during the election.
You know I meant anything and everything by way of campaigning, but if you sneezed in the direction of Hillary Clinton and she caught ill and fainted as a result then your sneeze affected the outcome.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:You know I meant anything and everything by way of campaigning, but if you sneezed in the direction of Hillary Clinton and she caught ill and fainted as a result then your sneeze affected the outcome.Trump won the Electoral College by winning a by a few thousand votes in three States. Just about anything and everything done during the campaign affected the outcome.
I sneezed during the election.
You are aware that when Donna Brazile expressed concern about Hillary's fainting, Hillary-for-America team said she got that idea from Russia (not a joke)
https://medium.com/@jesse_41795/open-letter-from-hillary-for-america-2016-team-f1c545304be1
It does not say she got that idea from Russia
attempt to mislead by misquoting, number 1765
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:You know I meant anything and everything by way of campaigning, but if you sneezed in the direction of Hillary Clinton and she caught ill and fainted as a result then your sneeze affected the outcome.
Trump won the Electoral College by winning a by a few thousand votes in three States. Just about anything and everything done during the campaign affected the outcome.
I sneezed during the election.
You are aware that when Donna Brazile expressed concern about Hillary's fainting, Hillary-for-America team said she got that idea from Russia (not a joke)
https://medium.com/@jesse_41795/open-letter-from-hillary-for-america-2016-team-f1c545304be1
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Trump is for Trump and no one or nothing else.