Treasury States as Fact that Konstantin Kilimnik Shared Polling Data with Russian Intelligence

Today, the Biden Administration rolled out a package of new sanctions against Russia. The package includes new authorities, including limitations on doing business with Russia’s Sovereign Debt. It sanctions some companies with ties to Russian intelligence, including for their role in the Solar Winds breach, which is the kind of precedent that may backfire against the US. As Russia expands its military presence in or just outside Ukraine, it imposes sanctions on Russians involved in Crimea. It expands sanctions for disinformation, targeting both Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s fronts and his money laundering vehicles as well as a GRU front.

A number of those measures will be controversial. And the imposition of sanctions on Prigozhin without an accompanying criminal complaint (as happened under Trump) may suggest a change of strategy.

But one of the bigger pieces of news is that the Treasury press release states as fact that Konstantin Kilimnik shared the polling data that Paul Manafort gave to him (or had Rick Gates pass on) with unnamed Russian intelligence.

Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2018, Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding unregistered lobbying work. Kilimnik has also sought to assist designated former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. At Yanukovych’s direction, Kilimnik sought to institute a plan that would return Yanukovych to power in Ukraine.

Kilimnik was designated pursuant to E.O. 13848 for having engaged in foreign interference in the U.S. 2020 presidential election. Kilimnik was also designated pursuant to E.O. 13660 for acting for or on behalf of Yanukovych. Yanukovych, who is currently hiding in exile in Russia, was designated in 2014 pursuant to E.O. 13660 for his role in violating Ukrainian sovereignty. [my emphasis]

This comes just one month after the Intelligence Community associated Kilimnik with FSB rather than GRU, as had previously been alleged.

This announcement could be particularly interesting for pardoned Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. As Andrew Weissmann pointed out at the time, Manafort’s pardon only includes the stuff he was convicted of, arguably leaving open the possibility of prosecution even for stuff he admitted but was not convicted of.

But Manafort’s role in feeding Russia information that was useful for their election operation in 2016 was only ever addressed in Manafort’s plea breach hearing. He was never charged for his lies to protect Kilimnik during the period he was supposed to be cooperating. Just as interesting, around the time (in June and August of last year) that FBI was offering $250,000 for information leading to Kilimnik’s arrest and adding him to their Most Wanted list, a lawsuit by media outlets for Manafort’s breach filings died out with no explanation. One possible explanation for that (it’s not the only one) is that DOJ weighed in and said those filings could not be released because of the ongoing investigation that would lead Treasury to have more confidence about what Kilimnik did with that information.

Yes, it’s interesting that the government now seems to have more clarity about what Russian agency Kilimnik worked for and what he did with Trump campaign information. But it may be acutely interesting for Paul Manafort.

81 replies
  1. BobCon says:

    It’s worth adding what has been written here in the past that Manafort didn’t simply hand over the data, he gave KK guidance in how to use it.

      • BobCon says:

        Ken Vogel has a byline on the article that MW points out is problematic, no surprise.

        The NY Times needs to admit that Vogel — and whoever edits him — aren’ t to be trusted, and they are going to be burned if they don’t sever ties now. Vogel’s relationship with his sources is a disaster, and I’m astounded how they didn’t act after the Ukraine whistleblower came forward.

        • pseudonymous in nc says:

          Vogel also seems desperate to find something — anything! — to make up for blowing the Ukraine story, which makes him even more manipulable.

  2. Peterr says:

    “Acutely interesting” is an understatement. Is Manafort continuing to employ his old legal team, or might he have to put the band back together?

    But it’s also acutely interesting for those around Trump. Speculative eavesdropping here . . .

    Legal underling: Uh, Mr. President? I just want to give you a heads up about your old friend Paul Manafort . . .
    Trump: He’s not my old friend – he was a pal of Reince Priebus, I think, that calmed down the pearl-clutchers at the RNC in 2016 when the convention looked like it was going to be a mess. I barely knew the guy.
    Underling: But he was . . . I mean, right. You barely knew him. But he may be in some legal trouble again, for his activities in your 2016 campaign.
    Trump: That’s impossible. I gave him a pardon, and those are absolute. What kind of a piss-poor lawyer are you?
    Underling: Well, . . . um . . . err . . . Mr. President, you pardoned him for the specific things for which he was charged while you were . . . um . . . while you lived at the White House. It seems that he may be — it’s not certain yet, but it’s a possibility — that he may be facing some new charges that aren’t covered by that pardon.
    Trump: What. Kind. Of. New. Charges?
    Underling: Uhhhh . . . it has to do with his connections with the Russian Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign.
    Trump: Russia? Again with Russia? What’s wrong with Manafort having connections with this guy, you know, for getting together for lunch or drinks with someone?
    Underling: Mr. President, Sir, it’s a little more than that. It’s, uh, it’s that he may have . . . the DOJ thinks that he . . . Mr. President, it seems that perhaps Mr Manafort passed information to the Russian Intelligence services about your campaign.
    Trump: So? It’s not like he passed something classified, like the nuclear missile launch codes. I still don’t see the problem.
    Underling: Sir, you’re not going to like this, and let me be clear that I am telling you about this not because I believe it but because the DOJ believes it. And it’s going to make trouble for you.
    Trump. Oh-Kay. Spit it out.
    Underling: It means that the investigation into the whole Russia Hoax is not over.
    (spins around and runs from the room)

    Similarly, Manafort’s legal team (old or new) now has to deal with a client who does NOT have a protector in the White House. Manafort kept his mouth shut and got a pardon, but now they’ve got to tell him it wasn’t big enough.

    Here’s the big question: Did Manafort think that the WH gave him full protection, only to realize now that he was duped into a small pardon by Bill Barr, the WH Counsel’s Office, or by Trump himself?

    If the answer to that question is “yes,” Manafort may be interested in seeking some full protection from the DOJ and seeking vengeance upon Trump and his lawyers. “I kept my mouth shut, and spent time behind bars, and now I learn that I’m still on the hook? I don’t think so . . .”

    • Rugger9 says:

      The first useful question is who would pay for putting the legal team back together. It will not be altruistic, but by those whom Manafort would be able to leverage if he sings. The answer would tell us volumes about who else is scared to see Manafort back in the dock, and I expect much of the current GOP leadership would be very interested to ensure Paul stays quiet.

      With that said, it would behoove the DOJ to get Manafort back into custody sooner than later, because of the ties to Russian operatives with few scruples about removing inconvenient witnesses. Since Biden has upped the ante on sanctions, someone is going to pay for that.

      • Eureka says:

        Speaking of lawyers and their payment, there’s also that small matter of the PAC Manafort used to pay his priors via Fabrizio’s media company (or rather the media co. to the PAC to the lawyers, after a Manafort request from the PAC). Wherefore art an FEC quorum, or is that all past its due date.

        More seriously, it might all seem ‘over’ or to be an escapable issue but with new (and forthcoming) disclosures and a different DOJ there might be other aspects of ‘coordination’ up for reconsideration, as EW hints.

        • Rugger9 says:

          That in addition to who paid Kavanaugh’s debts before elevation to SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see if Justice Kavanaugh has been ringing up the bills since he moved up, do justices have to file financial statements?

  3. Corey says:

    To me it appears the IC specifically didn’t associate Kilimnik with the FSB. Here’s the quote:

    “A network of Ukraine-linked individuals — including Russian influence agent Konstantin Kilimnik — who were also connected to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) took steps throughout the election cycle to damage US-ties to Ukraine, denigrate President Biden and his candidacy, and benefit former President Trump’s prospects for reelection.”

    • bmaz says:

      Well, “to me”, it appears you do not provide a link for your cite, and your own cite disproves your own blanket statement.

      • Corey says:

        Lmao what’s up with the rudeness dude? I see you like this all the time on Twitter and it’s not at all conducive to constructive dialogue. The link? It’s obviously the DNI report this section of Marcy’s article is concerned with…

        But how does what I clipped ‘disprove’ the claim? It shows they may just mean the Ukraine-linked individuals who weren’t Kilimnik were connected to the FSB. I’m not sure though, that’s why I said “it appears.”

              • TooLoose LeTruck says:

                I’ve learned to tread lightly around Empty Wheel… but I do like it here… smart clientele.. really interesting discussions… learning a lot about the law… well stocked bar… tasty beverages*… and my vocabulary is getting better…

                *bonus points for anyone who can cite the reference…

                • bmaz says:

                  Eh, I’d argue that this is actually a pretty hospitable spot. An informed and passionate place certainly, but one focused on pretty difficult issues. If, like you, people are interested in that, and most all are, everything moves along quite well.

                  By the same token, and contrary to Corey’s claim that his comments were not read properly (they indeed were), we, and I can speak for “we” to some extent, do very much try to protect this space, and have very long experience doing so.

                  But, TooLoose LeTruck, don’t worry about treading lightly, just tread in good faith, which you consistently have by my eye. And same for most everyone; Corey blunderbussed in with a bad take, that usually does not end up well. So be it.

                  As to the more interesting part, am interested in the “tasty beverages” thing. What referring to? Back when we first started, there were jokes aplenty about the EW liquor cabinet (often tequila, which probably tracks back to the desert here), but said cabinet also includes all kinds of craft beer and bourbon.

                  • Norskeflamthrower says:

                    Please don’t go soft Beeman, you’re the only thing that keeps this place from lookin’ like Facebook. No trolls are ready for a rhetorical war of attrition with you and that keeps this place safe.

                • puzzled scottish person says:

                  ‘tasty beverage’

                  Heh. Thanks for a perfect excuse to dig out my Pulp Fiction DVD and sink a few beers.

                  If only I had a Big Kahuna Burger handy :-)

          • Corey says:

            I guess I just don’t understand why you’re being an obtuse asshole when we’re all just trying to understand which agency KK is from, and it appears the grammar was important in that paragraph. Do you not get it?

            • bmaz says:

              You want to see an obtuse asshole, take a look in a mirror. Otherwise get lost. You have added nothing to the discussion in this post that is useful.

              • Corey says:

                Why lie that I haven’t added anything to the discussion when I have? Clearly I pointed out that it’s up in the air whether or not the DNI connected Kilimnik to the FSB based on the grammar of the statement I pointed out.

                You have yet to address this and keep raging at me for simply commenting on the substance of a story that isn’t yours and that you likely don’t understand. Why is that?

            • Rayne says:

              First, with regards to “we’re all”: don’t speak for others, thank you.

              Second, why are you so invested in linking Kilimnik to FSB, to the exclusion of other “Russian Intelligence Services”? Let me point out the Treasury statement pointedly labels Kilimnik a “known Russian Intelligence Services agent” — plural, services, not singular.

              • Rugger9 says:

                It’s a distinction without a difference, in Soviet days each service had its sphere of influence and as far as we were concerned there was nothing that separated any one from the others in methods, attitude or threat to the USA.

                Since Putin is an unreconstructed Soviet in his methods, I’m sure the similar situation applies.

                  • Rugger9 says:

                    I was reinforcing Rayne’s comment taking Corey to task. For some reason Corey seems to think that which part of the Russian intelligence services KK was reporting to was important. It is not, because it all gets back to Putin anyway.

              • Troutwaxer says:

                Is it possible that whoever wrote “services” mislaid an apostrophe? If I ran, for example, the FBI I wouldn’t want one of my agents moonlighting for the CIA, for example. “Service’s” would make a lot more sense.

                By the way, not advocating for either side in this debate – just pointing out the grammar.

                • Rayne says:

                  Perhaps there’s a missing apostrophe, but then why not be specific about the single agency instead, especially when reports like the SSCI’s have been very specific? We know GRU was involved in hacking an influence ops; if there was work to be handed off to GRU from FSB (or SVR), that could make the person involved an agent of multiple services.

                  • Troutwaxer says:

                    In which case “services” means “we don’t really know who pulls his strings. I suspect that Kilimnik is a big enough fish in his own right to get some information then decide himself where to take it, or that he gets his orders from Putin then delivers the intelligence to wherever Putin tells him. The idea that he’s “part of” a government department (or departments) seems a little suspicious to me.

                    • Rayne says:

                      I don’t understand your skepticism. Why would Kilimnik be any less likely to be an agent of any Russian intelligence service than someone like Maria Butina or Alexander Torshin, neither of whom punched a clock in any Russian intelligence services’ office?

                    • Troutwaxer says:

                      Kilimnik is a player, and I’m sure he hands any useful intelligence he picks up over to whatever Russian agency can use it, but I don’t think he’s an employee. I think he’s one of the people in charge – maybe a couple levels down from Putin, but ranking much higher than “an agent.” You could make a very accurate “in Russia subject and object gets reversed” joke about the whole thing if you were so inclined.

                • timbo says:

                  It’s possible that it’s missing. There was at least one grammar error up there as of a few minutes ago…

                • Eureka says:

                  I don’t understand the confusion or the point — he’s been linked to both GRU and FSB (where the FSB link is newer), which EW linked above and discussed in more detail here:

                  News from the Election Front: Russia Attacked Joe Biden Through “Prominent US Individuals, Some of Whom Were Close to Former President Trump”

                  Why would we need an apostrophe? What’s the controversy?

                  ETA: RU’s not running some kind of operational purity mission (at best maybe ~ serially monogamous of intel service jobs)

              • Corey says:

                No I will continue to use ‘we’ since we indeed are all trying to figure out which agency KK is definitely associated with.

                If you read my comments, which you apparently didn’t, you’d see that I’m the one actually advocating against the claim that Kilimnik is associated with the FSB while bmaz is raging at any suggestion that he’s possibly not FSB.

                I don’t get the hostilities. I really don’t lol

                [Look, slow your fucking roll. You’ve got 8 comments under your belt so far as “Corey,” earned exactly zero cred with this community, and you don’t appear to know the lay of the land. Meanwhile, this community does actually read all the content you’re claiming they haven’t read. Ease up, take a seat, just read for a while./~Rayne]

            • Greenhouse says:

              “A network of Ukraine-linked individuals — including Russian influence agent Konstantin Kilimnik — who were also connected to the Russian Federal Security Service.” Corey, you’re the obtuse dude. “Including Russian influence agent Kilimnik” appears pretty clear to me.

              • Corey says:

                ?? How am I obtuse? I’m not trying to claim KK isn’t Russian intelligence, I’m just having a dialogue about why I don’t think the DNI report in that sentence was linking the FSB to Kilimnik (I think he’s GRU — which would make sense since the GRU carried out the election interference he was allegedly connected to, per SSCI Vol.5)

                Like, the use of hyphens to me indicates they were trying to refer to the Ukraine-linked individuals who weren’t Kilimnik as being connected to the FSB.

                I’m not sure though, which is why I shared my thoughts here hoping to have a constructive conversation.

                • Norskeflamthrower says:

                  “…I shared my thoughts here hoping to have a DEconstructive conversation.” There I fixed it for ya.

          • Corey says:

            Wait do you genuinely not see how they could mean that the Ukraine-linked individuals who aren’t Russian influence agent Kilimnik are connected to the FSB?

            I’m not trying to be adversarial and am not sure why everyone is trying to be in the comments here lol.

    • GKJames says:

      I read it as: The “network of … individuals … connected to the … FSB” “includ[es] … Kilimnik.”

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Yep. Reading Comprehension 101 would interpret the text Corey cited to mean that a group of people – including Kiliminik – were connected to the FSB. He needs to do more homework – or play on a different ballfield.

        • Corey says:

          What’s the point in being rude here? I genuinely do not understand why you guys are being assholes when I’m just simply proffering the possibility that the language there and the use of hyphens seems like they were trying to disconnect the “connected to the FSB” descriptor from Kilimnik (and since they referred to him separately as a Russian influence agent).

          Again, not trying to be snarky here, just have a constructive dialogue, yet you all are raging for some reason. I’m pretty sure KK is GRU, if you think I’m trying to exonerate KK or something.

          Do more homework huh? Get back to me when you’ve read all 5 volumes of the SSCI’s Russia investigation, the Mueller/Horowitz reports, *all* the accompanying FBI 302s, all the books written by investigators Brennan, Strzok, Weissmann, McCabe, Clapper, Comey, etc.

          • Eureka says:

            Uh, no: they were trying to emphasize Kilimnik — single him out as a prominent member of that “network of Ukraine-linked individuals” — not exclude him. There is LITERALLY no other interpretation of that grammatical structure.

            Above, you said you “weren’t sure.” Well I am sure as are plenty of others here.

            It seems that your entirely sincere question was answered.

            See what I did there with those emdashes?

          • Ginevra diBenci says:

            Corey, I’ve been reading this for two days now. May I suggest that if you think people are being “rude” to you, it doesn’t help when you call them “assholes”? While I think you have a legitimate, if unnecessarily convoluted, point, the name-calling indicates that your real intention is (as my mom used to say) picking a fight.

          • Norskeflamthrower says:

            Maybe you would understand a little more about assholes if you got your head outta yours?!!

    • The Baffled King says:

      Corey, I’m sorry to say that you’ve read the sentence wrong; it just cannot support your interpretation. On the other hand, bmaz was, as usual, unnecessarily aggressive. Maybe with a different response you would have been more willing to accept that you were wrong. Maybe not.

      To break the sentence down:

      (1) The sentence cites “A network of Ukraine-linked individuals … who were also connected to the [FSB]”, and continues by describing actions taken by those individuals.

      (2) The “network” is explicitly defined as individuals with (a) links to Ukraine; and (b) connections to the FSB. In fact, the “network” may be no more than a linguistic construct used by the authors of the report to group individuals with these two characteristics. If a person is part of the “network”, then by definition they have both links to the Ukraine and connections to the FSB.

      (3) Kilimnik is explicitly included in the “network”.

      (4) The mention of Kilimnik is obviously intended to serve some purpose, so I’ll provide potential alternatives to the one you suggested. Perhaps Kilimnik’s high profile made him a good example of the kind of individual the network is comprised of. Or perhaps the mention is a little dig at Republicans due to the Kilimnik-Manafort-Trump-Republican Party link.

      (5) Either way, the ordinary meaning of the words includes Kilimnik in a network of individuals, all of whom have connections to the FSB.

      • Rayne says:

        Welcome to emptywheel. Your complaint has been noted. At 504 words it’s excessive and will only DDoS this thread.

        There’s no obligation to contribute attention to the comments, post comments, or make financial contributions to the site; you’ll note visitors aren’t subjected to any kind of advertising and subsequent tracking. May I suggest simply reading the posts, avoiding the comments if you don’t like how this site operates?

        • Solo says:

          Thanks, Rayne, for the best advice I’ve seen today on this thread. With the exception of today, been adhering to it for months. I come here to learn. If I go too far down in REPLYS I’ll sooner or later be an unwitting witness to a flogging by a moderator. The demeaning response nearly always outweighs the offense. It doesn’t jive with the mostly kind and patient way you folks treat each other, re-explain things. And it’s not energy I choose to be around.

          Marcy’s incredible journalism is enough: just the postings for me. Works fine.

          • bmaz says:

            And, yet, here you are complaining. Lol. You know why our posts and threads stay clean, efficient and intelligent? Because we keep them that way.

            And you are not being quite honest about the nature and time period of your visits here, are you? You may have altered the way you approach this site, but you have been here for quite a while and more than a few comments. In fact, last year you said, and I quote:

            “I, too, am grateful for this site, Marcy, the moderators, and the refreshingly quirky circle of competent writers and confident voices.

            I learn SO much! So thank you, all.”

            Quite a different tune.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol “Baffled” so you up front admit I was right, and still want to harsh on me? Really?

        But, hey, this is a free website where, within reason, you can do that. Cheers.

  4. subtropolis says:

    My assumption has always — since his extraction from Russia in 2017 — been that Oleg Smolenkov had provided confirmation of certain suspicions. Specifically, here, that Kilimnik did in fact pass on the polling data. Intelligence agencies are notoriously allergic to revealing sources and methods. That his cover had been blown, and he was safely in the US, wouldn’t change much in that resolve not to go public. Neither confirm, nor deny.

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to learn that the US has had this information all this time. That it has never been so plainly expressed is a function both of that reticence to share, as well as the motivations of the shitbags who were most recently in charge of things in Washington. They certainly had no reason to reveal anything.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Thanks, subtropolis. I have been thinking about him too–how he could have confirmed the “collusion” narrative but for the sources and methods secrecy, which was never more urgent than with Trump in the WH putting entire field agencies at risk. I am guessing that the confirmation of this now has to do with that very change.

  5. klynn says:

    EW, thank you for this post and your discerning read of documents.

    Any idea on the timeline for SSCI release?

  6. Molly Pitcher says:

    Totally off topic but guarenteed to make you smile from the Daily Beast:
    “Jim Jordan Told to ‘Shut Your Mouth’ After Ranting Endlessly at Fauci”

    “During a meeting of the House Coronavirus Crisis Subcommittee on Thursday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) had to intervene in a shouting match between Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci by telling Jordan to “shut your mouth.” ”

    Gotta LOVE Maxine Waters !!

    • FL Resister says:

      Watched that clip with my 94-year old mother tonight who yelled “shut up!’ at the same moment Chairman Maxine Waters told Rep Jordan to STFU in so many words.

  7. Troutwaxer says:

    I noted the phrase “Kilimnik has also sought to assist designated former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych” with some confusion. Why is the former president of the Ukraine “designated?” Is this a typo of some kind or am I not understanding some kind of government-speak?

  8. Savage Librarian says:

    From Manafort to Kilimnik to Deripaska to Prikhodko? Remember this article from back in the day? This was only one meeting. Apparently Kilimnik had other meetings, with other operatives. It looks like Deripaska and Prikhodko participate in a lifestyle similar to Matt Gaetz, but more grandiose.

    “Deripaska’s private jet: Newark-Moscow-Molde for secret yacht meeting” – Scott Stedman, Mar 6, 2018

    “Konstantin Kilimnik, the Ukrainian political consultant who has ties to Russian intelligence, said the two discussed unpaid bills and current news.”

    • BeingThere says:

      So who else does one go to with personally observed contemporaneous related information that has already been reported to an SSCI member and sitting in a 302 for the last 3 years?

  9. punaise says:

    I don’t have anything cogent to add, but the rot sure runs deep. Not to start off a whole rear view mirror debate, but Mueller sure screwed the pooch.

    • Subtropolis says:

      Mueller did what he could, with what he had, and within the bounds afforded him. The United States Congress — specifically, it’s Republican inhabitants — are the ones who screwed the pooch.

      • Hika says:

        Don’t forget that Mueller reported to Rod Rosenstein who was intent on “landing the plane”. Be interesting to find out what requests from Mueller’s team were knocked back by Rosenstein.

  10. AndTheSlithyToves says:

    In a related matter, while looking to cite Cheri Jacobus’ comments on the 2016 election exit polling results and how they were improperly revealed by ABC producer Chris Vlasto to Dave Bossie (as well as a bunch of Trumpers including Bannon, Priebus & Jared) at 5:00 pm that day, I fell onto this 2017 article from Politico:
    Cheri is convinced, as am I, that the Russians ultimately used the data from Manafort/Kilimnik drop to hack surgically into the electronic systems in the three swing states (MI-WI-PA)/counties and altered the votes, sometime between 5:00 pm and poll-closing on 11-8-2016. There has never been a forensic audit of those machines.

    • FL Resister says:

      The claim is that the latest, October 2020 Russian hack was of publicly available Florida voter data and may be repetitive, so no big deal, but what happens to that information after Russians distribute it to criminal enterprises?

      Additionally, there was never a proper investigation into the 2016 Florida county hack, and Governor DeSantis won’t release information on which Florida counties were hacked. Will we ever learn what happened and whether votes were actually changed?

      “At a news conference in Tallahassee, Mr. DeSantis, a Republican, said that officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security had asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement pledging not to identify the two counties that fell victim to a “spearphishing” attempt by Russian hackers.”

      There is no evidence that the Russians wouldn’t do this again to help someone like DeSantis win an election.

      And as far as the unredacted Mueller Report goes, nobody has seen that yet except those on the Mueller team and former US Attorney General and Trump fixer Bill Barr, right? Couldn’t Biden and Harris see an unredacted version? Congressional intelligence committee members haven’t seen it yet to my knowledge.

    • Eureka says:

      Thanks ATST: that 2017 Politico account is also a nice reminder of why Trump was later surprised to have won (“Jared says we’re going to lose.”). Now I want to read — just as surgically, as you say — Lewandowski and Bossie’s dumb-ass book. Funny how they said the campaign was in for a long night, because by the 9pm hour (early, really) it was apparent to me that Trump had won.

      Just as you and Jacobus are convinced that the Russians ultimately used the data (and how), I am convinced that Stone (or whoever wrote for him) was asking/directing them to do so (by whatever means) _and_ with an update or follow-up, potentially, to what was handed over and discussed on/re August 2nd.

      I see much more than FUD/expectation-priming and general shit-stirring in this article, its outlinks, and the matters/places discussed therein. LOL he also mentions but does not link “polling for the Trump effort by pollster Tony Fabrizio in key swing states”*:

      Can the 2016 election be rigged? You bet | The Hill
      By Roger Stone, contributor – 08/16/16 09:27 AM EDT

      Links to (among others):
      How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes – POLITICO Magazine

      Besides laying out vote-shaving/reapportioning techniques and problems with paperless machines, in The Hill Stone also cites places like OH which — while not one of the four states that Gates reported to Mueller and Mueller shared — were generally important (and also the target, like PA, of an Amish GOP voter drive; “Amish for Trump” myths were also the focus of RU-backed “fake news” disinfo). Politico focuses on PA voting machines and (esp.) the third of its largest three (blue) counties and their machines; that county was a real problem [opportunity] for Trump: it went bluer for HRC than for Obama (and bluer still in 2020). Etc… (and there’s plenty of it, and none of this is counting the vote suppression/FB- & rally-targeting of “obscure” counties and everything else).

      * The full sentence is important:

      In fact, post convention polling for the Trump effort by pollster Tony Fabrizio in key swing states was encouraging.

      And the next paragraph is about WikiLeaks…

Comments are closed.