JFKA, Robert Mueller, Deep State Apparatchiks and Machinations

[Paul Brancato]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Franklin Foer’s Atlantic article essentially concedes that the Kilimnik “theory” is not only an evidence-free speculation, but investigators could not even articulate what they think may have happened. That Manafort and Kilimnik “spoke” during the 2016 campaign is repeatedly dangled as some sort of mysterious unprecedented event, but the rarely noted obvious fact is that the two men were close business partners for a decade and spoke pretty much every single day for all that time. And that Kilimnik was a trusted informant for US State Dept officials attached to the US Embassy in Kiev, and had been for years. And prior to joining Manafort, Kliminik was employed by the NED-financed International Republican Institute in Moscow for a decade as well. Foer describes Kilimnik’s relationship with Manafort as a massive political scandal, but never refers to his ties to US State or intelligence-linked IRI? What kind of journalism is that?

Rick Gates, who was a cooperative witness to Mueller and the third leg of the Manafort office, has consistently stated that the alleged Kilimnik-GRU ties are nonsense, and that the “polling data” was nothing more than what was routinely published in US mainstream media. Again, that never figures in the breathless speculation or supposedly "objective" journalism.

Thanks for this post. Yes indeed our journalism usually lacks historical perspective. Everything I’ve read about Manafort, going back a few decades at least, spells crook. Do you agree? I’m not asking from the Russia collusion angle.

[W. Niederhut]

17 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks for this post. Yes indeed our journalism usually lacks historical perspective. Everything I’ve read about Manafort, going back a few decades at least, spells crook. Do you agree? I’m not asking from the Russia collusion angle.

Paul,

   Jeff Carter has been pushing Kremlin disinformation here for the past five years.

    Kilimnik is a GRU asset, and his long-term "business" association with Manafort mainly involved interfering in Ukrainian elections on behalf of Putin's puppet in Kyiv.

    From there, it was a very short leap to interfering in the 2016 U.S. election on behalf of Putin's puppet in Washington D.C., Donald Trump.

    Perhaps Jeff can explain why Manafort went to such great lengths to lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik during the Mueller investigation-- even lying to investigators after agreeing to cooperate in a plea bargain.

    Does Manafort sound like a guy who had nothing to hide?

    He also floated a Trump pardon to Rick Gates.

Edited July 2, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks for this post. Yes indeed our journalism usually lacks historical perspective. Everything I’ve read about Manafort, going back a few decades at least, spells crook. Do you agree? I’m not asking from the Russia collusion angle.

Manafort was a grifter and influence peddler who relocated his political consultancy business to Ukraine in hopes of gaining lucrative contracts in the milieu of the corrupt and extremely wealthy oligarchs who ran the country. The business was in fact very successful. One of the Manafort consultancy’s main clients was Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Yanukovych is best known in the west as being the deposed President during the Ukraine 2014 coup. Various lazy journalists label Yanukovych as a “puppet” of Putin or the Russian Federation, based for the most part on his rejection in 2013 of an EU Association deal which sparked the protests which eventually brought him down. The lazy journalists also apply that moniker to Manafort, due to his consultancy work for Yanukovych, without knowing or understanding that Manafort’s advice was consistently in favour of the EU deal - the opposite of Russian preference.  Manafort’s indictment in 2018 was based on failure to register as a foreign lobbyist and tax evasion.

In February 2019, Special Counsel lawyer Andrew Weissman made a public statement that the investigation was examining suspicions about Manafort and his long-time business partner Kilimnik. Weissman stated that suspicions were generated due to an August 2016 meeting between the two men during which “Ukraine policy” was discussed. Weissman said: “This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating… There is an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time, and to be doing it in person." But the decade-old business partnership between Manafort and Kilimnik was based in Ukraine, directly involved “Ukraine policy”, and Manafort was attempting to build a new client base after Yanukovych’s exile. Why then is this meeting unusual? CNN reported: “At one point, the prosecutor acknowledges that Manafort may have been playing for a pardon. He acknowledges that while Manafort was lying, he had multiple motivations…”  - i.e. Manafort was a grifter and an influence peddler. The polling data conspiracy theory is entirely speculative and does not survive even cursory analysis. And yet it has become the "last stand" for the true believers.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/paul-manafort-hearing-kilimnik/index.html

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Manafort was a grifter and influence peddler who relocated his political consultancy business to Ukraine in hopes of gaining lucrative contracts in the milieu of the corrupt and extremely wealthy oligarchs who ran the country. The business was in fact very successful. One of the Manafort consultancy’s main clients was Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Yanukovych is best known in the west as being the deposed President during the Ukraine 2014 coup. Various lazy journalists label Yanukovych as a “puppet” of Putin or the Russian Federation, based for the most part on his rejection in 2013 of an EU Association deal which sparked the protests which eventually brought him down. The lazy journalists also apply that moniker to Manafort, due to his consultancy work for Yanukovych, without knowing or understanding that Manafort’s advice was consistently in favour of the EU deal - the opposite of Russian preference.  Manafort’s indictment in 2018 was based on failure to register as a foreign lobbyist and tax evasion.

In February 2019, Special Counsel lawyer Andrew Weissman made a public statement that the investigation was examining suspicions about Manafort and his long-time business partner Kilimnik. Weissman stated that suspicions were generated due to an August 2016 meeting between the two men during which “Ukraine policy” was discussed. Weissman said: “This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating… There is an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time, and to be doing it in person." But the decade-old business partnership between Manafort and Kilimnik was based in Ukraine, directly involved “Ukraine policy”, and Manafort was attempting to build a new client base after Yanukovych’s exile. Why then is this meeting unusual? CNN reported: “At one point, the prosecutor acknowledges that Manafort may have been playing for a pardon. He acknowledges that while Manafort was lying, he had multiple motivations…”  - i.e. Manafort was a grifter and an influence peddler. The polling data conspiracy theory is entirely speculative and does not survive even cursory analysis. And yet it has become the "last stand" for the true believers.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/paul-manafort-hearing-kilimnik/index.html

Nice dodge, Jeff.

How about answering the question now?

Why was Manafort willing to lie to the FBI and to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik, even after agreeing to cooperate with the investigation in a plea deal?

Does that sound like a guy who had nothing to hide about Trump and the Kremlin interference in the U.S. election?

But let's call a spade a spade.

The reason that some of the details of the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets remain "speculative" is that Manafort stonewalled the investigation, knowing that Trump would pardon him, if convicted.

Manafort also floated a Trump pardon to his subordinate, Rick Gates, during the Mueller investigation, and had to be put in solitary for a while.

Additionally, what role did Manafort (and Trump) play in the alteration of the 2016 Republican Party platform in Cleveland that undermined U.S. support for Ukraine in their border war with the Russian Federation-- subsequent to Putin's seizure of the Crimea?

[Jeff Carter]

45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Nice dodge, Jeff.

How about answering the question now?

Why was Manafort willing to lie to the FBI and to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik, even after agreeing to cooperate with the investigation in a plea deal?

Does that sound like a guy who had nothing to hide about Trump and the Kremlin interference in the U.S. election?

But let's call a spade a spade.

The reason that some of the details of the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets remain "speculative" is that Manafort stonewalled the investigation, knowing that Trump would pardon him, if convicted.

Manafort also floated a Trump pardon to his subordinate, Rick Gates, during the Mueller investigation, and had to be put in solitary for a while.

Additionally, what role did Manafort (and Trump) play in the alteration of the 2016 Republican Party platform in Cleveland that undermined U.S. support for Ukraine in their border war with the Russian Federation-- subsequent to Putin's seizure of the Crimea?

It was found that Manafort breached his plea deal on five counts - three concerning the failure to register as lobbyist/tax fraud, one about communication with someone from Trump’s administration, and one concerning “interactions and communications with Kilimnik”. which, on background, appears to relate to the August 2016 meeting cited by Weissman where the men discussed “Ukraine policy”. Reading between the lines, it appears Manafort did not live up to an expected quid pro quo regarding his plea deal and so Mueller threw the book at him - as can be determined by the harsh non-objective language which appears in the subsequent sentencing report.

Agents of the US federal government, as the details of the Mueller indictments make clear, had extensive access to the contents of electronic messages and phone communications of all persons swept up in the Russiagate investigations. In light of that, to claim that an individual like Manafort could “stonewall” the investigation by not revealing information is just stupid. It would require a mafia-like level of secrecy and care which clearly Manafort was not capable of, as the evidence of his failure to register as a lobbyist as well as the tax fraud was readily abundant. 

The 2016 Republican platform’s position on Ukraine was generated by Bannon and others connected to him, and this was not a secret. Their position - stated publicly - was the foreign policy of the U.S. was better served by a rapprochement with Russia so that both countries could join together in directing hostility towards China.

[W. Niederhut]

58 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

It was found that Manafort breached his plea deal on five counts - three concerning the failure to register as lobbyist/tax fraud, one about communication with someone from Trump’s administration, and one concerning “interactions and communications with Kilimnik”. which, on background, appears to relate to the August 2016 meeting cited by Weissman where the men discussed “Ukraine policy”. Reading between the lines, it appears Manafort did not live up to an expected quid pro quo regarding his plea deal and so Mueller threw the book at him - as can be determined by the harsh non-objective language which appears in the subsequent sentencing report.

Agents of the US federal government, as the details of the Mueller indictments make clear, had extensive access to the contents of electronic messages and phone communications of all persons swept up in the Russiagate investigations. In light of that, to claim that an individual like Manafort could “stonewall” the investigation by not revealing information is just stupid. It would require a mafia-like level of secrecy and care which clearly Manafort was not capable of, as the evidence of his failure to register as a lobbyist as well as the tax fraud was readily abundant. 

The 2016 Republican platform’s position on Ukraine was generated by Bannon and others connected to him, and this was not a secret. Their position - stated publicly - was the foreign policy of the U.S. was better served by a rapprochement with Russia so that both countries could join together in directing hostility towards China.

Reality check.

Manafort did stonewall Mueller's Russiagate investigation, and he also discussed U.S. Ukraine policy issues with Kilimnik-- before and after the 2016 election.  

He repeatedly lied about his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik, including the sharing of data about three key swing states-- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- which Trump unexpectedly won by highly suspicious, razor-thin margins.

Trump trailed Clinton in all three states in pre-election and exit polls, but unexpectedly won all three by a mere 80,000 total votes (combined.)

Manafort and Kilimnik's GRU hackers knew precisely where to target their efforts in 2016 to put Putin's puppet in the White House

Paul Manafort was 'a grave counterintelligence threat,' Republican-led Senate panel finds

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/senate-details-paul-manafort-ties-russian-intel-officer-kilimnik/3390437001/

August 18, 2020

....In one of two meetings with Kilimnik during his tenure as Trump campaign chairman, "Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election," the Mueller report concluded. "That briefing encompassed the campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of 'battleground' states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

Early last year, a federal judge found that Manafort had lied repeatedly to federal prosecutors about his contacts with Kilimnik, ultimately upending a plea agreement Manafort had struck with Mueller’s team. Among the contested exchanges, prosecutors asserted that Manafort lied about having provided polling data to Kilimnik.

In 2018, Manafort and Kilimnik were charged together with attempting to obstruct Mueller’s investigation by seeking to block the testimony of at least two witnesses.

The case prompted a judge to revoke Manafort’s bail and order him to jail to await separate trials on a slew of financial fraud charges in Alexandria, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., where he was ultimately convicted. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks for this post. Yes indeed our journalism usually lacks historical perspective. Everything I’ve read about Manafort, going back a few decades at least, spells crook. Do you agree? I’m not asking from the Russia collusion angle.

Manafort may well have been a high-class grifter. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Reality check.

Manafort did stonewall Mueller's Russiagate investigation, and he also discussed U.S. Ukraine policy issues with Kilimnik-- before and after the 2016 election.  

He repeatedly lied about his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik, including the sharing of data about three key swing states-- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- which Trump unexpectedly won by highly suspicious, razor-thin margins.

Trump trailed Clinton in all three states in pre-election and exit polls, but unexpectedly won all three by a mere 80,000 total votes (combined.)

Manafort and Kilimnik's GRU hackers knew precisely where to target their efforts in 2016 to put Putin's puppet in the White House

Paul Manafort was 'a grave counterintelligence threat,' Republican-led Senate panel finds

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/senate-details-paul-manafort-ties-russian-intel-officer-kilimnik/3390437001/

August 18, 2020

....In one of two meetings with Kilimnik during his tenure as Trump campaign chairman, "Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election," the Mueller report concluded. "That briefing encompassed the campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of 'battleground' states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

Early last year, a federal judge found that Manafort had lied repeatedly to federal prosecutors about his contacts with Kilimnik, ultimately upending a plea agreement Manafort had struck with Mueller’s team. Among the contested exchanges, prosecutors asserted that Manafort lied about having provided polling data to Kilimnik.

In 2018, Manafort and Kilimnik were charged together with attempting to obstruct Mueller’s investigation by seeking to block the testimony of at least two witnesses.

The case prompted a judge to revoke Manafort’s bail and order him to jail to await separate trials on a slew of financial fraud charges in Alexandria, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., where he was ultimately convicted. 

Actually, that select committee also found: 

 

"Additional Views of Senators Risch, Rubio, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse[edit]

Certain Republican members stated their finding:

"The committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election."[25][26]"

---30---

The Senate Select Committee "report" was a straight line party vote. You are citing the Donk version. 

If you were Donk, then Manafort and Trump were Satan's sidekicks.

If you were a "Phant, they had halos. 

The red-blue pissing contest.

Which, when you think about, has become every investigation or committee hearing. 

Piss away. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Actually, that select committee also found: 

 

"Additional Views of Senators Risch, Rubio, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse[edit]

Certain Republican members stated their finding:

"The committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election."[25][26]"

---30---

The Senate Select Committee "report" was a straight line party vote. You are citing the Donk version. 

If you were Donk, then Manafort and Trump were Satan's sidekicks.

If you were a "Phant, they had halos. 

The red-blue pissing contest.

Which, when you think about, has become every investigation or committee hearing. 

Piss away. 

 

Ben,

    Thanks for the comic relief.

   The only thing more ludicrous than your Trump/GOP "no collusion" Senate Intel soundbyte (above) was the public comment by the Republican Interim Chair of the House Intel Committee at the time, Mike Conaway (R-Texas.)  (Conaway took over after Devin Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the Russiagate investigation for leaking details of the investigation to Trump.)

    Conaway famously announced to the press, "The committee did not look for evidence of collusion, and we found none."  🤥

    You'd better study the document, to put your Republican quote in its proper idiotic perspective.

    Alternatively, you could read some Highlights with Rob Wheeler, or back issues of Russia Today with Jeff Carter.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    Thanks for the comic relief.

   The only thing more ludicrous than your Trump/GOP "no collusion" Senate Intel soundbyte (above) was the public comment by the Republican Interim Chair of the House Intel Committee at the time, Mike Conaway (R-Texas.)  (Conaway took over after Devin Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the Russiagate investigation for leaking details of the investigation to Trump.)

    Conaway famously announced to the press, "The committee did not look for evidence of collusion, and we found none."  🤥

    You'd better study the document, to put your Republican quote in its proper idiotic perspective.

    Alternatively, you could read some Highlights with Rob Wheeler, or back issues of Russia Today with Jeff Carter.

You are fixed in your position:

The Donks' summation of the Select Committee findings are Truth! 

The "Phants' summation of the Select Committee findings are Untruths! 

I suspect you have partisan sympathies. 

The red-blue pissing wars go on. 

[Paul Bacon]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are fixed in your position:

The Donks' summation of the Select Committee findings are Truth! 

The "Phants' summation of the Select Committee findings are Untruths! 

I suspect you have partisan sympathies. 

How ironic!!

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

How ironic!!

Yes, it's truly amazing that Ben still hasn't discerned the difference between the Congressional Republicans who have been assiduously covering up Trump's crimes for the past five years, and the Congressional Democrats who have been trying to expose them.  These are the same Congressional Trumplicans who conducted endless "investigations" of Benghazi, then later refused to review the damning evidence of Trump's Ukraine-gate extortion scam with Zelensy, and his role in the January 6th attack on Congress.

At the same time that Chairmen Devin Nunes (R-California) and Mike Conaway (R-Texas) were insisting that the House Intel Committee had looked for, and found no, evidence of "collusion," the lead minority party committee member, Adam Schiff, (D-California) explained that there was, in fact, evidence of "collusion."

Ben seems to think that there is some sort of equivalence here-- as if the truth were equidistant between Conaway's cover up and Schiff's expose of Trump's crimes.

Edited July 3, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Matt Allison]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:53 AM, Robert Wheeler said:

Imagine what the Russians know about the JFK Assassination.

 

The sum total of what the Russians know about the JFK assassination is that it's been a useful thing to propagandize American citizens with.

If the Russians had dirt on the JFKA to use on the U.S., Putin would have done so a loooooong time ago.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yes, it's truly amazing that Ben still hasn't discerned the difference between the Congressional Republicans who have been assiduously covering up Trump's crimes for the past five years, and the Congressional Democrats who have been trying to expose them.  These are the same Congressional Trumplicans who conducted endless "investigations" of Benghazi, then later refused to review the damning evidence of Trump's Ukraine-gate extortion scam with Zelensy, and his role in the January 6th attack on Congress.

At the same time that Chairmen Devin Nunes (R-California) and Mike Conaway (R-Texas) were insisting that the House Intel Committee had looked for, and found no, evidence of "collusion," the lead minority party committee member, Adam Schiff, (D-California) explained that there was, in fact, evidence of "collusion."

Ben seems to think that there is some sort of equivalence here-- as if the truth were equidistant between Conaway's cover up and Schiff's expose of Trump's crimes.

W.-

You are a stout partisan.

Ponder if you have drunk too deeply of M$M narratives. 

I am skeptical of both parties, about in equal measure. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.-

You are a stout partisan.

Ponder if you have drunk too deeply of M$M narratives. 

I am skeptical of both parties, about in equal measure. 

 

Says the guy who promoted Tucker Carlson's "patriot purge" narrative about Trump's January 6th coup attempt. 

Ben, if you believe that I have "drunk too deeply of M$M narratives," you, obviously haven't read, or understood, my commentaries on this forum.

And if you are equally skeptical of both parties-- even in the aftermath of GOP "supply side" tax cuts since 1980, the Bush/Cheney/PNAC "War on Terror," the Koch Tea Party Congress, Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate, January 6th, and the recent reactionary GOP SCOTUS rulings-- you need to do some serious remedial reading.

You lack discernment.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by W. Niederhut