Manafort Allegedly Shared 2016 Polling With Associate Linked To Russian Intelligence

Aug 11, 2018
550
420
205
#1
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/6833...ing-with-associate-linked-to-russian-intellig

Prosecutors investigating Russian interference in the last U.S. presidential election suspect former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data with a business associate who has links to the Russian intelligence service, according to a new court filing.

The disclosure emerged in a legal brief filed by Manafort's defense lawyers, who are resisting the idea he intentionally lied to special counsel Robert Mueller, lies that the investigators said should torpedo his plea deal.

(...)

But portions of their legal brief contained botched redactions that made it possible for readers to see blocked text. There, it was revealed authorities believe Manafort lied about handing 2016 polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a translator and business associate that Mueller has connected to Russian intelligence.

(...)

Prosecutors also think Manafort and Kilimnik may have met in Madrid, during the campaign, to discuss a possible Ukraine peace plan, according to another passage of the new document. And in a third redaction apparently gone wrong, defense lawyers revealed that Manafort may have greenlighted an unnamed third party to drop his name if that person secured a meeting with President Trump.

Manafort met with government attorneys and agents 12 times and testified twice before the grand jury. His lawyers said there is "no identifiable pattern" to his "purported misrepresentations," even though several of them involve Kilimnik.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
#5
Does 538, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, etc., allow Russian IP's to visit their websites? If they do it sounds like a lot of indictments might be coming for sharing polling data with Russians.

/s

/ YAWN
 
Feb 25, 2017
169
198
200
#6
Hilary was suppose to be the 2016 presidential winner according to every mainstream news outlet and pollster. Funny how they didn't see the Russians being an issue during the campaign until it became convenient. They lost their minds when Trump won, and to this day they could not accept that perhaps America isn't as center left as they like to believe.

Let's look back at some of the reasons Trump won.

Trump was able to consistently fill stadium-size crowds all over the country. Hilary could not fill a hill school gym most of the time. Trump was speaking what most people were thinking. Hilary was playing identity politics and political correctness. Trump promise to make America great again. Hilary promise to turn America into the utopia of equality of outcome, world police, giving away American wealth to other nations. Trump campaign in swing and fly over states like Michigan, Pennselvania, Ohio, Texas, Florida. Hilary campaign in liberal strongholds like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington. Trump is an outsider promising change from Obama era. Hilary is a product of the Clinton dynasty promising to continue to preserve Obama's decisive policies.

Was it any surprised to anyone who has no horse in the race why Trump did so well and won in the 2016 election? You don't have to be a highly paid pollster to see the energy, enthusiasm, and resonating message trump was generating. Of course to the liberal media and audience, Trump only won because of the Russians.
 
Aug 11, 2018
550
420
205
#7
I thought they were openly available?
Does 538, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, etc., allow Russian IP's to visit their websites? If they do it sounds like a lot of indictments might be coming for sharing polling data with Russians.

/s

/ YAWN
Internal polling and analysis of said polling isn't the same as grabbing some random poll from a news outlet.
Also, not sure what on earth @weltalldx is talking about. The entire Russia and Trump thing was a thing long before election day. Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails and changing the Republican's stance on Ukraine at the RNC come to mind among other things. Nice random rant, though.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
#8
Internal polling and analysis of said polling isn't the same as grabbing some random poll from a news outlet.
Also, not sure what on earth @weltalldx is talking about. The entire Russia and Trump thing was a thing long before election day. Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails and changing the Republican's stance on Ukraine at the RNC come to mind among other things. Nice random rant, though.
I don't know man. Considering how many Republican big wigs were shitting all over the Republican candidate, claiming this matters because of polling differences seems like splitting hairs. I highly doubt that Trump would have been criticized by so many Republican big wigs if the internal polling was so useful as to predict a possible victory if x, y or z happened.

And I also find it doubtful that internal polling was needed to know who might actually vote for Trump. I've yet to be shocked by anyone's revealed vote.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2018
550
420
205
#10
I don't know man. Considering how many Republican big wigs were shitting all over the Republican candidate, claiming this matters because of polling differences seems like splitting hairs. I highly doubt that Trump would have been criticized by so many Republican big wigs if the internal polling was so useful as to predict a possible victory if x, y or z happened.

And I also find it doubtful that internal polling was needed to know who might actually vote for Trump. I've yet to be shocked by anyone's revealed vote.
Whether it was useful information isn't really the point. It's a campaign manager sharing internal campaign information with people linked to a foreign government. Surely this gives you some pause, right?
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
#11
Whether it was useful information isn't really the point. It's a campaign manager sharing internal campaign information with people linked to a foreign government. Surely this gives you some pause, right?
No. After 2 years of this story line, the only thing that will be giving me pause is actual evidence that Trump agreed to sell out a US interest in exchange for Russian assistance to get elected. There have been so many allegations of process crimes and other unrelated crimes that have resulted in indictments or convictions, that someone would have flipped by now if that actually occurred, If Mueller pulls out such proof in some bombshell end or near end revelation, I'll have plenty of pause. Until then, my position is and will remain yawn on any details intentionally or unintentionally leaked.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
#13
1) NYT issued a correction. --> "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 to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin. "

2) "Most of the data was public, but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person. "

3) "Why Mr. Manafort wanted them to see American polling data is unclear. He might have hoped that any proof that he was managing a winning candidate would help him collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties."

4) "The document gave no indication of whether Mr. Trump was aware of the data transfer"

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

So in short, the MSM once again ran a narrative designed to give the impression Trump "colluded" with Russia. But when the smoke cleared, we found out the recipient was not actually the original guy they claimed who had close ties to the Kremlin. And most of the data was public. And the likely reason he did it was to encourage people who owed him money to pay him. And there is no evidence Trump even knew.

In other words --> FAKE NEWS
 
Nov 12, 2016
641
677
250
#14
1) NYT issued a correction. --> "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 to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin. "

2) "Most of the data was public, but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person. "

3) "Why Mr. Manafort wanted them to see American polling data is unclear. He might have hoped that any proof that he was managing a winning candidate would help him collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties."

4) "The document gave no indication of whether Mr. Trump was aware of the data transfer"

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

So in short, the MSM once again ran a narrative designed to give the impression Trump "colluded" with Russia. But when the smoke cleared, we found out the recipient was not actually the original guy they claimed who had close ties to the Kremlin. And most of the data was public. And the likely reason he did it was to encourage people who owed him money to pay him. And there is no evidence Trump even knew.

In other words --> FAKE NEWS
Hey now. Trump knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows Putin. Dealing with political figures of the world, it is impossible that anyone has ever crossed paths with anyone before. This is the end of Trump! Articles of impeachment!
 
Jan 8, 2019
6
3
60
#15
The entire Russia and Trump thing was a thing long before election day. Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails and changing the Republican's stance on Ukraine at the RNC come to mind among other things. Nice random rant, though.
It became a thing when Democrats at the DoJ decided they needed insurance in case Trump won. We've seen the texts. We know all about the origins of this "Russia collusion" narrative and how the Obama DoJ was allowed to spy on rival politicians based on hearsay gathered while colluding with foreign spies. Remember that part? When the Obama DoJ was paying Steele for the dossier they never bothered to confirm, yet leaked to reporters (and used those reporters' stories as evidence of corroboration?) Do you honestly not remember any of this? But you're right. Trump making an off-hand comment about Russia finding the tens of thousands of emails that Clinton deleted (after being given a preservation order...) is totally evidence of a crime. Somehow. Oh, and the GOP changing "lethal weapons" to "appropriate assistance," while still adopting the pro-Ukrainian resolution, is the final nail in the coffin. Dumbass.
 
Feb 21, 2018
2,359
1,480
270
#26
The fact that this thread dropped off the face of the earth on REEEE you know its a nothing burger. As per usual so much optimism that they finally got Orange man, and then a day later buried and gone.