Sandy Larsen

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

All of the evidence indicates that the Tippit shooting occurred at 1:06?  Laughable.

Yep... 1:06 PM:

Helen Markham had just arrived at the northwest corner of 10th & Patton, en route to catch the city bus one block south at Jefferson & Patton (at 1:15 PM). She told the Warren Commission it was "6 or 7 minutes after 1  [1:06 or 1:07 PM]" 

Mrs. Margie Higgins, who lived at 417 East 10th St. was watching television and later told reporters, "Well, I was watching the news on television and for some reason the announcer turned and looked at the clock and said the time was six minutes after one (1:06 PM). At that point I heard the shots."

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was searching the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, when a rifle was discovered. Craig wrote, “… At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 PM."

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The Dallas Police tape tells you when the shooting occurred and it was much later than 1:06.

It has been shown in numerous ways that the original DPD Dictabelts were recreated for the WC with false times that are ~9 minutes later than reality.

One example of this is the fact that official documents indicate Tippit dying at the hospital before being picked up by an ambulance. Another example is the evidence that the shooting occurred at 1:06 PM, not several minutes later as noted by the WC.

Here is yet another example.

T.F. Bowley was driving west on 10th Street and arrived a few minutes after the shooting. He looked at his watch--the time was 1:10 PM.  An original DPD police transcript, found in the National Archives, lists the time of Bowley's call  to the police as 1:10 PM.  The original DPD transcript (CE 705) shows the report of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:10 PM. The FBI transcript, (CE 1974) prepared in August, 1964, lists the reporting time of Tippit's murder by Bowley at 1:19 PM--nine minutes later.

More WC apologist magic:

Doctors unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate J.D. Tippit at the hospital, and finally pronounced him dead at 1:15 PM. Three minutes later, an ambulance was dispatched to go to the crime scene and pick up a dead Tippit... who was then taken to the hospital.

Had the WC accepted the time of shooting that all the evidence indicated -- 1:06 PM -- the above inconsistency among others would not have occurred. But the problem with that is that Oswald could not have arrived in time to shoot Tippit st 1:06 PM.

Warren Commission apologists believe in magic. And not with just the Magic Bullet:

The Zapruder film proves that a huge chunk of scalp, skull, and brain matter was blown off the top of Kennedy's head.

It magically put itself back together by the time it reached Parkland Hospital. Twenty doctors and nurses saw no problem with the top of Kennedy's head... it was all there, neatly put back into place.

Well it was interesting while it lasted.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... the most prominent Parkland doctors admitted they thought the autopsy photos were accurate when asked.

What did Pat expect the doctors to say when forged photos were produced that contradicted what they'd seen?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And yes, that allows us to segue back to the JFK assassination. Because, as it turns out, the chief cheerleader/ringleader of the everything has been altered by the CIA crowd was none other than James Fetzer, a one-time college professor, whose credibility dropped to the moon-is-cheese level after he embraced every loopy theory that came his way...

Okay, so Pat's line of reasoning is this:

Fetzer believes a crazy theory. Therefore, everything Fetzer believes is crazy.

I'm sure there's a Latin phrase for this logical fallacy.

But that won't stop Pat from using it. He has no shame.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... for years and years, including that yes, Paul is dead, and, yes, that the murdered children of school shootings never existed and their grieving parents were actors hired by the Deep State/CIA.

Here Pat is using fake conspiracies to ridicule a real one. Hmm, Is Pat really a closeted WC apologist? Or is he just mischaracterizing and cherry picking again.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. There isn't a jury in history that would embrace the erratic statements of a few Parkland witnesses and ignore the statements of the Newmans, Zapruder, and numerous autopsy witnesses, especially as these witnesses are backed up by the assassination films, autopsy photos, and x-rays.

The bottom line is, Pat was fooled by the cover up and now has to resort to mischaracterization, cherry picking, and logical fallacies to defend himself.

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. A large bone fragment was blasted off the skull and lay dangling on the side of the head, and was witnessed by a number of Parkland witnesses. Were they hallucinating? And, if not, was Horne correct to claim there was no parietal wounds at the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating such a wound? 

2. And if your answer is yes--that Horne is correct--can you explain how this surgery was conducted without being observed by Jenkins--who has claimed since forever that no such surgery occurred at Bethesda? 

I'm certainly not going to comment on your characterization of what Horne supposedly believes.

Every time I've read one of Horne's theories, in which he includes the evidence, I've been impressed by what I read and I've agreed with it. The man is smart, and he's fair.

So if what you said is indeed what Horne believes, I'd say that it likely makes a lot of sense and very well may represent the facts.

As for how the clandestine surgery was performed without many of the technicians witnessing it, that is easy to understand. Indeed, even Lifton figured it out decades before the ARRB. Humes simply asked non-essential technicians to leave the room during the pre-autopsy surgery.

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. You have 1 of 3 doctors claiming something, and claiming it for the first time 14 years after the fact, and you take from this that ALL the doctors claimed this, when one said it wasn't so, and the third said he had no recollection of such a thing. That's not exactly rock solid, now is it? And when you add in that the FBI and others and Boswell himself (initially) said it was the exit defect that was matched up at the autopsy, well, it's clear your emperor has no clothes.  

In his WC testimony, Finck spoke of having "enough curvature and enough portion of a crater" on a skull bone to be able to determine whether it was a wound of entrance or exit.

The only reason for requiring enough curvature to determine entrance or exit is if the bone is a fragment. Because from curvature you can tell which side of the fragment is inside, and which side is outside.

So yes, Finck did indeed confirm the existence of a fragment down low near the EOP. He did so indirectly. (He wasn't explicit about it because the orders to the autopsists were to cover up gunshots from the front.)

This line of reasoning was corroborated at the time of the HSCA when Boswell came right out and said the very same thing... this time directly.

Finally, both of these doctors are corroborated by the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report on the autopsy, which states that a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes, but made available for later inspection. We know that this fragment came from the EOP because that is where the large rubber dam was put in place by the morticians to prevent embalming fluid leakage.

Pat doesn't have a leg to stand on with the issue. But he will never admit he is wrong. He lives in the world of an ideologue, unwilling to accept information foreign to his understanding.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The autopsy "doctors" did not say such a thing.

Of course they did! Are you incapable of reading? Here is just one sample that proves I'm right (copied from the OP):

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"     (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.)

What part of "a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" don't you understand? A fragment was brought in that fit low on the back of the head. And the fragment completed the half of the entry wound that had been missing.

You're in denial Pat.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. You missed my point. .... So, no, the claim there was no wound on the top right side of the head, because if there'd been one it would have been observed at Parkland, is complete and utter nonsense.

I think that everybody (beside you) knew I was talking about large exit wounds when I said that such a wound would have been noticed by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Naturally small entrance wounds could have gone unnoticed. Indeed, I myself believe small entrance wounds went unnoticed at Parkland.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

4. And that's not even to mention that Horne claims Ed Reed witnessed Humes performing this pre-autopsy surgery, when Reed specified that he saw Humes cutting on the frontal area AFTER the x-rays had been taken, and these x-rays show the defect on top of the head, and wing of bone on the side of the head...the wounds Horne claims were created by Humes. 

It's gibberish. 

Horne's "gibberish" -- as you put it -- is earth-shattering brilliant compared to the nonsense you proclaim.

On 4/6/2024 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

... and there were still fortran cards on campus.

Can you say, "spaghetti code?"

Of course, Basic back in those days created spaghetti code as well, with its line numbering syntax. But Quick Basic in the 1980s was fully structured, so that resolved the spaghetti problem and made writing code fun.

Few people know this, but before Visual Basic (for writing Windows programs) became wildly popular in the 1990s, Microsoft actually sold Visual Basic for DOS! It was basically Quick Basic, but had a visual development environment, with which you could write non-windows (i.e. text only) programs that looked and behaved just like Windows programs! Very cool.

Here's the IDE (integrated development environment) for VB-DOS:

And here is a calculator program running in the IDE:

(Actually, it is in Form Editing mode here, not actually running.)

That dark-gray box on the 7 button is the mouse pointer. (Sorry, that's the best you can get with a text-only DOS screen.) But if you run the VB-DOS program in Windows, you get a pretty mouse pointer and it feels just like you're using a Windows program.

(BTW, you CAN compile the program and run it stand-alone, without the IDE.)

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Researcher Thomas "Tommy" Graves wrote the following and sent it by e-mail to me. You might be interested in it.

@Bill Simpich

Tommy continued:

PS  Have you had an opportunity, yet, to check out my 25 free-to-read articles at Substack under my banner "How the KGB Zombified the CIA and the FBI"? I've only had it for about three weeks and I already have 24 followers!

On 3/14/2024 at 3:50 PM, Bill Simpich said:

Cover-up architect Jim Angleton was motivated by the Mexico City situation, but would have little reason to quibble with Hosty's sentiments until 1967. That was the year that Angleton learned some information from a double agent that “tended to absolve the Soviets”. That was the same year that the KGB conducted a big study into the JFK assassination and concluded that it was a domestic operation. Angleton was shaken by this revelation, obtained from a double agent known only as “Byetkov”. 

On 3/14/2024 at 3:50 PM, Bill Simpich said:

(New note:  Thomas Graves points out that "Byetkov" appears to be Obyetkov - who was the guard that LHO allegedly spoke to on Sept 28 and Oct 1.  At least one of these phone calls was memorialized on audiotape - and has now disappeared.)

@Bill Simpich

Bill,

Researcher Thomas "Tommy" Graves wrote the following and sent it by e-mail to me. You might be interested in it.

EDIT: Made a correction for Tommy.

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Now Kucinich has had enough and is running for President himself! Great!

You mean, he's running for Congress.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Horne's position that there was NO gaping hole on the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating one is nonsense.

Nope.

Had there been a gaping hole in the side or top of the head, certainly some of the Parkland doctors and nurses would have noticed it. None did. Nearly all of them saw a gaping hole on the back of the head.

Horne is right. Pat and Eddy are wrong.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There are witnesses such as Newman who saw the side of the head explode...

There were extremely few such witnesses, all of whom were the worst witnesses, caught by surprise and getting only a quick glance. They likely didn't notice that, by the time of the head shot, Kennedy had turned his head to the right, and the side of the head they were viewing at that point in time was the BACK of his head.

So they saw a blowout on the back of his head, but thought it was the right side of the head.

All the witnesses who could view the head for a lengthy period of time saw the wound where it really was... on the back of the head.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now here's a frontal shot theory that makes sense, IMO. It's not my theory, but it's one with which I could agree. 

1. A low-velocity bullet from behind strikes JFK near the EOP and exits his throat. 

Impossible. The trajectory would necessitate a gunman floating above the trunk of the limo.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2. A shot from the behind the fence enters near the temple and blasts the top of Kennedy's head off, with the far back of the right side of his skull still attached by the scalp. 

Impossible. A Parkland doctor or nurse would have notice such a blowout wound on the top of the head, but none did.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But no, such a theory would never gain traction because people are hooked on the idea an evil "they" altered the body to conceal the truth of a conspiracy. 

We have a photograph of the body alteration:

18 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. 

I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.  

It's fine that you have your own theory, Eddy.

However, the topic of this thread is the fact that the autopsy docs revealed a fragment low in the back of the head adjacent to the tiny EOP wound.

If you wish to discuss your dual-blowout wound theory, please do so on another thread.

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Finck said numerous times that when they reflected the scalp he saw a hole on the skull. He was very meticulous in his language. He would not have said he saw a hole if he meant to say he saw what he interpreted to be half a hole. 

Well, duh! The autopsists covered up the gaping wound in the back of the head for the Warren Commission. Dr. Finck's revelation of the fragment "curvature" in his WC testimony was an accident.

40 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

There is only one way to interpret the X-ray of JFK's skull.  No other way, period.  You guys are making up alternative facts to fit your narrative.  Fact is fact!

The premise of your argument suffers from two problems. First, you assume that the autposists were being honest when they said the small EOP wound was one of entrance. As I've argued, the evidence shows that it was actually a wound of exit. Furthermore, the autopsists had a motive to lie about that, because that would have indicated a shooter from the front.

Second, you assume that the skull x-ray is legitimate.

I think I'll stick with Mantik's interpretation of the small EOP wound, and the x-ray authenticity... or rather, lack thereof.

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

There is another explanation I prefer to your theory which avoids the discounting of the Newman's.

Eddie, I think you place far too much importance on what one witness, Newman, said.

The vast majority of the doctors and nurses said the wound was on the back of the head, not the top.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Finck's saying there was "enough curvature" on the bone to identify it as an entrance does not mean half the entrance was missing, and found on a bone fragment delivered hours later.

The whole point of identifying the curvature in a skull bone is to know which side is on the inside of the skull and which side is on the outside. And the only reason that is important is so you know which side the observed beveling is on. If the beveling is on the inside, this is indicative of an entrance wound, and if it's on the outside, this is indicative of an exit wound. It's as simple as that.

That is the reason Finck noted he was able to observe the curvature. (See his statements in the OP.) Because he needed to know which side the crater/beveling was on... inside or outside of skull.

Now, if Finck was talking about the bullet hole being 100% (not partial, not half) on INTACT skull (i.e. not a fragment), why would he even be noting that he could determine the curvature? In that case, there would be no need to look for curvature to know which side the beveling was observed on.

Clearly Finck was referring to a fragment. It's only with a fragment that it is important to determine the curvature in order to know which side is in and which side is out.

If you read both of Finck's statement in the OP, you will see that he refers indirectly to a fragment (due to "curvature"), and to beveling/cratering that is only partially on the intact skull. (BTW, the latter ALSO implies a fragment... because if the beveling/cratering is only partially on the intact skull, where else would the remainder of it be? On a fragment, of course.)

Pat thinks that Finck is referring to some other off-the-wall, crazy thing. Why? Because what Finck says contradicts what Pat believes. But all one needs to do to see that my explanation is correct is to read what Boswell said at the time of the HSCA. BOSWELL CORROBORATES WHAT FINCK SAID! Not Pat's interpretation of what Finck said, but MY interpretation of what he said. (See Boswell's statements in the OP.)

It isn't at all surprising that Boswell sides with my interpretation because I have an open mind and no axe to grind. I adjust my understanding with every new piece of information that I come across. In contrast, Pat has an ideology that he won't budge from. He is determined to make every bit of evidence match his ideology regardless of how ridiculous his arguments become.

Such is the danger of being an ideologue.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The bullet entered at an angle. It did not leave a nice round crater on the inside of the skull. Apparently it was half a crater and then a groove. Thus 15 by 6. 

I told Pat before that the reported 15 x 6 mm hole was only in the scalp. Not the bone. But here he is again trying to make the evidence agree with his belief.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And you don't need to take my word for it.

In his WC testimony Finck said the defect was in an area of intact scalp, and that when they reflected the scalp away from the defect they found "a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull."

"Corresponding" doesn't mean that the bone hole size was precisely the same as the scalp hole size, 6 x 15 mm. It means only the the bullet passed through both the 6 x 15 mm scalp hole and the CORRESPONDING bullet hole through the bone.

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have the last word. 

I look forward to further comments from you, on a wide range of topics. 

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I could learn some good manners from Ben Cole.

I could, but I probably won't.

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

On 4/3/2024 at 11:14 AM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body. They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back.

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It was actually just one of the autopsists, Boswell. And he never said anything about this until years afterwards.

No, Dr. Finck revealed it too, just not as explicitly. First in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and then in a letter in 1965.

Finck, WC:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."     (Source)

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the intact skull edge where the fragment fits.

Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."     (Source)

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there.

All three autopsy doctors said that just a portion of the hole/crater was on the intact skull. Humes allows the reader of the autopsy report to assume that the fragment with the other portion of the hole/crater was in place when the skull was reassembled. But it wasn't. Instead of the fragment being in place, a rubber dam was so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are incorrect in your assumptions.

I stand corrected. You get your news from from both left-wing and right-wing fake news sites, and very little from mainstream news.

(Not that everything is fake on fake news sites. But too much is.)

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I read a wide range of news outlets, from alt-l and alt-r to some standard outlets such as NYT (usually a couple days late, when I can get around the paywall). 

alt-l  =  left-wing fake news        (Source)

alt-r  =  right-wing fake news     (Source)

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are very serious journalists, such as Matt Taibbi, who are skeptical and dubious about the standard narratives regarding Russiagate and Jan. 6.

Matt Taibbi is a Democrat hating, MSM hating, political commentator.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You have been informed of the three-part Columbia Journalism Review series that explained the many weaknesses, even regrettable excesses and failures, in the media Russiagate story. The CJR, in general, is a liberal media publication, and not a Trump outlet. 

I wouldn't call that series a CJR one so much as a Jeff Gerth one. Here is David Corn's answer to it:

Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point

The magazine’s attempted takedown of the media’s coverage bolsters Trump’s phony narrative.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/columbia-journalism-review-jeff-gerth-trump-russia-the-media/

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As a moderator, you should take pains to create a collegial forum, in which different viewpoints---pro-Trump, pro-Biden or pro-RFK2---are respected, and none disparaged (excepting overt hate speech, personal insults, etc.). 

I criticized your selection of news sources and you criticized my aggressive debating style. I take no offense... maybe you shouldn't either.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And so, instead, you rely on Trump-friendly fake news sites for your information.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not understand why you would make assumptions, or make a disparaging comments about what news I read or watch.

It's an assumption based on years of observing everything you say about Russiagate and the January 6 shenanigans, the latter of which was obviously instigated by Trump himself and his associates. That is to say, obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

For you to miss all that, surely you must have gotten your information from Trump-friendly fake news sites. The sites that don't report anything negative about Trump.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have lost faith in academia and media.

And so, instead, you rely on Trump-friendly fake news sites for your information.

58 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Sandy Larsen responded: The reason for that was because the Senate Committee's "investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of 'sophisticated communications security practices' and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic."^[175]

Keven Hofeling replied: First of all, there is no such thing as encrypted communications that are beyond the ability of the CIA and the NSA to decipher.

The Senate report didn't say how Manafort and Kilimnik covertly communicated. We can only guess at how they did it.

Suppose for the sake of argument that they used code words. If that were the case, the CIA or FBI would know only that they were communicating about something that they wanted to keep secret. From that the CIA/FBI could conclude that they were communicating for nefarious reasons. But they couldn't indict or convict them anything since communicating in code is not illegal.

58 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Secondly, if there were communications with a Russian intelligence officer there would be at least a single solitary item of evidence that this was the case. But there isn't...

You don't know that. The CIA doesn't disclose things that reveal its sources and methods.

58 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Sandy Larsen responded: "Presumed innocence" is not the same thing as "innocence."

Keven Hofeling replied:  ...There isn't a single solitary piece of evidence of contacts with Russian intelligence officers.

You don't know that. The FBI is satisfied with the evidence they have seen. They have security clearances.

35 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence.

I think I made it clear that it was a hypothesis. One that solves the EOP entrance-wound trajectory problem.

35 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Just deciding out of the blue that the doctors lied about the entrance beveling is not evidence. 6 x 15mm is also very small for a rifle exit wound.

I'm glad you brought up the supposed 6 x 15 mm EOP entry wound through the scalp (not bone), noted in the autopsy report. I have an answer for that.

Recall that nearly all the witnesses said that the gaping wound was on the back of the head. As I showed in this thread, even the autopsy doctors INDIRECTLY admitted to a large hole on the back of the head, when they spoke of a missing fragment near the EOP. The missing fragment resulted in a large hole in the skull, and the fact that it escaped means there was a large hole in the scalp as well.

The autopsy doctors also said that half the small EOP bullet wound was located on the missing fragment, whereas the other half was on the intact portion of the skull.

What this all tells me is this: There was a large hole near the EOP in both the scalp and the skull, and on the margin (edge) of the skull hole was the hole made by a bullet. There was no 6 x 15 wound through the scalp... the bullet merely traveled through the large scalp hole.

So, what the autopsy doctors saw was a large hole through both the scalp and the skull, and half of a bullet hole through the margin of the large skull hole.

My hypothesis is that, the autopsists saw beveling on the outside of the half-bullet-hole, and immediately recognized the totality of the wound as being one of exit. This would not do, as they were charged with making it appear as though all shots came from behind. They solved this problem by simply reversing the side on which they saw the beveling, from the outside to the inside. In addition, they denied there being a large wound on the back of the head... either through the scalp or the skull.

This solution required one more lie. Since they removed the large hole through which the bullet (and the fragment) had traveled, they had to fabricate a tiny scalp hole through which the bullet entered. And so they did... the 6 x 15 mm hole noted in the autopsy report.

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Sure, Mueller and the Senate Committee made sensationalist allegations, but they never produced evidence that Paul Manafort or Konstantin Kiliminak ever had any contacts with Russian intelligence officers.

The reason for that was because the Senate Committee's "investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of 'sophisticated communications security practices' and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic."^[175]

As noted in the report:

"Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."^[175]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

This is the United States, and under the constitutional and judicial principles of our system of adjudication every defendant, including Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kiliminak, is entitled to a presumption of innocence...

"Presumed innocence" is not the same thing as "innocence."

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

In the case of Manafort and Kiliminak, neither has ever been indicted for any crimes related to Russian collusion...

The FBI is sufficiently satisfied that Paul Manafort funneled information to Russian spies via Konstantin Kilimnik, an FBI fugitive.

The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details.

Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data

Following is an excerpt from the article:

The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.