Manafort lied about sharing presidential polling data with Russian linked to intelligence services

[calfoxwc]

well, you can't find any opinion pieces that don't use fractured english, misspelled words,

nonsense catch phrases, and letters and symbols, like you are posting from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

[cccjwh]

 

[OldBrownsFan]

New York Times Forced To “Correct” Major Story On The Manafort Case

Lies and the Spreading of Fake Information

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/01/09/new-york-times-forced-correct-major-story-manafort-case/

 

[cccjwh]

2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

New York Times Forced To “Correct” Major Story On The Manafort Case

Lies and the Spreading of Fake Information

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/01/09/new-york-times-forced-correct-major-story-manafort-case/

 

Come now old, what was the correction or are you trying to say the whole story was fake? I trying to figure out if your dishonesty, lazy, or stupid.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

25 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Come now old, what was the correction or are you trying to say the whole story was fake? I trying to figure out if your dishonesty, lazy, or stupid.

 

Read the article. The NY Times (the paper of record LOL)  got it wrong again and when they get this stuff wrong it is always damaging to Trump..I'll quote some of the article:

Story after story has been written on this crap and story after story has been walked back. What all the stories have in common is one thing, they were all wrong in a way that was potentially damaging to Trump. Simple probability tells us that at some point one of these retracted stories should have been in Trump’s favor. But that hasn’t been the case.

[cccjwh]

1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Read the article. The NY Times (the paper of record LOL)  got it wrong again and when they get this stuff wrong it is always damaging to Trump..I'll quote some of the article:

Story after story has been written on this crap and story after story has been walked back. What all the stories have in common is one thing, they were all wrong in a way that was potentially damaging to Trump. Simple probability tells us that at some point one of these retracted stories should have been in Trump’s favor. But that hasn’t been the case.

So didn't bother to read it. Just ignore it.

The Times got the names of the Ukrainians wrong. That is it. But that is all you needed to ignore the entire story. Manafort still gave polling data to a known Russian intelligence agent. Which is collision, in case you didn't know.

 

CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

5 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

So didn't bother to read it. Just ignore it.

The Times got the names of the Ukrainians wrong. That is it. But that is all you needed to ignore the entire story. Manafort still gave polling data to a known Russian intelligence agent. Which is collision, in case you didn't know.

 

CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported.

 

So why was that mistake important and misleading? Oleg Deripaska has close ties to the Kremlin. That is why.

"Hay was made of the fact that the data was shared with a Russian oligarch, or Oleg-arch, with ties to Putin. Not so much hay was made of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s oppo research firm, Fusion GPS was working to get sanctions removed from Deripaska or that Deripaska had undertaken at least one mission at the behest of the FBI. Still, if you are one of the conspiracy theorist who are still running with the “Russia elected Trump” nonsense, it gave you fresh hope."

 

As it turned out, from a NYT point of view, all of those Slavs look pretty much alike. The data went to Ukrainian oligarchs who have not been accused of preventing Hillary Clinton from traveling to Wisconsin and it looks like simple grifting.

Story after story has been written on this crap and story after story has been walked back. What all the stories have in common is one thing, they were all wrong in a way that was potentially damaging to Trump. Simple probability tells us that at some point one of these retracted stories should have been in Trump’s favor. But that hasn’t been the case."

CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html …

LYOVOCHKIN & AKHMETOV had funded Russia-aligned political parties for which MANAFORT had worked. Manafort believed he was still owed $$$ for the work. Passing along polling data to the oligarchs could be a way to try to collect by proving continued value. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html …

 

[cccjwh]

Just now, OldBrownsFan said:

So why was that mistake important and misleading? Oleg Deripaska has close ties to the Kremlin. That is why.

"Hay was made of the fact that the data was shared with a Russian oligarch, or Oleg-arch, with ties to Putin. Not so much hay was made of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s oppo research firm, Fusion GPS was working to get sanctions removed from Deripaska or that Deripaska had undertaken at least one mission at the behest of the FBI. Still, if you are one of the conspiracy theorist who are still running with the “Russia elected Trump” nonsense, it gave you fresh hope."

 

As it turned out, from a NYT point of view, all of those Slavs look pretty much alike. The data went to Ukrainian oligarchs who have not been accused of preventing Hillary Clinton from traveling to Wisconsin and it looks like simple grifting.

Story after story has been written on this crap and story after story has been walked back. What all the stories have in common is one thing, they were all wrong in a way that was potentially damaging to Trump. Simple probability tells us that at some point one of these retracted stories should have been in Trump’s favor. But that hasn’t been the case."

CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html …

LYOVOCHKIN & AKHMETOV had funded Russia-aligned political parties for which MANAFORT had worked. Manafort believed he was still owed $$$ for the work. Passing along polling data to the oligarchs could be a way to try to collect by proving continued value. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html …

 

You know who has even closer ties to the Kremlin? Kilimnik, the Russian agent that Manafort gave the polling data to and asked to pass it on. Stop trying to throw out the baby with the bath water. 

 

[TexasAg1969]

2 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

You know who has even closer ties to the Kremlin? Kilimnik, the Russian agent that Manafort gave the polling data to and asked to pass it on.

To the heart of the matter exactly.

[Clevfan4life]

OBF just abandon ship, you're not bailing that many leaks. 

[Clevfan4life]

5 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Passing along polling data to the oligarchs could be a way to try to collect by proving continued value. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html …

 

wow what a complete load of horseshit if that is what Manafort is claiming. This shit has jumped the shark