90% harassment and intimidation? That’s completely made up and him playing his victim card for the 5000th time.
Well that and his views change the second someone nails him down. Hell, he often refuses to even make a stance on subjects. I recall Timex asking about 5 times in a row what his stance was on something and he just deflected, cried about being harassed and I’m fairly sure the question was never answered at any point.
Your “viewpoints” seem to consist of talking points that you abandon the second they stop working.
What was he doing with them, exactly? Could you explain how it involved Russian interference in the 2016 election? I’ve read the indictment, and there’s nothing in there linking Manafort to Russian interference in the election, but you must have something in mind.
How does this link him to Russian meddling in the election, which was not charged in the indictment?
It seems like he wants to profit from his political ties, like the scheming and unethical consultant he’s alleged to be (actually, as I write that, that’s what all political consultants do). That does not mean he meddled or helped collude with Russians to disseminate false info, hack anyone, etc.
Why in the world would an investigation of whether Russia colluded with Trump’s campaign to try to swing the election to him want to talk to the Trump campaign manager who also happen to work for Russian oligarchs? That doesn’t sound like it could possibly be relevant to Russian election meddling. I mean, nowhere in the phrase “Manafort was actively trying to sell influence to Russian oligarchs while managing Trump’s campaign” can you find the words “Russian meddling”…
OK, but there’s no allegation in court that he had anything to do with what we’ve been talking about re: meddling, right? Despite numerous indictments?
You added this:
I’m not disputing if this falls under the “scope,” I’m just explaining why it’s not meddling-related.
It could indeed be relevant, but that doesn’t mean it is. I am simply trying to explain why someone would be skeptical of the Mueller probe, but also believe that Russians did meddle. If Manafort in fact had nothing to do with meddling, which the indictments would indicate, but was instead engaged in other forms of crimes related to his consultancy, that would be a reason for someone to voice frustration with the Manafort probe and yet not take issue with the idea of Russian meddling.
This is a gaming forum you idiot. It only has a political subforum because, like all sites, political discussion heats up amd derails discussion of the site’s main discussion.
Seriously, why are you here? If it wasn’t gaming or movie discussion, what was it?
I like Tom’s game reviews. Tone down the personal attacks, bud. At the risk of being accused of “smug civility,” your intimidation tactics have been tried by about 20,000 previous posters here and failed, so I don’t see why you think yours will be more effective.
I think it is relevant to Mueller’s tasking. I think it’s wrong for Trump to care that the probe is ensnaring Manafort. However, I can still see that Trump has different views of whether Russia meddled, than he does of whether Manafort is being fair in his pursuit of his mandate.
Well, we will have to see. I will bookmark the post and we can come back to it in a few months. (I also bookmarked some of the dire net neutrality predictions I’ve seen online, and we’ll see how they pan out). But no one can know the full details of the probe right now.
“Manafort is clearly in scope, but he didn’t do any meddling so therefore it’s reasonable to be frustrated by him being indicted. Even though that’s totally in scope, and meddling isn’t the key issue of the investigation, since everyone already agrees the meddling happened.”
You do seem to be having a lot of fun. I should USE CAPS or maybe a swear so you can also get a dig in about tone or politeness.
