So you believe that the State Department and Kilimnik hatched a scheme to trick Paul Manafort into giving Russia confidential GOP polling data?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Senate Report
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
So you believe that the State Department and Kilimnik hatched a scheme to trick Paul Manafort into giving Russia confidential GOP polling data?
so you are dragging yourself unwittingly towards the truth. that's an improvement.
again everything you trot out has been addressed by Taibbi -the article has hyperlinks as well.
Mueller (Andrew Weissmann) was sloppy , and had no compunction not providing exculpatory evidence
as he has been roundly criticized and over-turned before for not doing so .
MSNBC and the shrill mob are the same -
you have been severely played and are just now coming to grips with your TDS blindness
Yet, not one document proves Kilimnik was a State Department asset, or was working as one when Paul Manafort was in contact with him, sending him confidential GOP polling data to give to Deripaska.
The argument you seem to be making is that Manafort was set up. But the thing is, Manafort still made the choice to hand this data over to Russia. So why did he do that?
They were protesting flag removal or some shit. I dont know and dont care to look
But you care enough to interject shit into a thread, though...
So the Nazis were the "very fine people" Trump was talking about.
both sides were violent - the cops were absentee. I dont GAF further
No. One side was violent. The side whose people ran protesters over with their car and screamed "Jews will not replace us." Those are the "very fine people" Trump was talking about.
the other side had a homemade flamethrower -the fact you can't even say "both sides are violent"No. One side was violent. The side whose people ran protesters over with their car and screamed "Jews will not replace us." Those are the "very fine people" Trump was talking about.
is proof you only care to lie. more waste of my time
Soloman released some notes -but why would covert ops be "documented" it would not. these were meetings.Yet, not one document proves Kilimnik was a State Department asset, or was working as one when Paul Manafort was in contact with him, sending him confidential GOP polling data to give to Deripaska.
The argument you seem to be making is that Manafort was set up. But the thing is, Manafort still made the choice to hand this data over to Russia. So why did he do that?
I think there was a 302 though (meeting notes)..meh.. read the article.
so we are down to Manafort's motivation -right? no confusing the fact Kilimnik was state dept asset?
the other side had a homemade flamethrower
Oh you mean an aerosol can and a lighter!? Yeah. Terrifying.
Those things have that massive 1.5-foot range. Scary.
Can you imagine how scared you'd have been in New Jersey circa 1989 with all those "homemade flamethrowers-in waiting" cans of Aquanet?
is proof you only care to lie. more waste of my time
You elevate a can of aerosol to that of running someone over with a two ton car because you don't want to admit that the people you've chosen to cast your lot in with are violent Nazis.
Soloman released some notes -but why would covert ops be "documented" it would not. these were meetings.
I think there was a 302 though (meeting notes)..meh.. read the article.
so we are down to Manafort's motivation -right? no confusing the fact Kilimnik was state dept asset?
In other words, you have nothing.
And when it comes to Manafort, your argument has evolved quite a bit.
First, you said Manafort had no contact with Russians.
Then, you said Manafort didn't share confidential GOP polling data with Russians.
Then, you said Manafort shared polling data with Russians, but he was secretly a State Department asset
Then, you said that while there's no proof he was a state department asset, he is still one anyway because he met with state department officials a few times "off the record".
Now, you are arguing that Manafort did share polling data with Russians, but it was a conspiracy by the State Department and Kilimnik to trick him into colluding with Russia.
Why would Manafort give confidential GOP polling data to a State Department asset?
o we are down to Manafort's motivation -right? no confusing the fact Kilimnik was state dept asset?
Kilimnik was not a State Department asset when Manafort was giving him confidential GOP polling data and you haven't provided one single piece of documented evidence that proves he was.
I think there was a 302 though (meeting notes)..meh.. read the article.
You THINK?
Did you even read the article you linked to?
o we are down to Manafort's motivation -right? no confusing the fact Kilimnik was state dept asset?
If he was a state department asset, show us the receipts.
Kilimnik was not a State Department asset when Manafort was giving him confidential GOP polling data and you haven't provided one single piece of documented evidence that proves he was.
i address the documenaiton. I am not going to do more circle jerks with your nitpicking wasting of my time- EVERYTHING is covered in the Taibbi article -Paul Manafort, has been a “sensitive” source for the U.S. State department dating back to at least 2013, including “while he was still working for Manafort.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/expos-in-the-hill-challenges-mueller
Solomon describes Kilimnik meeting “several times a week” with the chief political officer of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev
Soloman released some notes -but why would covert ops be "documented" it would not
That's mighty convenient for your argument, isn't it?
You: This guy was X.
Me: Prove it.
You: I can't.
ROFL.. you want bar tabs??? HA HA HA?If he was a state department asset, show us the receipts.
Meuler has the documentation /302s whatever - he was nonresponsive even to the court if i read it correctlyThat's mighty convenient for your argument, isn't it?
You: This guy was X.
Me: Prove it.
You: I can't.
AGAIN READ THE ARTICLE -everything you are bringing up is covered. quit wasting my time
i address the documenaiton. I am not going to do more circle jerks with your nitpicking wasting of my time- EVERYTHING is covered in the Taibbi article -
No, you didn't address the documentation. Do you know what words mean?
Nothing you said here or posted proves Kilimnik was a state department asset when Manafort was giving him polling data to give to Deripaska. In fact, Kilimnik's asset status seems to change depending on what he is doing. That's what your links all say. That sometimes he works for Russia, sometimes he is a "sensitive source" for us, but really he's only going to work with those willing to forward his interests in the moment.
So why was Manafort giving him sensitive polling data to give to Deripaska?
We know Manafort wanted the data to get to Deripaska because that is what he is documented in e-mails and texts saying to Kilimnik.
Why would he want to do that?
ROFL.. you want bar tabs??? HA HA HA?
No, I want proof because you lie about everything, like getting an unsolicited mail-in ballot.
Everything you've posted seems to indicate that Kilimnik was a double agent at best, and a stateless sociopath at worst.
But nothing you posted proves he was working for the State Department when Manafort was giving him polling data.
So you're being a sophist. You're saying that because Kilimnik may have been a state department asset at some point, he both was and wasn't one later when he was communicating with Manafort and handing GOP polling data to Deripaska.
What a pathetic rhetorical fail on your part.
Was Kilimnik working for the State Department when Manafort was giving him polling data to give to Deripaska?
Because if so, then that would mean Kilimnik is Mueller's source. Which he absolutely wasn't.
So...that pretty much destroys whatever it is you think you're accomplishing here.
Meuler has the documentation
How do you know that? You haven't even read Mueller's Report.
he was nonresponsive even to the court if i read it correctly
You didn't read it correctly.
Furthermore, the Senate just said you've been lying about Kilimnik this whole time.
But let me ask you, was Kilimnik working for the State Department when Manafort was giving him polling data to give to Deripaska?
Ukraine -NOT RussiaSo how does this prove he was a State Department Asset. From what you wrote, he seems to have been a Russian Intelligence Asset. That's why Manafort was giving him polling data, right? That's what the Senate Report says.
and it shows he was also a US State dept asset. none of which mueller let out.
everything else has been answered. Or you can find it in my links.. we're done - except to remind Mana fort was fired and only a Campaign head fr a couple months
AGAIN READ THE ARTICLE -everything you are bringing up is covered. quit wasting my time
I did read your link, even though you didn't, and nowhere in there does it say that Kilimnik was working for the State Department when Manafort gave him polling data to give to Kilimnik.
And furthermore, why didn't Kilimnik immediately turn Manafort over to the State Department since what Manafort was doing was highly dangerous, if Kilimnik was a State Department asset?
Ukraine -NOT Russia
and it shows he was also a US State dept asset.
NO IT DOESN'T.
And when was he a State Department asset? Not in 2016 when Manafort was handing him polling data.
And what does Kilimnik's asset status have to do with Manafort handing him confidential GOP polling data to give to Deripaska?