New York Times Issues Retraction In Bombshell Collusion Story

The New York Times caused a firestorm over its reporting that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort attempted to pass internal Trump campaign data to a Russia oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin during the 2016 presidential race. Various sites declared the story by reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman as the final corroboration of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. However, the New York Times later retracted the key connection to a Russian oligarch.

The story was based on a formatting error that disclosed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed Manafort had “lied about sharing polling data … related to the 2016 presidential campaign” with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian businessman with alleged ties to Russian intelligence. However, the Times also cited “a person knowledgeable about the situation” that Manafort had asked his deputy, Rick Gates, to “tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg P. Deripaska.” Deripaska is closely linked to Manafort in a 2006 contract to pay Manafort $10 million per year.

Even before the correction, I was underwhelmed by the sharing of polling data that appeared to be public information.

The Wednesday morning story however was corrected in the afternoon:

“A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin.”

In truth, there is little that I would not believe about Manafort who has long been viewed as a sleazy figure in Washington. Many of us were shocked when Trump selected him to head the campaign. However, this is a considerable difference in the accounts. Yet, many stories continue to rely on the original claims of the story of an exchange with a Russian oligarch.

264 thoughts on “New York Times Issues Retraction In Bombshell Collusion Story”

  1. The New York Times itself should be retracted…for treason.

    The New York Times is the propaganda arm of the indoctrination department of the communist party in America. The New York Times is the prime directorate of the democrat party. The New York Times is the manifestation of the enemies of the Constitution and the United States.

    Affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, quotas, Obamacare, forced busing, rent control, utility subsidies, social services, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, TANF, SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination,” “hate crime,” illegal immigration, invasion, regulation beyond the “flow” of commerce or exchange among the several states, etc. are all unconstitutional and all that the New York Times espouses and expounds on. Subversion of the Constitution is the act of a traitor and the New York Times has committed treason by profuse orders of magnitude.

    1. Haha. Excellent! You’ve made my day with your antics. You just keep on doin’ you; it’ll all be over soon. Thanks again. Cya!

      this is to “I would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those nosy kids and that dog” georgie – paulie



    The administration is eyeing unused money in the Army Corps of Engineers budget, specifically a disaster spending bill passed by Congress last year that includes $13.9 billion allocated but not spent for civil works projects, two people with knowledge of the developments said Thursday.

    Trump has urged the Army Corps to determine how fast contracts could be signed and whether construction could begin within 45 days, according to one of the people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the preparations.

    The list includes dozens of flood control projects in areas affected by recent natural disasters, including the Texas coastline inundated by Hurricane Harvey and parts of Puerto Rico battered by Hurricane Maria. The military construction budget is also being looked at as a potential source for unspent funds, with billions more potentially available there.

    Edited from: “Trump Administration Lays Groundwork To Declare National Emergency To Build Border Wall”


    1. RE. ABOVE:

      Are hurricanes ‘less’ of an emergency than Trump’s border wall? Do we ‘not’ want flood control projects? It seems like Congress should have some say on this matter.

    2. “one of the people who spoke on the condition of anonymity”

      As usual Peter Shills dependency on the anonymity of sources just like addicts depend on Heroin.

      I actually hope that if True Trump succeeds so the country can move on and we can better manage problems like Russia, China, N.Korea, Iran, disease, education, families, etc.

  3. With the exception of antitrust law, collusion is not a crime .So why are we still.talking a lot this?

    1. Yeah, rR, Trump should stick to that talking point: “Collusion Isn’t A Crime”. Trump and his allies show should repeat that every day. The public needs to hear that as much as possible.

      1. I love sarcasm, let me share some too!

        yes only lawyers and judges should care about things like whether or not something is listed in the US Code or a person can be run out on a rail for something that isn’t actually a crime. remember, the lowest bum in our society has the constitutional presumption of innocence but the President is presumed guilty.

        1. Obama was guilty when he woke up in the morning by the right. HRC was guilty of anything by the right, of course none of it was true but it did not stop right-wingers from yelling from the tree tops. Maybe you could tell us all of the guilty pleas and convictions of the Trump administration. Of course that does not make Trump guilty, but it looks really bad for a man that told us all that he only hires the best.

    2. I promise you that the federal conspiracy statutes are robust in the extreme. Stay tuned, playa.

      this is to “what’s this ‘shift lock’ key about?” rrrr



    Rudy Giuliani says President Trump’s legal team should be allowed to “correct” special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report before Congress or the American people get the chance to read it.

    The claim, made in a telephone interview with The Hill on Thursday evening, goes further than the president’s legal advisers have ever gone before in arguing they have a right to review the conclusions of Mueller’s probe, which is now in its 20th month.

    “As a matter of fairness, they should show it to you — so we can correct it if they’re wrong,” said the former New York City mayor, who is a member of Trump’s personal legal team. “They’re not God, after all. They could be wrong.”

    The special counsel’s office declined to comment.

    In the wide-ranging interview, Giuliani also made light of the decision by Michael Cohen — Trump’s former attorney, who was recently sentenced to three years in prison — to testify in public before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Feb. 7.

    “Big deal!” Giuliani exclaimed sarcastically.

    He also downplayed this week’s revelation that the president’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, allegedly shared opinion poll data during the 2016 campaign with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian citizen who had previously worked with Manafort in Ukraine and is suspected of having ties to Russia’s military intelligence unit, the GRU.

    “Should he have done it? No. But there’s nothing criminal about it,” Giuliani said.

    Edited from: “Exclusive: Trump Team Should Be Allowed To Correct Mueller Report”

    From today’s THE HILL

    1. RE. ABOVE

      The Hill story goes on to note the N.Y. Times correction which states that Manafort shared the data with “Two Ukrainian Oligarchs”. The Hill, however, fails to share Professor Turley’s outrage that the N.Y. Times made that correction. Though I noticed that the N.Y. Times correction bounced around right-wing media this morning. Apparently Professor Turley feels an obligation to echo that bounce.

      But it seems the more important story here is Giuliani’s claim that The White House has a right to ‘correct’ The Mueller Report. I’m very surprised that Professor Turley didn’t address this development. Strangely he felt the N.Y. Times correction was somehow more newsworthy. That’s too bad. I would like to have gotten his take on Giuliani’s audacious claim.

    2. I am confused – can somebody please enlighten me: Is Loopy PH and Crazy Eyes Late4Yoga one in the same, separated at birth, and/or kindred spirits?

      1. Bill, I’m confused. With this comment above, are you attempting to assert yourself as a source of clever wit? I mean, do you fancy yourself as ‘devastatingly humorous’?

        Because your post falls woefully short of clever wit. It reads instead as a ‘pedestrian observation’. One made by an all too common man. You might be well-advised not to over-reach.

        1. On the contrary, I think Bill is pointing to some qualities and similarities of two people on this blog who have totally destroyed any of their credibility. I think he was being pleasant instead of portraying either of the two in the most accurate terms available.

          1. Allan, where does it say that liberals must run their comments by you for approval to post?

            You don’t ‘want’ opposing points of view? You prefer an echo chamber? As liberal as you think I am, I want to see opposing views. Echo chambers are only for the very stupid.

            1. personally i find peter and enigma’s contributions worthwhile to discuss in spite of their propagandistic habits. welcome, partners in meaningful dialogue!

              the other natch-late composite character I do not bother to read

              1. Kurtz, no one advocates preventing Peter or Enigma from speaking. Neither say very much that is new and neither seem to be able to separate truth from fiction. Both lie alot and one loves to play the race card. I’m not quite sure what their contributions are unless one wishes to believe in fiction. However, in your case, you seem to read alot of good fiction so their type of writing might be more interesting to you than to me.

                I did download Heart of Darkness to my reading list. I’m not sure if I read it while in school but I remember writing a book report on it and getting an excellent grade. I was too busy with the more technical courses at the time but you sparked my interest.

                  1. Time passes. Things change. Thus a racist today (the most pejoritive meaning of the word) might not have been a racist yesterday. Whether today or yesterday one’s culture counts. Ignorance is not racism. The truth is not racism. PC enhances racism and makes it more dangerous. Persistantly closed minds can be both ignorant and racist.

                1. the thing i like is the chance to get to hear them talk with more candor than anyone would in person. you see we are surrounded with liberal type cant all the time. and lawyers are even worse than regular folks too believe me. but, people are fake and don’t say what they believe is important, when they think others are listening and they will get in trouble. here, people are freer with their remarks and I like that.

                  most people in real life won’t talk politics with me because if they know me, they think that I am too feudalistic to put it nicely. so it’s fun to be able to chat!

                  1. Kurtz, they are saying nothing new or enlightened. They are repeating memes without significant thought attached. I can read some of the same things anywhere. Talking to them is like fly fishing. Put out the fly and watch them go after it.

                    A joke I long ago placed on this list is all one needs to know about them (the parrots that repeat their masters bidding). A boat of prominent people including Senators and the Pope is in the water with sharks surrounding the boat on every side. A child falls out of the boat and into the shark infested waters. None of those brilliant people have any idea of how to save the child’s life so Trump jumps out of the boat and rescues the child while walking on water. The next day the New York Times reads: TRUMP CAN’T SWIM.

            2. “Allan, where does it say that liberals must run their comments by you for approval to post?”

              Have I asked for such a thing to happen? Why would I want to stop you from making a fool of yourself? Who would we laugh at?

              “You don’t ‘want’ opposing points of view? You prefer an echo chamber?”

              I love opposing views and anytime you wish to take part in an intelligent discussion I am always here. However that means you have to act intelligently which doesn’t seem likely. You prefer to play the part of a parrot that repeats whatever he hears without much thought to what was being said. Parrots might be able to repeat human words but they aren’t very smart.

        2. I am sorry Ma’am – I guess I struck a nerve with you. Perhaps you can go and find another soothing lefty article to cut and paste here vs. original thought. That will surely make you feel better.

      2. Borderline Personality Disorder, Axis II, psychological illness for which there exists no pharmacological treatment. BPD patients have no friends, are smug, impusive, feelings of dissociation, intense anger, chaotic relationships, blame eveeyone for what is wrong in the world and have unstable mood. Think Hillary Clinton and you get the picture. Liberals gave up God to turn to themselves and eventually on everyone who thinks differently than themselves. Aka trolls like PH

        1. Estovir, ‘Liberals gave up God’..?? It wouldn’t seem that way. Liberals care about the poor, sick and elderly. They also care about wildlife and the environment. Those qualities sound Christian-like to me.

          But conservatives want to let toxic industries crush the planet with pollutants. Conservatives want to let ex-cons or lunatics purchase firearms with no hassles. Conservatives want to force women to carry the offspring of rapists. And conservatives demand the right to prevent minorities from voting!

          Yet in your bubble of a universe ‘conservatives are godly’. How curious that sounds. The perspective of man standing on his head.

          1. what you say about conservatives is nonsense

            however it’s also false to say “liberals gave up God.” In a certain sense of being part of a liberal democratic capitalist society, in that sense all of Western society is liberal and necessarily secular. In other words, it left the feudal system behind, Or, our technology has “killed” thge notion of God and the mystical in general, and now contemporary social norms are fundamentally materialistic. We are all fish in that water.


            though leftists have expounded on his philosophy with admiration, Heidegger is considered both conservative and an atheist, like wise Nietzsche before him. There’s a lot for folks to explore there if you’re interested

          2. Liberals care about the poor, sick and elderly.

            No, they don’t. Some rank-and-file Democratic voters do in a non-systematic way. Democratic pols care about building patron-client relationships. They’re not interested in rank-and-file working people, but in advancing the interests of the teachers’ unions, the trial lawyers, Hollywood, the social work trade, the mental health trade, and academe.

          3. But conservatives want to let toxic industries crush the planet with pollutants. Conservatives want to let ex-cons or lunatics purchase firearms with no hassles. Conservatives want to force women to carry the offspring of rapists. And conservatives demand the right to prevent minorities from voting!

            Peter takes the most dim-witted talking points quite seriously and literally.

            1. i agree that he recited tropes but to say that a liberal is godless is something of a trope as well.

              i was trying to illustrate that we almost all function in range of social and political norms that accepts secularism as desirable. personal belief in God or not is thus mostly irrelevant to discussions, anymore, because nobody in the West is advocating a return to any kind of non-secular regime anyways.

              of course it’s part of the Protestant way of thinking, that personal belief is really important or not. In this regard Catholics are more like the religious of other nations, who experience faith as a communal exercise and not a subject of internal solopsism. That said, American Catholics are more like Protestants all the time, I guess because this is a fundamentally Protestant society like that or not.

              1. “nobody in the West is advocating a return to any kind of non-secular regime anyways.”

                Kurtz, some groups residing in this country do believe in a non-secular regime and have documented that belief. They would prefer Sharia Law and had written plans to accomplish that. See the Muslim Brotherhood declaration that was used in evidence in the Holy Land Trial. Look at all the groups including the Muslim Student Association where their leaders have been arrested for promoting such an occurrence.

            2. Liberals😇= GOOD,
              Reposting and repeating this illustration and “analysis” will do just as well as repeating the talking points.

          4. “Liberals care about the poor, sick and elderly.”

            Without question as long as they are illegal aliens but they don’t give a damn about hard working American families. Instead Liberals suck up to their masters and pretend to care as long as they feel comfortable and their masters have cheap labor.

            “But conservatives want to let toxic industries crush the planet with pollutants. Conservatives want to let ex-cons or lunatics purchase firearms with no hassles. Conservatives want to force women to carry the offspring of rapists. And conservatives demand the right to prevent minorities from voting!

            Conservatives want common sense to prevail and let toxic industries pay for the damages they cause which makes them desireous to be clean. Conservatives want American citizens to have the right to buy guns, Liberals want guns only in the hands of those that illegally posses them. Conservatives want to prevent rape from occurring in the first place while Liberals are OK with rape as long as they get something out of it. Conservatives want one vote per one citizen. Liberals wish to permit dead people to vote as long as they know the vote will be in their favor.

            The above, Peter, is a list of good discussions for debate. When you come out of your coma and wish to debate as a Liberal without the lies do so. I will be waiting, but I don’t think you are able.

              1. Tom, you’re using a high school newspaper to buttress your point?
                That’s ‘all’ you could find??

                1. Yes, a High School newspaper.
                  I just hope that the content was not too offensive for you, and that you’re not too disappointed if you feel that the journalistic quality is not up to par with your HHHNN.😊😀😂

            1. Awesomeness. I suggest you re-read what you’ve posted when you sober up. Please post more materials Just. Like. This.

              this is to “it’s five o/clock somewhere, though I did start a little early today” allan / allen

              in case you forget or this missive lands far from the original, this is in response to your comical liberal / conservative contrast–especially the “rape” line of humor.

              1. “this is in response to your comical liberal / conservative contrast–especially the “rape” line of humor.”

                Marky, are you fixated on rape? Do we have to get the women and young girls off the streets where you prowl?

          5. PH,
            That is not what conservatives “want”. That is unfair. Try steel-manning your opponents’ instead to get a more accurate understanding so the debate can progress more effectively.

      3. Bill Martin — Linguistic analysis suggests two people. In addition, L4D appears the more incisive.

        1. They’re attacking PH because they have no defense of Trump.

          L4D has no incisors of her own anymore. But, boy, if only I did . . .

            1. I’m not allowed to hold those anymore. I have to use the kiddie scissors with the rounded ends.

          1. “They’re attacking PH” for many of the same reasons that you provoke attacks.
            But rather than face up to that, it’s easier for you to make claims that you are “bullied”, or that you’re a martyr for the cause, etc.
            Try this one out; the attacks are caused by resentment of the saintly 😇, noble, altruistic, superior ones like you and St. Peter.

              1. Yes, both of them think because thinking is necessary even if one is distorting or lying. I’m holding off on characterizing Peter in that fashion pending his future comments since he was good enough to try to provide the rationals behind some of his statements even though he confused opinion with fact. Nontheless the attempt was laudable.

                YNOT doesn’t think at all and he never says anything on the topic at hand.

                You, David, fit in the middle sometimes not thinking and sometimes thinking but too frequently the thinking is superficial and based on erroneous facts.

                1. In order to defend a person one has to know what they are accused of and one has to see the paper trail. So far, Diane you have utterly failed in that mission.

                  I am waiting.

                2. When the debate isn’t even about Trump and you can’t keep up, keep repeating things like “they have no defense of Trump”.
                  That’s one way of derailing an actual exchange and showing off a talent for evasiveness and obfuscation.
                  L4B’s history of distorting what others have said, and outright lying, might occasionally get a blunt response, but there’s always her “I’m attacked because I’m a martyr for the cause” defense.

              2. Good one, Dr. Bobble-head.
                And you actually extended yourself and wrote a complete sentence.
                Soon, you may get ambitious enough to write
                even a cogent paragraph, but pace yourself.

                1. The congratulatory comment about writing a complete sentence was for DB Benson’s comment above.

      4. Bill Martin, Stay Tuned.
        There may be more material/ indications due shortly to help evaluate the issues you raised.😉😀



      Here is Peter Shill twisting the news again and acting as if what he says is accurate. He could have easily extracted the exact words of Giuliani but he didn’t because The Shill wishes to distort the truth for those that are still stupid enough to believe anything The Shill says. Here are Giuliani’s words according to The Hill.

      “As a matter of fairness, they should show it to you — so we can correct it if they’re wrong,” said the former New York City mayor, who is a member of Trump’s personal legal team. “They’re not God, after all. They could be wrong.”

      Where is Giuliani saying the White House has a right to ***edit*** the Mueller Report? Let’s say Mueller made a mistake and the President provides evidence for the mistake. Should Mueller not be aware before the report is published?

      1. Alan, it’s not the White House’s place to ‘correct’, edit or censor The Mueller Report. That’s a glaring conflict of interest.

        The White House can always rebut the report upon its release.

        1. Not so. Mueller should automatically check with the White House before the final draft of the report is published. The White House has information Mueller may not have.

          The discussion is not whether or not Mueller must correct his report, only that the White House be given a chance to correct any mistakes in advance. No one said the White House should be given the right to rewrite the report.

          What you are looking for, Peter, is a political advantage not the truth. That is your problem. You don’t care about truth, right or wrong, moral or immoral. All you care about is your end objectives just like the ones that killed over 100 million people in the 20th centurty solely for political power. You are no different except from them except you don’t have the power to execute such policies.

  5. “The Wednesday morning story however was corrected in the afternoon:”

    The NYTImes should be publishing their corrections on the front page and sending them to all those with electronic subscriptions. The damage is not undone by repeating the article and then at the end telling the reader that this was a correction. Too many readers never read that far. That is one way the NYTimes tries to twist the news. They place their opinion on the first page and continue on page 27 where the bordom begins and where they place the news that should have been on the front page.

  6. The New York Times saying something that is untrue is not something unusual. Retractions are rarer but they only retract known lies when they have to. The newspaper is dishonest.

    I am still waiting for the NYTImes to give up its Pulitzer Prize on Stalin’s Russia by Walter Duranty in the 1930’s.

  7. Whether you ,or anyone, regards someone as a sleazy person, THIS TYPE OF REPORTING IS A TRAVESTY AND HARMING AMERICA! You should be smart enough to recognize the SMEAR campaign the NYT/WaPo/AP have conducted for 2 years against conservatives and question EVERYTHING they report. Americans are sick of 1/2 reporting, wrong reporting and biased reporting! How many times do we need to see the press and its desire to nail anyone conservative with ad hominem, strawmen, and red herring arguments make NATIONAL news. And the retractions are BS. For the last few days, every news outlet has proclaimed Trump collusion is a FACT based on this horridly false and purposely biased information. The assumptions made based on this are proving the media to be an ASS (which is why they align with the Democrat donkeys!)

  8. If it weren’t for the bottom of bird cages, there would be no reason for the NYT to exist.

  9. Wrong. Just an added intermediate step through the Ukraine linked to Putin.

  10. Journalism 101
    1. Throw sh!t against wall.
    2. See if it sticks.
    3. If not, add Gorilla Glue.
    4. Try again on different wall.

    1. Dawn,
      There is a more advanced 102 class based on the writings of Lies4Breakfast.
      Once she morphs from distorting to outright lying, there’s actually no turning back.
      Members of her coven may, or may not, be TA’s in the course based on her writings.
      That has not been determined, and that allegation has not been proven false.

  11. “In truth, there is little that I would not believe about Manafort who has long been viewed as a sleazy figure in Washington.”
    Based on the quality of their recent “journalism,” the same can be said about the New York Times.

    1. that remark was over the top for the good professor.
      Manafort is no angel but see if you can find one in the Swamp

  12. For all we know, Manafort was a double agent for the CIA. Any one of us at any time can only have part of the information related to any given set of conditions. We draw conclusions based on what we know. It makes little sense to bash others who have drawn different conclusions based on different assumptions.

    1. “For all we know, Manafort was a double agent for the CIA.”

      Samantha, drawing conclusions is not news.

      For all we know you could be a lunatic that escaped from the local mental hospital. We can announce that on the front page and later repeat the article with a correction that the records show you were never in the mental hospital but for all we know you could have been.

      1. Most of the Democrats who post here come off as snotty teenagers or head cases.

        1. DSS, I don’t think there are any teenagers on the blog. Maybe, however, there are some that are in their second childhood.

          1. DSS, I don’t think there are any teenagers on the blog.

            You mean aside from YNOT, FishWings, and Sam / Chris P. Bacon.

              1. cue Chuck and Nancy (aka lipstick on a pig)

                “What’s The Matter With the Democratic Party? Just Watch Pelosi and Schumer Respond to Trump’s Wall Speech”

                “Last night was yet another example of the Democratic Party’s glistening ineptitude.

                Sanders packed more visceral humanity in the first minute or so of his remarks than in the entirety of Pelosi and Schumer’s response.“

        2. So says the “head case” TIA x 2. Your comments certainly don’t mask who and what you really are.

          1. So, “ANONYMOUS” talks about “masking who and what you really are”.
            Think about that for a while.

        3. “Most of the Democrats who post here come off as snotty teenagers or head cases.”

          Stop being nice and giving rational excuses for this lot.

          1. one should admire the mental focus and purposeful comments of adversaries. emulate mental focus and purposeful comments, do better than them and let that quality be your reply

            that is for those who show focus and purposeful communications, rather than must malice

  13. about those pesky meddlesome russians, Russians, RUSSIANS….

    One supposes it is all relative, as with all things liberal, that sometimes Russians are good, Fabulous, AWESOME, but other times they are bad, Terrible, COLLUDERS! 🤪

    it just depends on how much money they are providing to liberals and their sanctimonious truth

    The Hill:

    FBI watched, then acted as Russian spy moved closer to Hillary Clinton

    As Hillary Clinton was beginning her job as President Obama’s chief diplomat, federal agents observed as multiple arms of Vladimir Putin’s machine unleashed an influence campaign designed to win access to the new secretary of State, her husband Bill Clinton and members of their inner circle, according to interviews and once-sealed FBI records.

    Other activities were perfectly legal and sitting in plain view, such as when a subsidiary of Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy company hired a Washington firm to lobby the Obama administration. At the time it was hired, the firm was providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pro bono support to Bill Clinton’s global charitable initiative, and it legally helped the Russian company secure federal decisions that led to billions in new U.S. commercial nuclear business, records show.

    Agents were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s version of Silicon Valley, agents said.

  14. hysterical. The NYT reported in 2015

    “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”

    and liberal two faced hypocrites cried in unison “nothing here, she did nothing wrong!!!!”

    Behold, and lo!, the NYT now issues a retraction (a trend Americans have seen in the MSM) of the russians, Russians, RUSSIANS, and the same liberal two faced hypocrites who ran around Hillary defending her wearing tin foiled hats scream “Collusion!!!!”

    Better to state they are a collision….a totally mucked up group of fascists wishing to tear down our Constitution.

    Build the wall, President Trump, and throw over that wall these anarchists via catapult to rid us of these fascists infidels

    Cue Monty Python! 😜

  15. Various sites declared the story by reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman as the final corroboration of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

    Because he supposedly showed them polling data? Motivated reasoning at work.

  16. Oh! For crying out loud, already!. Not that oligarch; these oligarchs: Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov are both Ukrainian oligarchs of Russian dissent just like Viktor Yanukovich. If Turley thinks that Akhmetov and Lyovochkin are a better sort of oligarch than Deripaska or Yanukovich or even The Agalarovs, then Turley is the one who is misinformed.

    As for the polling data, some of it was NOT public information. Some of that “polling data” was in-house Trump campaign “polling data.” For another thing, the publicly available “polling data” is almost certainly a cover story as well as a euphemism for the in-house “data analytics” of the Trump campaign. If you cross reference the Trump data analytics with the DNC data analytics that the GRU hacked from the Amazon Web Services “cloud storage” you get the infamous “weaponized” information that can target individual voters in an election that turned on only 80.000 votes in just three states.

    Years from now, when the books start coming out, the authors of those books will marvel at just how badly the glorious free press garbled pretty much every last tidbit that came across the wire services and landed on some poor copy writer’s desk.

    1. “Oh! For crying out loud, already!. Not that oligarch; these oligarchs: Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov are both Ukrainian oligarchs of Russian dissent just like Viktor Yanukovich.”
      And who cares if it’s a lie and published and that of the three only Yanukovich has ties to Russian Intelligence. None of that matters. It’s get Trump all day, everyday!

    2. Hold your horses. The Times can call it “polling data” all it wants, but none of its sources can tell the public what it is. If the Times knows, it still doesn’t want to tell us. If the data is Trump’s in-house polling data, so what? That’s not classified information. The Public also doesn’t know of any “oligarch” that can be proven to be a Russian agent for Putin. All the “cross-referencing” in the world can’t add up to an indictment of a sitting president or even an impeachment. Even a Senate trial needs to have witnesses under oath who will be cross-examined in public by the accused’s attorneys.

      Why do Trump’s enemies keep denying the obvious: the only American we KNOW colluded with Putin is that criminal and traitor Edward Snowden, who is the only American given sanctuary by Putin to avoid American justice. Snowden’s stolen data is what enabled the GRU to do its dirty work in the first place.

      1. igpres said, “The Times can call it “polling data” all it wants . . ”

        Manafort’s lawyers called it polling data. They filed a response to Mueller’s declaration that Manafort was in breach of his plea agreement. Manafort’s response referred to allegations that Mueller had had redacted. Numerous reporters quickly discovered that if the redactions from Manafort’s lawyer’s response were copied and pasted into a new document, then they were no longer redacted. And that’s the only reason that we know any of this to begin with.

        It’s possible that Mueller may also have referred to the information at issue as “polling data.” It’s also possible that Manafort’s lawyers, alone, substituted the words “polling data” as a euphemism for in-house Trump-campaign “data analytics.” The redactions were Manafort’s lawyer’s redactions. Not Mueller’s redactions.

    3. Old Crazy Eyes Late4Yoga is so stuck in anti-Trump default setting that she goes so far as to defend admitted Fake News. #JumpedTheShark

      1. Ahkmetov and Lyovochnik paid Manafort $2.4 million while Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager. They did not pay Manafort $2.4 million for “polling data.” They paid Manafort $2.4 million for sanctions relief and a restoration to power in The Ukraine of their benefactor Viktor Yanukovich.

        P. S. Konstantin Kilimnik worked with and for Ahkmetov, Lyovochnik and Yanukovich as well as with and for Deripaska.

        1. This strikes me as probable. Ahkmentov appears to be as corrupt as they come; well, at least in the gold-plated ranks.

          1. So Rinat Ahkmetov is an ethnic Tatar and a Sunni Muslim. He admits to be being an oligarch, but denies any involvement in organized crime. He own a football team, though. Maybe it’s one of the squeaky clean football teams.


            Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov is a Ukrainian businessman, philanthropist, and oligarch. He is the founder and President of System Capital Management (SCM), …

          2. So Lyovochkin is not an oligarch, but a crooked politician, close to Yanukovich, who helped Manafort smear Yulia Timoshenko as well as then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


            Serhiy Lovochkin is a Ukrainian politician, Member of the Parliament of Ukraine. Over 20 years, he has held various leading posts in civil service as well as top …

        2. As Hillary stated she and Bill left the White House poor, how did she amass hundreds of millions of dollars?

    4. you sound like you believe that you are an expert on Russian oligarchs.

      Please discuss your credentials. How did you become an expert on such things?

      1. You sound like you’re an expert on impersonating Perry Mason (or is it still Matlock you’re imitating?)

        Nobody, and I mean nobody whosoever, is going to demand credentials from any Perry Mason impersonator, whether expert or more like Kurtz, above.

    5. L4D typed, “. . . Ukrainian oligarchs of Russian dissent . . ”

      Clearly and distinctly, PH would have typed the correct word–descent.

      Ergo, PH is not L4D.

        1. On second thought, the phrase “Ukrainians of Russian ‘dissent'” might very well apply to FUBARAllan.

          1. Diane, you can try to attach any phrase you wish to my name since only you control what you write and to date that writing has been pretty poor and contradictory. However, none of your smokescrean alters what I said. You wanted to distinguish yourself from Peter because some say you are he and he is you. That is a good idea for both of you because both of you are wacko whether one person or two. I replied that you are not to be trusted because you have used more than one alias.

            1. FUBARAllan says he trusts people who use only one alias. Ergo, FUBARAllan trusts PH. Also, FUBARAllan distrusts DSS inter alia.

              1. Diane you can’t keep things straight. That is why most of your political comments are wrong and foolish.

                Where did I say Allan “trusts people who use only one alias”? No such statement was made which makes you even less trustworthy. I stated that because you chose to use more than one alias you could not be trusted. That doesn’t mean I trust people with one alias. I don’t necessarily. DSS has had multiple aliases. That makes hims suspect as well but I note even though I have some disagreements with him he is consistent and I know who he is. I also note that a lot of what he says is verifiable while you contradict yourself in different time frames and you frequently lie and distort what has been said just like you did in this case.

                I don’t know if you and PH are the same and I don’t care. Right now PH started to prove his case which I think is laudable even though he has done it in the wrong way. I’m hoping he corrects the errors so we can have a reasonable discussion so I don’t wish to compare you to PH. and insult him any further while I wait to see his response. I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he can come up with. Things aren’t black and white so there is a lot of room for disagreement without lying or distorting which is what you do all too frequently.

        2. Given her established history of duplicity, the alias issue is a relatively MINOR reason for not trusting her😄😀; and I’m begin to doubt that anyone from her coven is trustworthy, but that investigation is ongoing.

          1. “Given her established history of duplicity, the alias issue is a relatively MINOR reason”

            Tom. she is deceived by her duplicity so she can’t recognize that as an issue. Diane knows she changed her alias.

            1. Allan, while she won’t admit it, it is “highly probable” that she knows that there is a witch hunt underway.
              Aliases may also be her way of dealing with that threat.

              1. Yes, Tom ‘it is highly probable’ that ‘if’ certain things happen and ‘if’ something is found that Diane will conclude that she has never had another alias except ‘if’ another idea pops in her head.

  17. “Public polling data” was revealed to some “Russian”.
    Number one: Do not speak or communicate with any person of Russian connection, posterity, ancestry.
    Number two. How was I to know: he was with the Russians too?
    Number three. Manafort’s name is often spelled wrong. It is Man A Fart.

  18. And especially Ahkmentov did and does what?

    I’m not familiar with the gossip about Lyovochkin.

    1. Ahkmetov is a crony and backer of Manafort’s principal client Victor Yanukovich just like Lyovochkin is. In addition, IIRC, Ahkmetov is one of the oligarchs whose illegal donation Sam Patten funneled to Trump’s inauguration.

    2. Correction: Lyovochkin is the oligarch whose illegal donation Patten funneled to Trump’s inauguration–not Ahkmetov.

      However, Ahkmetov and Lyovochkin together paid Manafort $2.4 million during the time that Manafort was working as Trump’s campaign manager for free.

    1. Exactly! He didn’t say anything about Kilimnik constantly pushing the Ukranian peace proposal to Manafort before, during and especially even after the election. Admittedly, the words Ukranian peace plan have a lovely ring to them, at least until you realize that those words mean sanctions relief for Russia. So, to recap, Trump’s campaign manager was discussing sanctions relief for Russia with a known, former GRU officer before, during and especially even after the 2016 election.

    2. yeah enigma, the Clintons really are pathetic traitors. Lock em up!


      2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

      The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking members of the Republican presidential campaign staff and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties remains the cornerstone of claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

      A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia.

        KJ, thanks for the link. Much of the suspicious nature of Veselnitskaya/ Simpson/ DOJ
        activities was known by mid-2017, as the July 2017 article from The Hill demonstrates.
        I never faulted Rosenstein for appointing a Special Counsel; but one of his several major mistakes was specifically ordering investigation into ONLY one
        Rosenstein was perhaps unaware that ther were two major campaigns in involved the 2016 election, and gave a blank check to Mueller to go after anything he could dig up “arising from the course of investigation”, whether related to campaign/ Russian collusion issue or not.
        If campaign/ election activity is to be investigated, put everything on the table and really investigate the entire set of suspicious activities both sides allegedly engaged in.
        By late 2017, I developed a strong interest in the “usual” connections and alliances Veselnitskaya had, as well as those pulling the strings to allow her reentry to the U.S.
        I think it’s in your linked article that the DOJ’s stonewalling of Sen. Grassley was mentioned.
        There’s been a pattern of the DOJ ignoring requests and referrals Grassley made as Chairman if rhe Senate Judiciary Committee.
        The new Chairnan of the Committee, Sen. Graham, may not be as patient and restrained as Grassley was with the DOJ’s lack of responsiness.

      2. I actually did read the article, fortunately, I’m familiar enough with much of the information to recognize bull when I read it. Of course we could always accept Donald Trump’s version of the meeting. You’ll have to select from multiple versions though.

        1. Enigma,…
          There were two related articles cited in the comments above, by two different people.
          Under those circumstances, and generally speaking, it’s helpful if you addressed your comments.
          If you take specific issue(s) with the content of either or both articles, your BS of claiming “bull” as if it were some sort of ex cathedra proclamation doesn’t cut it.

          1. Tom Nash – So the original publisher of the article(s) get to assume the content is to be accepted as fact unless disproven point by point? The article I was commenting on; never heard of the writer or the publisher. In and of itself it means little except their standard may not be as rigorous as national publications that actually worry about their credibility (that excludes InfoWars, Breitbart, Fox, etc.).

            1. Enigma,..
              What, specifically, are you disputing in the content of those linked articles?
              That U.S Attorney Preet Bharara opposed Veselnitskaya’s return to the U.S., and was overruled by the DOJ?
              That has been reported in multiple MSM news reports as well, so don’t try that lame dodge of “I don’t like the source”.
              Are you disputing the meetings that Veselnitskaya had with Glenn Simpson right before and right after the Trump Tower meeting because you “never heard of the writer”?
              Again, those meetings were reported in MSM articles, as was the cooperative Simpson-Veselnitskayaalliance in defending Prevezon.
              Do a little research if you think the above facts, and more, can be cavalierly dismissed because you’re ignorant of the coverage.

              1. “Nonetheless, Simpson also testified that he had no knowledge of the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others until it was reported a year later. There is reason to doubt that account.

                In fact, the Russian lawyer at the center of the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was his client.

                She has publicly stated that she used talking points developed by Simpson for the Russian government in that discussion. Kremlin officials also posted the allegations on the Prosecutor General’s website, and shared them with visiting U.S. congressional delegations.”
                You wanted an example, the writer bases some of his assumptions on the comments of the Russian lawyer who is currently under indictment for lying in court proceedings regarding her relationship with her Russian clients and providing language in responses for them while alleging she was merely relaying their statements. The article included some facts but then extrapolated them to draw inferences not supported. In my opinion, the whole article is in the same vein. #NotIgnorantOfTheCoverage

                1. “There is no reason to doubt that ( Simpson’s) account”.😊😀😂
                  There is plenty of reason to doubt Simpson’s account and his alliance with Veselnitskaya.
                  I’ll give you a head start on some material from NBC and Reuters, two sources that you might have heard of.
                  It’s fair to say that neither are exactly pro-Trump.
                  If the DOJ official(s) who overruled the U.S. Attorney on Veselnitskaya’s behalf are identified and questioned, I’m sure that you’d have no reason to doubt their account if they claimed that this was just routine.
                  You eagerly latch on to every allegation you find “acceptable”, then turn around and dismiss the “unacceptable” allegations because you “have no reason to doubt”, selectively, the claims made by people like Simpson, Steele, Strzok, etc.

                  1. It’s important to use your brain before you lose it. Using our brain after you’ve lost it is quite ineffective.

                    The facts rehashed in the article that KJ cited do not add up to Clinton entrapping Trump at the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. And here’s why not:

                    Had Clinton entrapped Trump at the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, then Clinton would have sprung that trap on Trump before election day on Tuesday November 8th, 2016, so that Clinton could have won the election instead of Trump. That didn’t happen. In fact, Clinton had nothing to do with the public revelation of the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting by the NYT on July 8th, 2017–more than a year after Clinton had supposedly entrapped Trump at the Trump Tower meeting–because Clinton didn’t know any more about the Trump Tower meeting than anybody else did before the NYT reported it.

                    What’s more, the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by Christopher Steele had not one word to say about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. That means, necessarily, that either Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS did not know about the Trump Tower meeting at the time that that meeting took place, or that Simpson did not tell Christopher Steele anything about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting–if he did know anything about it.

                    Now for the head scratching. What kind of opposition research firm has their opponent, Trump, caught in a trap and refuses to spring that trap on that opponent so that their client, Clinton, can win the election instead of her opponent, Trump???

                    Remember: It’s important to use your brain before you lose it–not after you’ve lost it.

                    1. L4B,…
                      We went over this same territory in considerable detail over a year ago.
                      More accurately, I went into considerable detail of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Veselnitskaya/ Fusion GPS/ DOJ nexus, and you pulled your 🙈🙉🙊 stunt, among others, to discount the possibility that there was foul play on both sides.
                      I am very reluctant to revisited and restart that debate; I have pointed out before that if I spend 20-30 minutes in an exchange with you, it’ll take 5-10× that long to untangle your Dianese distortions and other games.
                      I hate to disappoint you, knowing that you live playing those games, and likely pat yourself on the back saying “I’m so clever” to yourself.
                      Just for once, surprise the living hell out of me and others, and actually respond directly to direct points and questions I bring up, instead of spewing Dianese garbage.
                      Where did I make the claim that “Clinton entrapped Trump” at the Trump Tower meeting?
                      You start out by refuting a claim that I never even made.
                      You go throw a series of contortions to conclude that either Glenn Simpson knew nothing of the Trump Tower meeting or that he did not tell Steele about it.
                      I won’t comprehensively review the before and after meetings of Simpson with Veselnitskaya….immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting, their joint efforts in defending Prevezon, Veselnitskaya testimony that Glenn Simpson provided her with “talking points” before the Trump Tower meeting, etc.
                      We’ve been over this before, and you conveniently dismiss any consideration of any “facts that might confuse you”, or interfere with conclusions you’ve drawm up front.
                      It seems likely, based on all available public knowledge, that Simpson and Veselnitskaya’s alliancevand cooperation went well beyond the Prevezon case and the related smearing of Bill Bowder.
                      There is no way of proving or disproving, no clear evidence one way or the other, what Simpson told Steele, and when he told him, if anything, about the Trump Tower meeting.
                      There are a number of possible reasons why knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting was not mentioned in the Russian Dossier, or “played up” for political advantage before the 2016 election.
                      There was a very high level of confidence that Hillary would win in by a comfortable E.C. vote margin; if Steele had knowledge of that meeting, the collaberative relationship between Glenn Simpson and Veselnitskaya would have almost certainly come out.
                      I doubt that either one wanted to be publically linked to evidence pointing to their meetings, the talking points, etc.
                      In short, with a near slam-dunk certainty about a Hillary win, revealing knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting was a risk not worth taking, given that Simpson and Veselnitkaya would be implicating themselves in their own complicity.
                      You asked why the Trump Tower meeting, if it were known to Simpson and/ or Steele, was not used in opposition research before the election.
                      You are not likely to even consider my response, the elements in that response, the extraordinary measure the DOJ took to allow Veselnitskaya back into the U.S. prior to the Trump Tower meeting, etc.
                      On the off-chance that you’re actually interested in making a direct response to these points, I probably already wasted more time on this than was warranted.
                      You carelessly use phrases like “it’s highly probable” when drawing your own conclusions that start with flimsy conjecture and wild guesses.
                      And when it’s expedient, you simply blow off evidence that conflicts with your preconceived conclusions.

                    2. “You carelessly use phrases like “it’s highly probable” when drawing your own conclusions that start with flimsy conjecture and wild guesses.”

                      Tom that is why Diane is known as the IF woman. “If only”, “It’s probable” “it has been said”, and then uses the “IF’s” as data conclusions so that what you are facing is circular reasoning that has no basis in reality. She can say “if only x” and then say “it has been said” which is a totally meaningless statement from the perspective of the debate. The best one can do, if one actually wishes to do anything, is to copy her “IF” statements so they become more obvious to the dull that Diane is a fool. That actually might help some poor individuals on the blog learn how to interpret data.

                    3. The Righteously Indignant One said,”There are a number of possible reasons why knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting was not mentioned in the Russian Dossier, or “played up” for political advantage before the 2016 election. There was a very high level of confidence that Hillary would win in by a comfortable E.C. vote margin; if Steele had knowledge of that meeting, the collaberative relationship between Glenn Simpson and Veselnitskaya would have almost certainly come out. I doubt that either one wanted to be publically linked to evidence pointing to their meetings, the talking points, etc.”

                      Reason Number One: The people who attended the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting were the only people who knew about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. Unless Trump, himself, knew about it. Do you think?

                      Reason Number Two: Hillary was so certain that she would win the election that she hired Glenn Simpson who hired Aras and Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to entrap Trump at the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. And Simpson was also so certain that Hillary would win the election that he didn’t tell his client, Hillary, that he had succeeded at entrapping Trump at the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting.

                      No matter how you slice it and dice it, Gnash, you’re still not using your brain before you lose it. True, you never said that Clinton entrapped Trump. But KJ did. And you backed KJ’s play while badgering Enigma. Meanwhile, you know darn well that Hillary would have used the knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting to win the 2016 election. And that’s why you studiously avoided asserting that Clinton entrapped Trump at the Trump Tower meeting. The entrapment theory of the Trump Tower meeting is, was, and will ever remain aggressively stupid.

                    4. ” The entrapment theory of the Trump Tower meeting is, was, and will ever remain…”

                      The IF girl at it again.

              1. Tom Nash – I started to say that my faith in the facts is stronger than many here but I would be wrong. Anyone who still takes the word of one of the biggest serial liars on the planet has more than the faith of a mustard seed. He recently said he “never said Mexico would pay for the wall.” Some of you will find a way to believe that despite all the evidence otherwise. Everyone in Trump’s orbit has been caught lying about Russia and none of you want to know why? I suspect the Mueller report will be as well documented as any government report ever, because it will have to be. Yet all Trump has to do is call it Fake and some of you will believe him. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it, he was talking about the gullibility of his base. Jim Jones had more people questioning his leadership. Good luck with that.

                1. OK, Enigma. Your first challenge to the two linked articles was that you “had never heard of the writer or the publisher”.
                  I pointed out that there were other sources covering the same material…..sources that you obviously have heard of.
                  So you then moved the goalposts with statements like “There’s no reason to doubt Simpson’s account”, which is one of your more curious and humerous claims.
                  Then you proceed to dismiss a set of obviously suspicious circumstances re the Simpson/ Veselnitskaya/ DOJ connections because you claim that there was a use of facts to “draw inferences that were not supported”.
                  So we get beyond the “I don’t know the writer or the publication”, then we get beyond ( or at least no longer disputing) the facts, then you don’t like “drawing inferences” from a set of facts about suspicious alliances and activities.
                  You have absolutely no problem drawing all kind of inferences, and then some, when those inferences align with your biases.
                  Now you start talking about the “The Wall” and Jim Jones.
                  I’d waste some time in additional exchanges with you, but you’d probably jump to tge NFL Playoffs as your next stunt.

                  1. I’ve seen your quote twice, “There’s no reason to doubt Simpson’s account”.
                    Is that something I wrote? I certainly questioned the conclusions of the writer but don’t recall vouching for Simpson.
                    The Wall and Mexico was an example of an obvious lie you’d think no one could dispute, unless they’ve totally drunk the kool-aid (hence the Jim Jones reference). The scope and depths of Trump’s criminal behavior is overwhelming, continue to remain blind.

                    1. Gnash is badgering you simply for the sake of badgering you, Enigma. The entrapment theory of the Trump Tower meeting has been repeatedly refuted by simple common sense. Gnash know that. Gnash does not care about knowingly, willfully propounding rank stupidity. For, like unto its lame-brained cousin, the Seth Rich murder leak conspiracy theory, the entrapment theory of the Trump Tower meeting is so aggressively imbecilic that Whack-A-Mole moles like Gnash will never will never stop chucking it up out their Whack-A-Mole holes.

                      We are forbidden from whacking them upside their heads them with anything sterner than Nerf mallets. So be it.

                    2. Enigma,..
                      I apologize for misreading what you wrote and misquoting you.
                      I conflated what you wrote in the first sentence….Simpson’s claim that he had NO knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting for a year…..with your second sentence… there IS reason to doubt that account.
                      I inadvertently used a “double-negative”😯 in thinking that you said “no” in the second sentence as well.

                    3. Tom Nash – No problem, I get misquoted intentionally all the time by another party. My New Year’s Resolution is simply to ignore him which is working out fine. You and I can disagree without becoming disagreeable. An admkirable trait.

                    4. “Tom Nash – No problem, I get misquoted intentionally all the time by another party. My New Year’s Resolution is simply to ignore him which is working out fine.”

                      Enigma, if you are talking about me you are lying again. I don’t misquote you though I do rightfully comment a lot about your thinking and recognize that you don’t like looking in a mirror.

                      I do like your New Years resolution. It seems to be working out well for both of us and makes my life easier.

                    5. I’m glad that you caught that mistake on my part, Enigma.
                      I’ll try not to screw up again like that by misreading and misquoting.
                      The recent indictment of Veselnitskaya has resurrected news coverage of her activies, alliances, etc.
                      I’ll try to find and post a link to an article ( from months ago) questioning why Mueller had not interviewed Veselnitskaya.
                      If it’s true that, at least 8-10 months after the Special Counsel learned of the Trump Tower meeting, Mueller’s team did not interview Veselnitskaya, that seems really odd.
                      ( She did give Congressional testimony, along with others who were present at the T.T.meeting).
                      Allan Dershowitz stated a few days ago that Mueller hoped to “squeeze” Veselnitskaya for information about the TT meeting by indicting her.
                      It’s hard to imagine her voluntarily returning to the U.S.
                      to face charges.
                      The Russian Prosecutor General, evidently the counterpart to our Att. Gen., has not exactly been cooperative with the Mueller team in forwarding and serving notices of Special Counsel indictments to its citizens.
                      Maybe Veselnitskaya didn’t even get the message, and is unaware that she’s been indicted.😊😀
                      But unless Mueller already has her detained in a country that will extradite her, I don’t see Dershowitz’s point about the indictment pressuring her.
                      Should be interesting to see how (if) she responds to the indictment, if the Russian Pros. General lets her know.😄

                2. “never said Mexico would pay for the wall”

                  Enigma, Trump’s rhetoric admittedly is not the most precise rhetoric, however, Trump has kept his campaign promises better than any other President in recent history, When Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall, or something like that, what did he mean? If someone tells Enigma he will pay for … that might mean Enigma will write a check, he might strike Enigma, he might fire Enigma, he might build a fence between their properties or a whole bunch of things that meet the criteria of Enigma paying for something. Trump never said Mexico would write a check or anything like that so you are making a big thing out of your inability to read and undertand the meaning of human words. In a business deal where things weren’t carefully set out you would be the turkey shot for dinner.

              2. No reply box above, so I’m using this one to reply to L4B.
                You forgot to add “they have no defense of Trump”, you duplicitous hag.
                You take something out of left field like that, a non-sequitur not even under discussion, and throw it in to screw up any possibilty of keeping an exchange on track.
                I’ve mentioned that, as much as you like taking any exchange into the marsh with your Dianese, I’m not willing to spent hours untangling your comments and exposing your lies.
                I’ll just take one of your latest lies, that I “studiously avoided asserting that Clinton entrapped Trump at the Trump Tower meeting”.
                The details that I presented, and have presented previously, were about the Veselnitskaya/ Simpson/ DOJ connections.
                Not only did I not mention Clinton, I was not considering her in anything that I presented.
                Then you lie and say that “I studiously avoided” accusations against Clinton.
                YOU brought her up, I reminded you that this was not an issue in my comments, then you turn around and claim that I “studiously avoided” a claim that you wanted me to make about Clinton.
                These stunts that you are addicted to might play well with others in your coven, but your games get old after you keep pulling the same crap again and again.
                I won’t bother with the rest of the garbage you just wrote….I know that your hobby is to waste other people’s time, but you wasted far and away too much of mine.
                Happy trolling for the remainder of 2018.

      3. KJ said, “2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives.”

        What KJ is really saying is that Clinton supposedly has Trump by the short hairs and refused to use it to win the election. Instead, Clinton supposedly delayed the public revelation of the Trump Tower meeting until July 8th, 2017–more than a year after Clinton had supposedly entrapped Trump at the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting–because Clinton supposedly did not want to win the 2016 election for president.

        This is the distilled essence of the difference between Trump supporters versus Trump detractors. Trump supporters will believe anything at all that they are told to believe, no matter how incomparably stupid that belief requires them to become–assuming that they ever were anything other than incomparably stupid to begin with.

        1. Lies4Breakfast is truly an expert on what others are “really saying”.
          I lost track of how many times that she has told us what JT and others were “really saying”.
          That shows her dedication and commitment to propagandize for the “greater good” of trying to score points. Rephrasing, distorting, and lying about what others actually wrote.
          For those like L4B, not being impeded by bothersome restraints like integrity or intellectual honesty probably is an advantage in promoting propaganda.
          The downside is that she may occasionally, and tactfully, be called out as a liar and a damn fool.

      1. A. Your comment was not addressed; was that directed to Mueller or L4D?
        B. After seeking spiritual guidance, theologians learned from God that __1.–the answers about Trump/ Russia collusion are coming, __2—. but not in His lifetime.

      2. Please, a citation for the illegality of “collusion” with Russia by President Trump?

        1. George asked for a citation. Here’s one from Trump appointee, Judge Dabney Friedrich. The case does not directly involve Trump. But it does delineate the law behind Mueller’s case-in-chief.

          Nov 15, 2018 … 15, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion by Concord Management and Concord Consulting LLC to dismiss charges filed in February . . .

          1. ” The case does not directly involve Trump”

            If the case isn’t really involving Trump then you haven’t responded to George’s statement ”
            Please, a citation for the illegality of “collusion” with Russia by President Trump?”

            That is the type of trash you write daily, Diane.

            1. There is not yet any charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against Trump. Consequently, there are not yet any citations that specifically deal with Trump’s conspiracy with Russia to Defraud the United States. Nevertheless, Judge Friedrich’s ruling in the Concord Management case cited above does explain the “illegality” of “Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.” You should read it, FUBARAllan. You’re going to need to understand it real soon. You might as well get a head start on it, now.

              Did you know that the first law against Conspiracy against the United States was enacted in 1867–shortly after he American Civil War and during the infamous Reconstruction? I’d bet George knows that. The current law on that topic dates back to 1949.

              1. I am not going to deal with your circular rhetoric, Diane. Let us hear exactly how Trump (as a candidate or as President) broke the law. That requires proof and proof is not picking out what you want to hear from a he said she said argument. Proof requires a continuous paper trail without breaks or a trail of a different type also without breaks. If you can’t provide such a trail in a direct fashion easily understood then that means you don’t understand what you are talking about or you are distorting the truth.

                I’m waiting.

                1. I know this will come as terrible shock to you, FUBARAllan, but L4D is no more permitted access to Mueller’s grand jury information than Trump is. That grand jury information is literally the property of the federal judiciary that oversees and adjudicates Mueller’s grand juries. There are severe penalties for violating grand jury secrecy rules. So you’ll just have to wait for a federal judge to agree to send Mueller’s grand jury information to Congress. It shouldn’t be too much longer. Mark your calendar for late February or early March.

                  In the meantime, here’s a brief excerpt from Judge Friedrich’s ruling against Concord Management’s motion to dismiss the charges. It explains the legal standard that Mueller’s grand jury information will have to meet in order for Trump, Trump campaign members or Trump associates to be charged with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States:

                  In short, a defraud-clause conspiracy requires four elements: “that (1) [the defendants] entered into an agreement, (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the government or an agency of the government, (3) by deceitful or dishonest means, and (4) at least one overt act was taken in furtherance of that conspiracy.” United States v. Kanchanalak, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 192 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

                  1. Diane, stop the nonsense and the voices in your head. Tell us exactly how Trump (as a candidate or as President) broke the law.

                    Anyone can accuse anyone else. In fact, as we have seen, the FBI is able to come after anyone if that is their fancy and almost everyone has done something wrong and might lie about an embarrassing issue. Then the FBI can come in and claim the person lied to the FBI. Alternatively the FBI can go after a person’s family. With limited funds the people of American cannot fight the government that has unlimited resources. Therefore the government should be kept out of the hands of the fascist left.

                    Tell us Diane exactly how Trump (as a candidate or as President) broke the law.

                    You can’t. End of story.

      3. I have seen no evidence to prove collusion with Russia by Donald Trump… yet. If reports are true, there is now evidence that Manafort, while Campaign Chairman, altered the Republican Platform to adopt a pro-Russian advocated stance in Ukraine, others in the campaign began negotiating with Russia regarding not responding to sanctions and promising they would weaken/eliminate them and provided public and private polling data to the Russians whose only purpose would be to aid them in targeting US social media. This doesn’t even get into the assistance yet to be demonstrated to us regarding support from Cambridge Analytica and others.
        Until we learned Manafort was providing polling information, it was all circumstantial and rumor. If you have an explanation I’d be happy to hear it? You can also explain why several members of the campain met secretly with Russians and lied about it? Trump may or may not have been communicating via cell phone with Donald Jr at the time of the Trump Tower meeting. The Republican House committee’s didn’t wan’t to know but the Democrats will find out. (I’m talking about a specific phone call – I don’t know how deep in the bubble you are, you may not know of which call I speak). Trump of course issued the lie from Air Force One about the Trump Tower meeting. But that doesn’t prove collusion, just that he lies to get out of every inconvenient situation.
        Bottom line, the campaign colluded with Russia and it’s fairly certain Mueller has all that information. The question of what Donald Sr knew and when he knew it is still unanswered. But then the first public hearing with Cohen is February 7th and things will likely come out.

        1. Mespo writes: “Okay tell us what you see to prove collusion with Russia by Trump.”

          Enigma responds: “I have seen no evidence to prove collusion with Russia by Donald Trump”

          End of story. Enigma is 90% sham and 10% ham.

      4. Mespo asked, “Okay tell us what you see to prove collusion with Russia by Trump.”

        It’s Conspiracy to Defraud the United States–not “collusion.”

        What is needed to prove ConFraudUS is evidence of the Trump campaign’s knowledge of the Russian election interference sufficient to cause the Trump campaign to enter into a agreement to conceal the Russian election interference from government agencies of the United States so that the Trump campaign could benefit from the Russian election interference.

        If, or when, Mueller indicts Roger Stone for, amongst other things, soliciting the GRU hack of the DNC data analytics from the AWS cloud storage, then you’ll get the proof that you’re demanding. And when that happens, you’ll stop demanding evidentiary proof and switch over to claiming that the law is wrong. I’m looking forward to it, counselor.

      5. Mespo,…
        She already works very hard at telling us what others are “really saying” when she rephases and distorts comments of others, and the words in the JT columns.
        Don’t overburden her with requests for things like proof.

        1. I’m glad that you’re so keen on demanding proof. It’s highly likely that Mueller is going to accede to you demand for proof. And then you can describe for us how deeply gratifying it will have been for you to have had a special counsel meet your demand for proof right between your eyes.

          Did you know that Giuliani said that Mueller’s report was going to be like a cardiac arrest for The White House and that Turley agreed with Giuliani???

          1. “Did you know that Giuliani said that Mueller’s report was going to be like a cardiac arrest for The White House and that Turley agreed with Giuliani???”

            For one that pretends to be a news junky one would think Diane understood politics better than she does. There is no question that Mueller’s report won’t look good. Why? Because it will be one side of the coin. Mueller will be trashing Trump as good as he can leaving out a lot of information that would make Trump look good. So it is expected that Muellers side will look bad and Trump will respond making Trump’s side look good and Mueller to look more like a fool than he does today.

            That is patently obvious to everyone except for Diane and a few others despite the fact that is Dirt 101. The real issue is why Giuliani made the comment. When presented, Mueller’s statements won’t look good, but it won’t look as bad as a cardiac arrest. That widens the gap between reality and expectations and lessens the effect after the Trump team responds.

            All of this is nonsense because this investigation was based on lies and collusion between members of the intelligence community and NGO’s. Stalinists like what is happening, real Americans don’t.

            1. I have not seen any article that attributes that “heart attack”, etc. quote to Giuliani.
              Rudy predicted that Mueller would conclude his investigation by Sept. 2018; if in fact he also made the “heart attack” prediction, he needs to reconsider using L4B’s Psychic Hotline service for advice.

              1. Giuliani: Mueller plans to wrap up obstruction inquiry by Sept. 1st
                President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani says the special counsel Robert mueller will finish its investigation into whether or not trump obstructed justice in the Russia inquiry by September 1st.

          2. I think there is some unexpected variety in the comment about Mueller/ proof.
            The words “it’s highly probable” were replaced by the words “it’s highly likely”.
            After hearing endless streams of guesses from our self-proclaimed seer (that she characterises as high probabilities…..guess+psychic powers = high probability)…there is at least some variety with the words “high likelihood”.
            “It’s entirely possible” that L4B’s inflated perception of her gift for prophecy is bolstered by some well-intentioned members of her coven trying to prop up her confidence.

      6. Mespo,…
        You could direct it to L4D as well. And wait for a straight answer.
        And wait, and wait, and wait.
        I thought it was possible that she might have made a New Years resolution to to knock off the games, her distortions, and her lying.
        That faint hope proved unrealistic; she is still the same, duplicitous, lying sack of **** propagandist that she was in 2017.

    3. Everything seems like collusion to Enigma. He does not base his conclusions on what happened and what was said. He makes that determination only if Trump’s name is mention. Enigma, the one that believes in hanging them fast and high.

        1. There will be no doubt when Enigma finds out you are contacting me from Moscow Virginia.

    4. collusion a sinister word for any kind of social exchange other people don’t like

      1. Mr Kurtz – I tend to agree with those who say “collusion is not a crime” although I’m pretty sure Treason is. We’ll see when the evidence comes out whether you still refer to his actions as a “social exchange.” What reason can you give for Manafort providing public and private polling data to the Russians?

        1. Treason against the United States is “…levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

          Nopes! Ah don’t sees no wo!

          More incoherence and hysteria derived from “Affirmative Action Privilege.”

          The witch doctor can call off the witch hunt and go home now.

          Article 3, Section 3

          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

          The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

          1. George – Don’t read the new NYT article about the active FBI investigation into whether Trump is acting as an agent for Russia. Witnesses have given secret testimony, Treason may be much closer than we know. Closer for some than others who won’t accept anything.

          2. George said, “Treason against the United States is ‘…levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.'”

            George, would you care to remind us all of just how many employees of the DoJ, the FBI and the Obama administration you have already repeatedly accused of treason?

            Well . . . Would you, George?

            Did you know, George, that when you explicitly disagree with yourself, you also explicitly contradict yourself?

            Well . . . Did you know that, George?

Comments are closed.