The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

Mueller report on the Manafort polling data subject:

SaintForLife said:

I looked through those pages you listed and I didn't see the Russian intelligence angle mentioned. What are the page numbers for the excerpts you post previously?

Click to expand...

TaylorB said:

pages 158-169 of the bipartisan Senate intel report

Click to expand...

☝
Look at the number at the bottom of the page, not at the number on the PDF. Or hit CTRL+F and type "intelligence officer" and you will see 39 instances where that term is used, mostly in referring to Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer.

SaintForLife said:

Mueller didn't say that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence. He said that he had connections to Russian intelligence. He also said he was a State Department source. I got that information from the Mueller report. Did I get bad information from Mueller?

You ignored that part of my post and also the question about how the Senate could find something that Mueller wasn't able to find. Will you agree that Mueller had greater investigative power than the Senate? Can you explain the questions in my last 2 of my paragraphs?

Click to expand...

I ignored the parts of your posts that ask rhetorical questions that divert attention away from the fundamental question I've asked on this topic. This all started when I simply said Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence, and you mocked me for it. Remember?


You made this Kilimnik / Russian intel ties the centerpiece of your argument on this topic, not me. You asked sarcastically if I'd ever read the Mueller report, and ragged on me over the course of several subsequent exchanges for being so naive to consider that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. Now, a bipartisan Senate intel committee not only says Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, but that he is a Russian intelligence officer.

So the Senate Intel committee appears to disagree with you, and to agree with me. So in light of our prior discussions on this, I am asking you, very specifically, whether you now agree with the bipartisan conclusions of the Senate intel committee about Kilimnik's ties to Russian intelligence, and if so, the extent to which you think that undercuts the arguments you made in January?

SaintForLife said:

Mueller report on the Manafort polling data subject:

Click to expand...

you need to decide if the Mueller report is a credible source or not, SFL, lol. You quote it when it suits you and then disparage it when it says something you don’t like.

SaintForLife said:

Does the Senate report cite any evidence that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence? That's a pretty big claim to make so you would think they would cite the evidence rather than say they are making the assessment. Considering the Senate had less investigative powers than Mueller, how do you think they supposedly found something that Mueller couldn't?

Click to expand...

Here's where I have to ask a simple question...

Are you saying (or even implying) that a bipartisan Congressional report, written by members of congress, many of whom have studied the law, and who probably had lawyers working with them on the report would state, as a matter of fact, that " Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer." Not "is suspected of being a Russian intelligence officer," or "there is evidence that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer," and that they would make such a statement without this being something that has been proven to them?

I guess Senate Republicans are in on the hoax, too.

“The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia.”

So they finally conclude that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, just in time to do absolutely nothing to stop them from doing it again.
Lovely

TaylorB said:

☝
Look at the number at the bottom of the page, not at the number on the PDF. Or hit CTRL+F and type "intelligence officer" and you will see 39 instances where that term is used, mostly in referring to Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer.



I ignored the parts of your posts that ask rhetorical questions that divert attention away from the fundamental question I've asked on this topic. This all started when I simply said Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence, and you mocked me for it. Remember?

The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun

By Laura BassettAfter months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry...

madaboutpolitics.com

You made this Kilimnik / Russian intel ties the centerpiece of your argument on this topic, not me. You asked sarcastically if I'd ever read the Mueller report, and ragged on me over the course of several subsequent exchanges for being so naive to consider that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. Now, a bipartisan Senate intel committee not only says Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, but that he is a Russian intelligence officer.

So the Senate Intel committee appears to disagree with you, and to agree with me. So in light of our prior discussions on this, I am asking you, very specifically, whether you now agree with the bipartisan conclusions of the Senate intel committee about Kilimnik's ties to Russian intelligence, and if so, the extent to which you think that undercuts the arguments you made in January?

Click to expand...

Those questions I asked are totally relevant to your question. How can Kilimnik be both a State Department source(according to Mueller) and Russian intelligence? Is he a double agent?

How did Mueller, who had greater investigative powers, not find any evidence that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence, but the Senate was able to?

Do we know what the evidence that the Senate is using to make that claim?

Those are important questions to be answered, but I'm not surprised that you aren't interested in their possible answers.

MT15 said:

you need to decide if the Mueller report is a credible source or not, SFL, lol. You quote it when it suits you and then disparage it when it says something you don’t like.

Click to expand...

You can guarantee that if Mueller found any evidence that Manfort was conspiring with Russia in regards to the election he would have said so.

Are you saying that there can't be parts of the report that are true and parts that aren't true?

FullMonte said:

Here's where I have to ask a simple question...

Are you saying (or even implying) that a bipartisan Congressional report, written by members of congress, many of whom have studied the law, and who probably had lawyers working with them on the report would state, as a matter of fact, that " Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer." Not "is suspected of being a Russian intelligence officer," or "there is evidence that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer," and that they would make such a statement without this being something that has been proven to them?

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is I don't trust anything the government says in regards to foreign policy unless they have evidence to back it up.

SaintForLife said:

What I'm saying is I don't trust anything the government says in regards to foreign policy unless they have evidence to back it up.

Click to expand...

So, if the government says something is a fact, you assume it's false unless they provide YOU with evidence that it's true?

SaintForLife said:

How did Mueller, who had greater investigative powers, not find any evidence that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence, but the Senate was able to?

Click to expand...

"Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian “spy.” The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Several pieces of the Office’s evidence—including witness interviews and emails obtained through court authorized search warrants—support that assessment:"

You seem to be putting an absolute ton of weight on interpreting the Mueller report referring to "ties to Russian intelligence", which the report states they did find evidence to support, as meaning "no evidence of being Russian intelligence", and I really don't think that interpretation holds up in the context of the report, which as quoted above gives the evidence of Kilimnik's ties to Russian intelligence as the "however" to Manafort's statement that he believed Kilimnik wasn't working as a spy.

RobF said:

"Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian “spy.” The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Several pieces of the Office’s evidence—including witness interviews and emails obtained through court authorized search warrants—support that assessment:"

You seem to be putting an absolute ton of weight on interpreting the Mueller report referring to "ties to Russian intelligence", which the report states they did find evidence to support, as meaning "no evidence of being Russian intelligence", and I really don't think that interpretation holds up in the context of the report, which as quoted above gives the evidence of Kilimnik's ties to Russian intelligence as the "however" to Manafort's statement that he believed Kilimnik wasn't working as a spy.

Click to expand...

If Mueller would have found evidence that he was Russian intelligence he would have said that. Do you really not see the difference between Russian Intelligence and ties to Russian Intelligence?

Mueller also told us that Kilimnik was a State Department source. Do you think if Kilimnik Russian Intelligence that Russia would let him be a State Department source or is he a double agent?

US Embassies world wide deal with foreign intelligence members as sources on a daily basis. They are far from being mutually exclusive.

SaintForLife said:

Those questions I asked are totally relevant to your question. How can Kilimnik be both a State Department source(according to Mueller) and Russian intelligence? Is he a double agent?

How did Mueller, who had greater investigative powers, not find any evidence that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence, but the Senate was able to?

Do we know what the evidence that the Senate is using to make that claim?

Those are important questions to be answered, but I'm not surprised that you aren't interested in their possible answers.

Click to expand...

The senate intel report (p. 167-168) describes what made Kilimnik a “resource” to the US embassy in Kiev while also being someone most in the embassy viewed “skeptically” regarding his ties to Russia. Meaning they got helpful info from him while also being careful that he was Russian intel.

You complained that Mueller was overreaching when he simply said Kilimnik had “ties” to Russian intel because it fit your argument back then; now that the senate went further than Mueller in describing Kilimnik, you’re trying to make Mueller look incompetent or wrong for not going far enough — heads you win, tails Mueller loses.

I don’t want to pick your posts apart like this, but you insist. It’s not relevant who had more investigative power (although it’s likely the Senate did because of the logistics of their subpoena power). The Senate’s investigation pertained to counterintelligence, while Mueller’s report specifically excluded counterintelligence findings, and counterintelligence topics that came up in the investigation were referred to other investigative bodies. The differing scopes of investigations can lead to stronger findings by one entity than the other. But the findings of Mueller versus the Senate are not inconsistent with each other, particularly for purposes of determining whether Kilimnik was a bad guy Manafort shouldn’t have been giving proprietary polling data to — he was either a Russian intel officer, or he was tied to Russian intel officers. The senate’s finding is more specific, and stronger, than Mueller’s finding that you mocked as being unsupported or misleading. But they both can be, and probably are, true, and both findings contradict whatever your position is. I don’t get why you’re trying to mock RobF as if he doesn’t understand the difference, when you were clearly wrong on both

As you know, the Senate’s report, like Mueller’s, is simply a summary of the evidence, not the evidence itself. But the summary, even redacted, provides a host of reasons for their conclusion that he’s a Russian intel officer. You demand evidence without addressing whats in the report (I even gave you page numbers), you’re hung up on this “source” thing, and you’re vaguely critical of Mueller on this, but you’re offering no theories on Kilimnik, just trying to poke holes in everyone else’s. You’re hinting at the notion that youve got better info than the Senate and the rest of us, but you’ve never really said where we are wrong and you are right. My personal theory is that you read somewhere, months ago, that Kilimnik was planted by the Deep State to take down Manafort, and believing this bad information, you came out really hard in this thread against the suggestion that Kilimnik was a legit bad guy. Now, you’re struggling to combat the notion that a bipartisan Senate committee disagrees with you in addition to Mueller, so you’re throwing out rhetorical questions to avoid answering the one at the center of this. If not, why can’t you just admit that you whiffed on Kilimnik?

But I’ve now jumped through all the hoops you’ve laid out for me. Do you agree with the Senate intel’s bipartisan conclusion about Kilimnik or not, and if so, does it undercut your argument from January? Do you think Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence (that thing I said months go that you couldn’t get past)?

TaylorB said:

The senate intel report (p. 167-168) describes what made Kilimnik a “resource” to the US embassy in Kiev while also being someone most in the embassy viewed “skeptically” regarding his ties to Russia. Meaning they got helpful info from him while also being careful that he was Russian intel.

You complained that Mueller was overreaching when he simply said Kilimnik had “ties” to Russian intel because it fit your argument back then; now that the senate went further than Mueller in describing Kilimnik, you’re trying to make Mueller look incompetent or wrong for not going far enough — heads you win, tails Mueller loses.

I don’t want to pick your posts apart like this, but you insist. It’s not relevant who had more investigative power (although it’s likely the Senate did because of the logistics of their subpoena power). The Senate’s investigation pertained to counterintelligence, while Mueller’s report specifically excluded counterintelligence findings, and counterintelligence topics that came up in the investigation were referred to other investigative bodies. The differing scopes of investigations can lead to stronger findings by one entity than the other. But the findings of Mueller versus the Senate are not inconsistent with each other, particularly for purposes of determining whether Kilimnik was a bad guy Manafort shouldn’t have been giving proprietary polling data to — he was either a Russian intel officer, or he was tied to Russian intel officers. The senate’s finding is more specific, and stronger, than Mueller’s finding that you mocked as being unsupported or misleading. But they both can be, and probably are, true, and both findings contradict whatever your position is. I don’t get why you’re trying to mock RobF as if he doesn’t understand the difference, when you were clearly wrong on both

As you know, the Senate’s report, like Mueller’s, is simply a summary of the evidence, not the evidence itself. But the summary, even redacted, provides a host of reasons for their conclusion that he’s a Russian intel officer. You demand evidence without addressing whats in the report (I even gave you page numbers), you’re hung up on this “source” thing, and you’re vaguely critical of Mueller on this, but you’re offering no theories on Kilimnik, just trying to poke holes in everyone else’s. You’re hinting at the notion that youve got better info than the Senate and the rest of us, but you’ve never really said where we are wrong and you are right. My personal theory is that you read somewhere, months ago, that Kilimnik was planted by the Deep State to take down Manafort, and believing this bad information, you came out really hard in this thread against the suggestion that Kilimnik was a legit bad guy. Now, you’re struggling to combat the notion that a bipartisan Senate committee disagrees with you in addition to Mueller, so you’re throwing out rhetorical questions to avoid answering the one at the center of this. If not, why can’t you just admit that you whiffed on Kilimnik?

But I’ve now jumped through all the hoops you’ve laid out for me. Do you agree with the Senate intel’s bipartisan conclusion about Kilimnik or not, and if so, does it undercut your argument from January? Do you think Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence (that thing I said months go that you couldn’t get past)?

Click to expand...

I'm simply pointing out the differences between Weissman's... I mean Mueller's report and the Senate report.

Where did you see that the Senate has more investigative powers that the Special Counsel? That's the opposite of what I've read. For example, the Special Counsel can get the tax records whereas the Senate doesn't have that power.

Mueller got Manafort's tax records. Considering Mueller was looking any links to Russia, I'm sure he got Trump's tax records as well.



This investigative journalist talks about some of the unsubstantiated and false claims in the Senate report about Wikileaks.


The source that I was talking about is the footnote that cites where the information came from or the evidence. Those footnotes are quite common throughout the Senate report, but there aren't any footnotes that cite the evidence for the claim Kilimnik is Russian intelligence. The NYT reported that Kilimnik met with the State Department in the US in 2016, but unless I overlooked it the Senate didn't include it in their report.

The Senate making an explosive allegation without any evidence is not proof that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence. Until they produce that evidence I don't believe the Senate report in regards to Kilimnik being Russian intelligence.

SaintForLife said:

The Senate making an explosive allegation without any evidence is not proof that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence. Until they produce that evidence I don't believe the Senate report in regards to Kilimnik being Russian intelligence.

Click to expand...

Why would the Republican-led Senate make such a baseless accusation?

brandon said:

Why would the Republican-led Senate make such a baseless accusation?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Why did the FBI say releasing the Nunes memo would endanger national security? Once we saw the Nunes memo then we knew the FBI lied.

Do you think it's a crazy concept to want to see evidence of an explosive allegation before believing it?

SaintForLife said:

Do you think it's a crazy concept to want to see evidence of an explosive allegation before believing it?

Click to expand...

I think it’s crazy to believe that a Republican-led Senate would release an explosive allegation against a Republican-led administration without evidence.