Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
lyria

Russian firm tied to pro-Kremlin propaganda advertised on Facebook dur

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MontyPython

How do you know this to be true?

 

Because unlike you, I'm neither an idiot nor a mindless partisan. I know it isn't true for the same reason I know it isn't true that pink elephants eat Belgian waffles on the moon: Because if pink elephants did eat Belgian waffles on the moon, there would be some evidence thereof, not just mindless speculation by partisan idiots..

 

B)

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

How do you know this to be true?

How do you know it to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

How do you know it to be true?

TG is incapable of understanding that it is impossible to prove a negative. He doesn't even know what that means. It's a very common tactic on the left to make up a charge and then challenge others to prove it wrong.

 

TG sees nothing wrong with that. To him, making up allegations without evidence is normal and to him, it makes sense.

 

Evidence free, that's how TG lives his life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

How do you know this to be true?

Hey, Mr. Rule of Law. What is the "opportunity cost" of numerous federal agencies pursuing a red herring for political reasons?

 

Can you provide a valid legal argument on why these agencies should "prioritize pursuit" of this nonsense that has produced nothing in coming up on a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

How do you know it to be true?

 

I don't know if Jared Kushner's data operation helped Russia's troll army select targets on FB; and unlike my buddy Monty, I wouldn't claim to know if it did or if it didn't.

 

I just think it's a question worth exploring - as does Robert Mueller, I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Hey, Mr. Rule of Law. What is the "opportunity cost" of numerous federal agencies pursuing a red herring for political reasons?

 

Can you provide a valid legal argument on why these agencies should "prioritize pursuit" of this nonsense that has produced nothing in coming up on a year?

 

By "agencies," do you mean the Special Counsel Robert Mueller; or are you referring to the Congressional investigations?

 

Which "agencies" are you talking about, buddy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Facebook gave more Russian ad details to special counsel Mueller than to Congress

Leslie Shaffer

Published 12:44 AM ET Sat, 16 Sept 2017 | Updated 12:29 AM ET Sun, 17 Sept 2017

 

(too short to excerpt)

 

Facebook gave special counsel Robert Mueller more records on Russian ad purchases than it provided to Congress last week, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

 

The information provided to Mueller included copies of the ads, information about the accounts buying them and their targeting criteria, the people said, according to the report. The information provided to Congress included copies of the ads and buyers' identities — information that the social network's own policy dictates would only be turned over via search warrant, those sources told the publication.

 

Former FBI Director Mueller was appointed by the Department of Justice to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. election.

 

Facebook didn't share that data with Congress partly amid concerns it might disrupt the Mueller probe and due to U.S. privacy laws, the people said, according to the report.

 

The report said a Facebook spokesperson said the company was continuing to investigate and was cooperating with authorities, and that a spokesperson for Mueller declined to comment.

 

Facebook didn't immediately return CNBC's emailed request for comment, which was sent outside office hours.

 

Mueller's office told CNBC via email on Saturday that it declined to comment on the ongoing investigation.

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I don't know if Jared Kushner's data operation helped Russia's troll army select targets on FB; and unlike my buddy Monty, I wouldn't claim to know if it did or if it didn't.

 

Only because you so desperately wish you could find something with which to smear the Trump campaign that you'll grasp at any straw, scrape the bottom of any barrel, no matter how silly or far-fetched.

 

:rolleyes:

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

By "agencies," do you mean the Special Counsel Robert Mueller; or are you referring to the Congressional investigations?

 

Which "agencies" are you talking about, buddy?

Knew you wouldn't answer. How about all of YOUR "multiple investigations" you love to talk about in your witch hunt? Those agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

How about all of YOUR "multiple investigations" you love to talk about in your witch hunt? Those agencies.

 

I'm talking about the Special Counsel and the Congressional investigations; you referred to "numerous federal agencies pursuing a red herring for political reasons."

 

At this point, it's clear you were talking out of your @ss. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

I'm talking about the Special Counsel and the Congressional investigations; you referred to "numerous federal agencies pursuing a red herring for political reasons."

 

At this point, it's clear you were talking out of your @ss. Again.

You have expended extreme amounts of bandwidth in multiple threads pontificating on the "multiple investigations" into Trump and the Russians. You refuse to answer a simple question about whether those multiple investigations should be a "priority" for those agencies conducting those investigations.

 

I am, in fact, talking out of YOUR @ss.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

You refuse to answer a simple question about whether those multiple investigations should be a "priority" for those agencies conducting those investigations.

 

Again with the agencies - oy.

 

I'm talking about the Special Counsel and the Congressional investigations, whereas the specific "agencies" you've been referring to remain unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Again with the agencies - oy.

 

I'm talking about the Special Counsel and the Congressional investigations, whereas the specific "agencies" you've been referring to remain unclear.

 

ROFLMAO

 

Gawd you're hilarious when you use such shameless dodges.

 

:lol3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

ROFLMAO

 

Gawd you're hilarious when you use such shameless dodges.

 

:lol3:

Right? Didn't the "multiple" agencies conducting "multiple" investigations seem to be really important to him not too long ago?

 

Now he can't even respond to a simple question about whether, given the lack of anything produced to date, pursuing Trump should be a priority? On another thread, prioritizing the use of limited resources was also very important to him.

 

Could Mr. Law and Order not really care about those things? Could his REAL motive be partisan? Hmmmmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Right? Didn't the "multiple" agencies conducting "multiple" investigations seem to be really important to him not too long ago?

 

Now he can't even respond to a simple question about whether, given the lack of anything produced to date, pursuing Trump should be a priority? On another thread, prioritizing the use of limited resources was also very important to him.

 

Could Mr. Law and Order not really care about those things? Could his REAL motive be partisan? Hmmmmmm?

 

Yup. His schoolyard-level dodging tactics are pathetically transparent. He knows exactly what you're asking, and he knows perfectly well it doesn't matter if you use the term(s) "agency" or "special counsel" or "committee" or "bunch of guys" or anything else. He understands what you're asking, he knows he could produce a straight simple answer, but he just doesn't have the courage or integrity.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Now he can't even respond to a simple question about whether, given the lack of anything produced to date, pursuing Trump should be a priority?

 

"Lack of anything produced" is not a fair or accurate characterization of the Manafort revelations - not to mention the Fredo Don Jr meeting.

Edited by That_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

"Lack of anything produced" is not a fair or accurate characterization of the Manafort revelations - not to mention the Fredo Don Jr meeting.

 

Guess what? "Revelations" don't mean squat.

 

I could "reveal" that I had a chicken sandwich and an apple for lunch. So what?

 

Too bad for Donald Jr. that his meetings led to all those charges and that he is facing serious jail time.

 

Oh wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Guess what? "Revelations" don't mean squat.

 

Unless, of course, it's the Department of Justice revealing to a panel of FISA judges that they have enough evidence to merit not one, but two warrants on former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort - not to mention the no-knock warrant issued for his house last month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Unless, of course, it's the Department of Justice revealing to a panel of FISA judges that they have enough evidence to merit not one, but two warrants on former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort - not to mention the no-knock warrant issued for his house last month.

Remember your track record on legal predictions? Get ready.

 

And what about Donald Jr. and his meeting? What did those "revelations" bring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
JerryL

Unwanted scrutiny? Do you mean like these "revelations?"

 

1. That the Obama administration and their Chief LEO were running guns to Mexican drug runners that were used in the killing of a US Border Patrol Agent?

2. That HRC was using her office in a pay-to-play scheme?

3. That HRC deliberately set up a private server to illegally conduct official business outside of USG channels (in large part to facilitate #2)?

4. That Obama's architects of Obamacare counted on the people to be too stupid to understand what they were really doing and to believe the lies the administration was selling?

5. That the Obama administration ignored security requests from Libya and ended up getting 4 people, including the Ambassador, killed?

 

Is that what you mean by "unwanted scrutiny?" How did those end?

 

Again, get ready for your legal prediction prowess to maintain its 100% track record.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...