On August 2, 2016, Paul Manafort Gave Konstantin Kilimnik 75 Pages of Recent, Detailed Polling Data

I want to return again to the question of what Paul Manafort ordered Rick Gates to print out on August 2, 2016, so he could share it with Konstantin Kilimnik at a clandestine meeting that night. While Manafort seems to have told the government or grand jury that the data “just was public information,” the comments of his own lawyer, Richard Westling, make it clear that it was something else entirely.

In the February 4 breach hearing, Westling actually argues that “if the goal [of sharing the data with Kilimnik] were to help Mr. Manafort’s fortunes, that some other kind of [redacted] something more public, more [redacted] might help.” He says that after describing the polling data as “gibberish” because he can’t, himself, understand the data, while describing it as, “very detailed [redacted] on a level that is very focused.” In an effort to sustain a claim that Manafort ordered Gates to print it out for use at a campaign meeting that day, Westling also says, “it was the most recent, from what we can tell, the most recent [redacted] but I’m not sure. That would have been relevant to a meeting they were having within the campaign.”

Westling also suggests that Amy Berman Jackson should go check it out herself: “there’s copies of it in the exhibits.”

In what might be an effort to describe the evidence they’re looking at to co-conspirators, Manafort’s lawyers again provided descriptive information of the polling data in a follow-up filing (which ABJ complains in her ruling hearing presented new claims not even raised at the breach hearing and which may have already been integrated into this still erroneous on the point of the polling data NYT story) — provides more detail about how much polling data Manafort gave Kilimnik to be shared with Russia. In an effort to flip-flop on their explanation that the data was the most recent available, they describe the email Manafort sent Gates on August 2, telling him to print out the polling data.

That exhibit is Exhibit 233.

Then it describes the data itself — stating that it dates to “prior to the Republican Convention and the start of the General Election.”

Even if this claim is true (again, as ABJ noted, Manafort’s team made this claim at a time when Mueller would not have an opportunity to correct the record), it would mean the data may have been just 15 days old. Dated, but not necessarily months old as the NYT likes to parrot.

Then, a totally redacted footnote further describes the data. While the description is redacted, the pagination of the exhibit is not. It shows that there are 75 pages of polling data.

This last filing also says a bit about the emails that Mr. Kilimnik sent, discussing his access to the data. Two footnotes make it clear there are at least 6 Kilimnik emails referring to the polling data.

Again — that’s not what I’m saying, or Amy Berman Jackson, or Andrew Weissmann. That’s how Manafort’s own lawyers describe the data and the emails where Kilimnik discussed having received it.

It’s when you couple that data with what Weissmann and ABJ go on to say about it that the data is more damning. As I’ve noted before, Rick Gates testified that Manafort walked Kilimnik through the data at that clandestine August 2 meeting.

And the logic of ABJ’s judgment makes clear that this sharing of poll data amounts to a link to the Russian government.

I disagree with the defendant’s statement in docket 503, filed in connection with the dispute over the redactions, that, quote, the Office of Special Counsel’s explanation as to why Mr. Manafort’s alleged false statements are important and material turns on the claim that he is understood by the FBI to have a relationship with Russian intelligence.

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what was said. The intelligence reference was just one factor in a series of factors the prosecutor listed. And the language of the appointment order, “any links,” is sufficiently broad to get over the relatively low hurdle of materiality in this instance, and to make the [redaction] Kilimnik and [redaction] material to the FBI’s inquiry, no matter what his particular relationship was on that date.

So 75 pages of gibberish that only a highly trained operative like Kilimnik could understand, which he then passed onto someone that ABJ believes amounts to a link to the Russian government. That’s Manafort’s least damning story.

As I disclosed last July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

121 replies
  1. SICK says:

    Here’s what Trump tweeted about the poll numbers at 7:05 AM on 25 Jul 2016:

    Great POLL numbers are coming out all over. People don’t want another four years of Obama, and Crooked Hillary would be even worse. #MAGA

    Query whether this comment reflects his understanding of the internal polling data…

        • Holly says:

          I suppose, but I haven’t gone back and read the timeline for when that occurred (or if the dates were made public).

          • Rayne says:

            Nice to see you here at emptywheel. For future comments, please consider modifying your username so that it is more unique, making it easier for community members to recognize and get to know you. Thanks.

      • emptywheel says:

        Interesting. I wonder if he printed out MORE dated data to make it appear he had more of a chance than he did.

      • Eureka says:

        Just a few points of reference for/near part of that timeframe: the RNC was 7-18 to 22; (Guccifer 2.0-claimed) WikiLeaks release 7-22; and the DNC was 7-25 to 28, 2016. They each got relative bumps in their poll numbers after their respective conventions. HRC was on the upswing towards kicking his ass heading into August and that meeting (it shows later in the overall average, but there were a couple of big outlier individual results for her around then too).

        That CNN/ORC 7-22 to 24 that had Trump +5 (and which he is apparently bragging about in the tweet SICK cites) next has HRC +8 (from 7-29 to 31).

    • Stephen says:

      I don’t think Trump understands polling, or data, at all – not if the results are more complicated that counting “likes” or “retweets.” But anyway, the point of this data sharing would not have been to persuade the Russians that the Trump campaign was doing well. No, somewhere in those 75 pages of polling data was information on specific issues that were important to specific demographic groups. My guess is that these results included evidence of Clinton’s vulnerability among midwestern working-class white males or evangelicals and “wedge” issues that would make them mistrust her even more. These could then be exploited by the social media trolls in Russia’s service.

      • andy says:

        If I had detailed demographics from Manafort, and then a short while later I was able to steal HRC’s Tableau analytics and essentially see their side of where they were targeting (side note: I’m a Tableau server administrator in my day job; I’d be happy to answer questions about what the product does), I’d focus on the deltas between the two datasets. That is, I’d look where the Clinton was overestimating/underestimating their lead/deficit and voter turnout as compared to Manafort. Having a view of both sides would give you an enormous advantage at spotting opportunities and managing your limited resources. Knowing that Clinton was vulnerable with white working class is the easy part; the magic bullet would be knowing districts where they thought that had a comfortable lead that you could potentially flip behind the scenes with massive bot/fake news/fake protest campaigns.

        • Rayne says:

          And having Facebook data combined with voter rolls would predict EXACTLY which persons in which precincts were the best targets for suppressive or encouraging messaging. Microtargeting on crack.

        • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

          Remember the DNC hack gave the Treasonists the Democrats GOTV “playbook” micro-targeted down to the precinct level. They knew where the Democrats were hoping to draw votes from, so the Treasonists went after people they determined were most likely to be manipulated by fake news.

      • twiddle says:

        Man oh man the Magats are going to require therapy once the truths about Donald Trump, his children (less Baron), the campaign crew and the Russians are finally revealed.

        Not to mention all the shite he was into prior to running.

        The SDNY is going to put him, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared and prolly Eric away for many years.

        As a lifelong resident of NY state that has been waiting 40 years for the shite to hit the fan for Trump.

        I CAN NOT WAIT.

    • Chip Daniels says:

      Well, they didn’t collude.
      Sure, they collaborated, and conspired, and coordinated and connived, but at no time did they collude!

  2. OnRahJay says:

    What is this second “draft” poll directed toward Ukrainians that is being discussed? If I understand the text correctly (and I might not), it seems (!) to have been an item of importance to Manafort around December, 2016

    • emptywheel says:

      He was considering working for a Ukrainian in 2007, and put that question in a poll prepped to help decide whether he would do that work or not.

  3. BobCon says:

    Hard to imagine why you do a printout and face to face meeting unless you were really worried about the US government intercepting a phone call and email.

    I think I’m repeating what I’ve said earlier, but I also wonder whether this was only a topline guide to a much larger set of data that the Russians got via other means.

    • Someguy says:

      “I think I’m repeating what I’ve said earlier, but I also wonder whether this was only a topline guide to a much larger set of data that the Russians got via other means.”

      Like Alfa Bank transmissions.

    • PieIsDamnGood says:

      75 pages would be about the right length for a detailed data dictionary, perhaps with some high level results or example queries. This would allow another transmission of fixed width or csv data (perhaps from a server in Trump tower) to be plausibly gibberish.

      I wonder if the Russians were doing their own analysis or taking targets directly from the Trump campaign.

        • PieIsDamnGood says:

          Another interesting idea. A one time pad would also show up as gibberish, I wonder if they would have the substantial redaction for describing a cipher?

          • MattyG says:

            Lowly conscript here; just googled “one-time pad”. Very interesting. It relates directly ot the “gibberish” angle and supports the idea of a need for a FTF meeting with the other side…

    • P J Evans says:

      It can be hard to follow a meeting about a report over the phone, when you don’t have a copy of the report – and 75 pages is a fairly hefty stack of paper, even if it’s printed double-sided.

    • André Alessi says:

      Honestly, I think the simplest explanation here is that Manafort is an old fart who is suspicious of technology. Trump Campaign’s OpSec absolutely wasn’t tight enough to stop him copying the files to his laptop and taking it with him if he wanted to.

      75 pages of printed data sounds like a lot, but it’s A) not very much raw data, B) too much summary metrics or example metrics, and C) static, while polling data (by definition) needs to be dynamic and regularly updated to be valuable.

      But it’s clear that both PM and KK thought it *was* valuable data, so who knows? None of this is how I would handle data (I do this for a living) but then I’m not an old man or a Russian not-spy.

      If this was me, the printouts would be examples of metrics, reports, graphs, and different ways of slicing and digesting the live data set so that someone else could see what’s available and let me know what specifically they needed. Then I’d go back to my desk and build the actual live reports from that discussion.

      • emptywheel says:

        I agree it’s not all that much, given that a typical poll and cross-tabs can run 20 pages.

        Still, they do consider it valuable.

        • BillHicks says:

          70 pages of raw data
          2-3 pages of summary and analysis by Cambridge Analytics???

          BTW: You are doing great job, Emptywheel.

      • BobCon says:

        That seems like a reasonable picture of what it might be. Another reason why the printout by itself was probably not the whole story is that it’s tough for the recipient to do anything with it. Scanning and reformatting and proofing is a pain in the neck.

        It makes a lot of sense to suspect it either connects to a bigger set of existing data, or a set of data to be delivered.

        • tinao says:

          what about some sort of key for future/further polling data?
          sorry in advance, just had surgery on right wrist. watch out for black ice folks.

  4. Silence Hand says:

    Sacrebleu! It is almost as if careful document research reveals important information! How can this be?

    Shocking. If this continues, perhaps even journalists will adopt such bizarre cabalistic practices! Perhaps she is some kind of magic reading sorceress?

    But hey, 75 pages of polling data… maybe it was like, pentuple spaced in 20 point Comic Sans with 2 inch margins.

  5. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    Sorry, I couldn’t edit the post above but off topic it looks like Rosenstein is turnin’ the heat up on the frog boil.

    • Hika says:

      I saw a story about that over at TPM. Josh was noting that Schiff was pushing back hard against Rosenstein’s comment.
      “The game’s afoot!”
      [Clearly, I’m a little late to the ball park.]

  6. JOHN C HOOGE says:

    I suspect they gave the Russians the polling data so that same Russians could target vulnerable districts and sympathetic constituencies.

  7. OldTulsaDude says:

    Let me see if I have this straight: Paulie’s story is that Kilimnik jumped on a plane and flew from Moscow to New York and met, during the campaign, with two members of the campaign who afterwards left via separate exits, all in order to receive 76 pages of months-old pollling data that he could have gone online to 538 and pulled up? Is that all they’ve got?

      • OldTulsaDude says:

        No collusion?
        It would seem that Paulie – as campaign chairman – colluded with Kilimnik, who ABJ has accepted as a pipeline to the Russian government.

        I wonder how much evidence of conspiracy the SCO is sitting on.

        • bmaz says:

          Collusion is a bogus word and phrasing. There is no such thing as “collusion” standard criminal law. It is absolutely diversionary garbage. The term is conspiracy. Please do not traffic in bullshit here.

          • OldTulsaDude says:

            Sorry. I forget sarcasm doesn’t register in the written word.

            The campaign chairman definitely coordinated with Kilimnik to hand over polling data which Russia could not gather on its own. Does that rise to the level of ConFraudUS?

  8. Anvil Leucippus says:

    OT (but in my defense, I can’t comment on the relevant EW when the “comments are closed”): I guess this confirms that nobody told the DOJ that their boss had been fired.


    And it blows my mind that the WH mouthpieces can stand there in front of the press and lie, and get away with it as much as they do! Sure, BDTS was acting-AG “after Sessions resigned” — but they omit that the “after” is really a cloy way of not saying “over a day later”. And it still doesn’t explain why the DOJ didn’t get that memo until almost Midnight on the 13th, 5 days after Sessions was forced to resign. WTF

  9. doctor pablito says:

    The “polling data” were instructions. Instructions to Kilimnick to pass on to IRA, to pass on to the “Guccifer 2.0” group, informing them of where, exactly, the Trump campaign needed and wanted support. 76 pages of “polling data” were likely broken down by demographic group and location at the precinct level. What else makes sense? Manafort requested a secret meeting and handed over a thumb drive of stuff rather than transmitting because he knew this was incriminating. It was a “win/win” meeting for everyone. Paulie was helping to settle his Ukrainian/Cypriot bank account debts by handing over a massive receipt by taking this meeting; Paulie was helping the campaign get effective social media pressure. Kilimnick similarly would describe this as win/win. This is the most parsimonious explanation of what this was. Why would Kilimnick and the Russian operation care about publicly available actual polling data, divorced from Manafort’s expertise? They wouldn’t care about this stuff unless they intended and Manafort intended them to act on it.

    • Eskimo says:

      Right on Washington, also too, progress because bang for your buck, and like nukes and shit going way back. Execs need to know where to push the next round, because efficient, outcomes, and like of course justifiable compensation for brainy hard working, since like the 80s. Gopus delendus est ⚡️

  10. Doug R says:

    75 sounds like decent crosstabs, not quite Facebook level, but maybe something to point where to put their resources.
    Hard to believe a SD card or USB key wasn’t exchanged, maybe it’s been redacted

    • Troutwaxer says:

      A Micro-SD could be slipped into someone’s pocket or left on the table while someone used the bathroom.

      • Eureka says:

        For that matter, they could have just taped a mirco-SD to one of the pages (in the middle) of the printout. Less likely to be misplaced. It’s not like Kilimnik was going through TSA (presumably).

        But see EW 545p- sounds like there were other ways to access the data.

  11. Barcadad says:

    75 pages “of gibberish” strongly suggests it wasn’t plain-vanilla “polling data.”

    Are we so sure that’s actually what they gave to Kiliminik to pass on to Lyovochkin? Isn’t that the defense’s characterization? Could “polling data” gibberish actually have been detailed voter data that helped the Russians launder cash into the campaign via straw donors (e.g., into the MAGA Joint Fundraising Committee set up in May 2016)? This would have been right out of the Manafort playbook. And assuming he took a slice of these contributions for himself, that would explain why he would have routed the info in this particular way.

  12. P J Evans says:

    Delimited ASCII can look like gibberish to someone who isn’t already familiar with the data source (or doesn’t have a labelled example of the data). I’ve met delimited-ASCII files that could only be opened with Access, and someone who wasn’t familiar with that database wouldn’t know what was in some of the fields. (I’ll admit to guessing about a couple of them that hadn’t been in the original version, 20 years earlier. But most I could identify, and that was enough to extract the parts I really wanted: about 15K out of 4.25 million records.)

    • Rayne says:

      Yup. I used delimited files today and unless somebody knew what to look for — even depending on the encoding type like UTF, Unicode, or ANSI instead of ASCII — the data would look like a monkey had been beating on a keyboard.

      We don’t even know if the data was encrypted which would further muddle the appearance.

      • P J Evans says:

        There are things Access does that I really like, and I wish my genealogy program would do things that way. (Like having tables so I only have to edit a source citation once instead of every place it shows up. Or being able to generate a decent SQL query so I can find just the records I need to change, instead of looking at a whole bunch that are fine.) Oh well….

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Lovely work. You’re spoiling your readers: they might think it’s easy to produce. That would be a mistake on their part.

    Your last line needs a little time to sink in. The damning arrangement you’ve described Manafort as having at that August 2nd meeting with Gates and Kilimnik – and whomever let them use their club membership – “That’s Manafort’s least damning story.”

    That that’s the least damning perspective that Manafort and a team of talented lawyers could produce without outright lying is a big story. I’ll bet Gates, who has a better sense of what that meeting and that data were has a yet more damning version. i wonder it looks like to Mueller’s shop?

  14. MattyG says:

    “…Westling also suggests that Amy Berman Jackson should go check it out herself: “there’s copies of it in the exhibits.”…

    The Court has a copy of the printout then? Or am I misunderstanding what the “it” refers to in the quote?

  15. Taxidermist says:

    Wait, so Gates was present for the meeting describing the data, he worked with Manafort for years, he is cooperating, and he printed the pages in question.. The explaination that NOBODY in the vast reach and resources of the US Government can decipher a document, with 76 pages to work with, is kind of unbelievable. How can the government prove it was material, polling data or something more sinister, enough to consider it in the conspiracy, if they say for the record it is gibberish? Am I missing something? I feel dim.
    Also, my thanks to EW for another piece of this puzzle.

    • Strawberry Fields says:

      Manafort’s defense called it gibberish to downplay the fact that it was detailed and complex. If it was actually gibberish, Manafort wouldn’t have printed it out for a secret meeting with an russian expert on campaigns.

      • MattyG says:

        Not to stray too far afield but up thread someone mentioned the possibility that the document was a type of hard copy cipher called a “one-way pad” – which would look like gibberish and be the same length as the original.

        • tropo says:

          “one time pad” … and it is straying far afield. People outside of cryptography get all excited the first time they stumble across the concept of a one time pad, as it is unbreakable if used correctly. The issue is, the key has to be used only once, and must be the length of (or longer than) the plain text to be enciphered. This means that a 75 page one time pad is only good for enciphering 75 pages of data. Unless Manafort were passing off key material for a whole bunch of short encrypted communications, that no one has been talking about, it would be a rather pointless thing for him to bring to the meeting. That is my long way of saying it’s a bunch of pointless speculation based on little more than people saying it looked like gibberish.

        • BillHicks says:

          Almost assuredly not a one-time-pad(OTP) because it’s too easy too generate.
          Only a complete idiot or incompetent fool would uh …

          When NSA saw that random data, they would have cracked it by lunchtime. OTP offer perfect security in principle, but only if he data is perfectly random

      • ThomasPaine says:

        Yes, and Judge Jackson said Manafort’s attorney’s have spouted nothing but gibberish for over a year, which is one reason why Manafort will spend the rest of his life in a concrete box in Florence, CO. He definitely hasn’t had the sharpest legal minds in WDC in his corner. In fact with all the trafficking in privileged data under the “unwritten JDA” that Dowling participated in between the courthouse and the White House, he will probably have some interesting discussions with the Bar.

    • Democritus says:

      Or something like a discord server or hell Dropbox, never used one but the basic concept? I mean there have to be a million and one ways to transmit data nowadays. The pages were just the key so to speak

      • Troutwaxer says:

        Exactly. It’s useless to speculate how the data was passed. I happen to prefer the Micro-SD card because it could be sewn into the hem of a jacket, hidden in a tiny souvenir, but there are probably a hundred ways of getting the data from one point to another, some of which would be invisible even to very careful observers.

  16. Areader2019 says:


    Marcy is on MSNBC right now!

    You should put a flashing banner on this blog so us fans will know in advance. I just stumbled on it.

  17. Democritus says:

    That was awesome!!!! Great job getting the word out, and right before Warren!!!!

    Also if Hayes read this, hey waves ;-)

  18. CD54 says:

    Where does Richard Westling explain exactly what the Russian Intelligence-linked Russian needed the U.S. polling data for — not to mention the 6 related follow-up Emails?

  19. greengiant says:

    And the question that must not be not asked is “Why would Kilimnik need to see the polling data”. Well ponder what the gamer-gaters and Manafort did in the Ukraine elections. Wonder how many of those voting machines and electronic optical tabulators with trade secret software and sourced unknown USB like “cards” to provide the software and accumulate and report the actual vote data. Machines sold by companies owned by a daisy chain of slavic operators, running Windows XP, and air gapped just as well as a centrifuge in Iran.
    Nevermind, those are all just dots with no connections the public can see.
    The media blows the deniablity bubble over the public.
    Don’t you know it is all just dark ads and social media manipulation that let Renaissance make all that money in the market and operatives win elections. More like a smoke screen for big data analysis to know who is buying and checking out what. How many voters have family members on probation or with illegal immigration status can be squeezed to not show up at the polls. Voter enrollment campaigns, not if you are black in Alabama or Korean in Georgia.

  20. bottles999 says:

    First, this site is amazing! Thank you for sharing!!

    I agree that key question it ask is “Why would a Russian agent or even Russian Pvt citizen even need to see 75 pages of polling ‘gibberish’?”. I suspect this is data from sources like Cambridge Analytica, now defunct, that perhaps can be described as ‘highly technical polling data’ and ‘gibberis’h to the lay person. However, in the right hands this can be used to hone a major dis-information campaign like the one the GRU was running.
    The bulk of the GRU involvement and discussion in the 2016 campaign has been centered around the hacked emails of Podesta and their distribution to wiki-leaks. While that is one major issue and front they were waging, it wasnt the only front.
    On the periphery has been a discussion more centered around social medial and Facebook/twitter about fake stories and such to shape public opinion, support Trump or Sanders, trash Clinton and sow general discourse, ect. The data from Cambridge Analytica would go along way for targeted messages to further that aim, which would be very valuable to the group instigating that aka – the GRU.

    Overall, This would make sense in the context of the overall arc here and the exact type of polling data that the GRU would need that only the Trump organization could provide. Further, having a face-to-face and hard copy form would ‘try’ to leave no ‘electronic fingerprint’. Particularly, if its encoded as some have mentioned/suggested above. There also seems to be only mentions or references to the data, but no direct data in the electronic records.

  21. Eureka says:

    I’m missing Team Manafort’s theory as to why less-recent poll data is somehow exculpatory as regards this meeting. It seems like their argument is for his participation in ‘potentially less-effectual’ ConFraudUS. Is it part of the pardon-begging, trying to deny that Trump is an illegitimate POTUS? We gave RU shitty data, so don’t worry your election won’t get an asterisk because of me? (Admitting I am biased towards the notion that Trump would be more upset about being labeled illegitimate than being labeled as part of a criminal conspiracy.)

    Also, you note Manafort’s team may still be trying to convey info to conspirators with document reference tricks as here. The flip side of that is that *they* think there’s still an SCO RU investigation ongoing… a pragmatic proof of life for Mueller.

    • Eureka says:

      * investigation (sic)- meaning the shop is still open (whether the ‘investigatory phase’ is concluded as reported, or not).

  22. Leila512 says:

    O/T: This is an inquiry I made on an earlier thread that didn’t get answered, so re-posting it here. Anyone’s insight is apprecciated…

    @bmax 2/25 2:07pm stated: “The thought that there are a bunch of Mueller sealed indictments hanging out there is complete vapor, and almost certainly not the case.”

    My Q: More than once @bmaz has shot down the idea that there may be several sealed indictments. Not challenging the assertion, just wondering what leads to that POV? Thanks

    • bmaz says:

      Because there is not one shred of evidence for believing there are a treasure trove of magically sealed indictments. From the start of this case people have constantly blathered about sealed indictments, and it has NEVER borne out. Further, that is simply not how professional prosecutors work, indictments usually only sealed long enough to arrest the defendant and execute any related search. The only person in the SCO case that had any substantial delay in his charge being secreted was Papadopolous, who was cooperating. Lastly, there are excellent justice reporters that literally camp out at Prettyman courthouse monitoring the situation vis a vis grand jury activity and activity at the Chief Judge’s chambers and the clerk’s office. Not a one of them has seen any evidence whatsoever of the unicorn like magic sealed charges. And I talk to them regularly. It is wishful vapor.

    • Rayne says:

      I’m curious as to why you feel you must have an answer to this question and from this site instead of others.

      Sometimes when we don’t answer questions it’s not because we missed the question.

      • Leila512 says:

        A matter of trust in people on this site, combined with conflicting “expert” views elsewhere. Didn’t realize this would be objectionable. I’ll go back to lurking…

          • RWood says:

            Thanks to Bmaz remarks I now skip over any mention of the magic sealed indictments, but it doesn’t stop them from appearing. Example from today’s Politico front page:

            ” And a slate of sealed indictments sit in the Washington, D.C., federal courthouse, raising the prospect that some in Trump’s circle may have already been indicted and just don’t know it.”

            One thing Marcy/Bmaz/Rayne have done for me is improve my BS filter. So thanks for that.

            • bmaz says:

              Oh, there are at any given time multiple sealed indictments in every federal court. Usually for the reasons I stated above. And, hey, it is not impossible that a couple in DC are Mueller related, but based on everything I have seen to date and heard, I very seriously doubt it. Much better to stick with what we actually do know than to place hopes on the unicorn.

              • OldMaineGuy says:

                Here’s the paragraph from the article RWood cites above:
                “While Mueller could charge others before closing up shop, it’s also possible that he has already placed more indictments like ticking time bombs into the federal court system. Seventeen cases filed there so far this year remain under seal, as well as another 57 from last year.”
                So I can see why Leila512 would be confused – the thrust (and tone of the article) implies that all 74 of those sealed cases are from Mueller and relate to the Russia investigation.
                As bmaz points out (yet again!) this is just not so: “at any given time multiple sealed indictments in every federal court”.
                I would have liked to think that Politico was above this kind of stuff. Um, no.
                If you want that straight, sir, no spin, you’ll have to get it at Emptywheel Lounge and Conversation Emporium.

                • RWood says:

                  Based on Mueller’s sentencing report, I’m starting to think of him as more of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  23. CD54 says:

    Good job to everybody re: Why would Russian agent (Kilimnik) need U.S. polling data in August of 2016. Now if we could just get an answer on the record from idiot Trump Sr. maybe we could wrap this conspiracy up.

  24. klynn says:

    I wondered, after finding my Green County Young GOP post years ago about how to vote multiple times, if the data revealed the slim margins needed for strategic wins in order to plan a mail in ballot “box stuffing” type of act? Later in August tends to be the absentee voting ballot request deadline for each state.

      • klynn says:

        Add in that late Sept to mid Oct tend to be the window for voter registration deadlines in each state…the data may reflect using FB and social media and identify who is pro trump, not registered or leaning Trump light and may need some applucation of Control Theory via trolls to gain slim margins in key states in normally unnoticed areas.

        • Rayne says:

          I don’t know if that fits with the record undervote in Michigan, though. I wonder if the microtargeting picked off women who were soft on Clinton but anti-Trump. Perhaps Bernie voters who typically vote Dem but could be persuaded to stay away from Clinton?

          I also wonder if precincts with higher than average absentee ballots may have been affected by equipment or other failures.

          • tinao says:

            as far as i know rayne, opscan tabulators are still hackable. can’t type to well at this point so good source to look up info for this is bradblog.com

            • tinao says:

              i would also note that i now believe that a dual system of using tabulators plus a strong hand marked ballot audit is the best way to date of counting votes. but one must be vigilant about what legislation is put in place for the audit. existing laws on the books in some states on audits are woefully inadequate.

  25. Mark Ospeck says:

    Stephen at 10:19 AM- “.. in those 75 pages of polling data was information on specific issues that were important to specific demographic groups..evidence of Clinton’s vulnerability among Midwestern..”

    BobCon at 7:10 PM- “..printout ..probably not the whole story.. connects to a bigger set of existing data”

    JOHN C HOOGE at 5:50 pm- ” gave the Russians the polling data so that ..could target vulnerable districts..”

    doctor pablito at 6:16 pm- “polling data” were instructions..to Kilimnick to pass on to IRA .. “Guccifer .. where, exactly, the Trump campaign needed and wanted support…were likely broken down by demographic group and location at the precinct level…Manafort requested a secret meeting and handed over a thumb drive..”

    Manafort went over hard copy sample data set w Kilimnick, then handed him the thumb drive. Spooks would be able to correlate the polling data against Russian info attacks on Midwestern voters–say Wisconsin precinct x Fall 16. They’d certainly be able to p-test a null hypothesis that the 2 Aug trump polling data was not correlated to Russian dezynformatsia vs. precinct x.. Just filter the polling, filter specific attacks, cross-correlate and go by districts, precincts and local demographics. Test correlations pre vs. post, meeting. Expect CIA has done all of this and knows with high degree of certainty that the Russian attacks are indeed highly correlated w the August Trump polling data dump to Russia. High enough that criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian intel can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This has to be a backbone element of the Mueller report. Personally, I’m rooting for a big juicy stretch of slammer time for Stevo Bannon.

  26. Badger Robert says:

    Per Mark, as noted above. One should be able to test the data v the campaign v the results in the election compared to 2012. One problem could be is that CIA does not want to show what they know, because the Russians would change methods.
    But that also means there is a way to present forensic evidence without an opinion on collusion.

Comments are closed.