Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

We are also learning more about the nature and circumstances of Trump campaign chairman Pavel Manafartov's sharing of "polling data" with Russian intelligence agent Konstantin Kilimnik. Marcy Wheeler has a very good analysis of what the latest redacted court documents indicate.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/02/...nonymous-leakers-are-lying-about-it-publicly/

Among other things the filings indicate that:

1) The sharing of data took place in August 2016 rather than May as suggested by other accounts. It took place at the Havana Club meeting in New York between Gates, Manafartov and Kilimnik. The parties took care to leave separately after the meeting to avoid arousing any suspicions.

2) Manafartov's own lawyer noted that the kind of data shared was "very detailed" and "focused" and not the kind of information an untrained person could look at and figure out on his own. The judge noted that the pollster hired by the campaign to generate this data was paid a lot of money. This runs counter to previous reports that the information shared was mostly public polling data.

3) Some of the earlier accounts (including the Times which seems to have relied on a single source for this) about which Russian oligarchs Kilimnik was asked to share this data with might be incorrect.

4) Manafartov's lawyers (and presumably Manafartov himself) seem to be very anxious to minimize or cast doubt about what happened at the August meeting with Kilimnik.

It now seems likely that earlier accounts of these events (including the one in the Times) relied too much on information provided by someone whose goal was to minimize and indeed falsify the nature of the data provided by Manafartov, to mislead about the timing when this sharing occurred and possibly mislead as to who in Russia Kilimnik shared this with and the purposes behind the sharing.

Here is the link to the January 8 NY Times account, which itself grew out of the improperly redacted filing made by Manafartov's lawyers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html

There are a lot of lies and incorrect information in this article. The Times continues to display an inexplicable willingness to go with information provided by parties with a vested interest to spin things in a certain way.
 
Last edited:
Imo collaboration between the campaign and the Russians is now a well established fact. What remains is to flesh out how much knowledge and involvement various individuals had, including the president, about the different aspects of this collaboration.
 
Well established fact? To what degree?

And if you are so sure of this established fact then who else did "Russians" collaborate with?
 
thethe said:
Well established fact? To what degree?

And if you are so sure of this established fact then who else did "Russians" collaborate with?
Click to expand...

collaboration in the form of campaing chairman Manafartov sharing internal polling with Russian spy Kilimnik is 100% established

collaboration in the form of Stone communicating directly or indirectly on behalf of the campaign to weaponize the release of stolen emails is 90% established

other forms of collaboration are also likely to have occurred
 
nsacpi said:
collaboration in the form of Manafartov sharing internal polling is 100% established

collaboration in the form of Stone communicating directly or indirectly on behalf of the campaing to weaponize the release of stolen emails is 90% established

other forms of collaboration are also likely to have occurred
Click to expand...

So WikiLeaks = Russia now? How long has that been the case?

Manafort is a piece of garbage and has been for decades. Only now it seems to matter.
 
Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.


Collusion - Attempt to influence an election.

Where is the investigation on this?
 
Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.


RUSSIANS!!!!

We should trust all the information in the Dossier because I mean Russians are trustworthy and have Americas best interests right?
 
Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon — which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties — and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Never once has anyone on this board commented on this topic when I brought it up.

Simply a coincidence of course.
 
The fact of the matter is that the Russia Collusion angle is far stronger against the Democrats than the Trump campaign. But don't let your TDS stop you from recognizing that deep down since I know you are aware.
 
nsacpi said:
"It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia."

---Mike Pompeo
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove your connection. But, I'm sure that those governmental agencies who are being exposed have a vested interest in branding Wikileaks as Russia.
 
It is well established Guccifer 2.0 was GRU. They did the hacking. And somehow the stolen goods were transmitted to WikiLeaks.
 
nsacpi said:
It is well established Guccifer 2.0 was GRU. They did the hacking. And somehow the stolen goods were transmitted to WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

There was a statement of 'high confidence' given. So to say well established is a sort of stretch.

Again - Those with a vested interest to make Wikileaks the 'bad guys' will certainly do so.
 
thethe said:
But I'll ask again Nsacpi - Do you care about Russian interference in totality?
Click to expand...

I do. If there are any sound reasons to follow other lines of inquiry related to Russian interference those lines should be run to ground.

I will note that "sound reasons" is not equal to something in thethe's fevered imagination. Sowwy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top