I mean didn't we just level sanctions against Kilminik a few months ago? Seems kinda far to go to play a joke

The Psychology of Other True Self

What is it you think Manafort was doing over there the whole time? He was supporting Yanukovych. Manafort is the principal. Kilimnik was just his translator and go between. They were trying to make money as political consultants, selling promises of U.S. support and setting up fraudulent hedge funds and ****. The Mueller report even acknowledges that they were sending the polling data to former clients as well as to Americans- hardly secretive. There is no evidence showing they sent it anywhere else, only the specter that they might have also sent it secretly to others. Mind you, Manafort had been bugged and surveilled since even before the election. When the intelligence agencies get permission to bug you formally, that also automatically extends to people you associate with. All that surveillance, no Russiagate charges, let alone conviction.

There is a reason Kilimnik was never indicted on any Russiagate charges.

And this polling data was, according to Kilimnik himself and Gates, a key Mueller witness, nothing but publicly available poll results, a snapshot of opinions at a particular point in time. In your mind are there Russian oligarchs sitting around refreshing their email every 5 minutes between snorting 8 balls off supermodel hip bones? to then do what with it exactly?


Where do you get that Treasury is borrowing from anywhere to make their claim about Kilimnik? Did I miss something? Did they explain themselves? It's possible. I'm not infallible, but you need to cite that.

And what intelligence agency has said Kilimick is a Russian agent? I think I've got two cult members now who can't give me one name.

Did that sound smart to you in your head before you wrote it??


Again this does notthing to address the fact that if British Intel or other Intelligence agencies tell the US Intelligence agency 'hey you have a guy in the Trump Campaign saying Russia has certain data and they are using it to influence the election', it must be investigated. MUST.

They can never just guess they don't think it is anything and then say 'Oops' later if it proves to have been credible.

No it is because you are dumb.

That wasn't for anything Russiagate related, but from his working with Manafort. He was charged with witness tampering because he texted some people with whom he was in regular contact and who later became witnesses.

He wasn't indicated on anything Russigate because, unlike in the exercise of brainwashing the sheeple, in a court you need evidence.

No, this is simply you who do not know the subject very well or its terminology. US usage of the term agent in relation to employees of its own intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies is an outlier.

Which apart from this minor tangent, has actually made you commit an extremely basic error, which is to assume that Kilimnik not being referred to as an agent is verification that he is not a member of Russian intelligence. The opposite is in fact the case, if Kilimnik was a Russian agent, he would not be a member of Russian intelligence, but rather someone external recruited by them.

The Senate report states that he is a Russian intelligence officer, which it seems pretty clear that you either didn't know prior to these recent posts, or you have been willfully misrepresenting it.

I'm not overly fuzzed by this kind of argument from someone who repeatedly lambasts people for some imaginary blind trust in the media, but who repeatedly makes wrongful or misleading claims about two openly available reports available for anyone to read.

When you repeatedly accuse others of blind trust in the media, but you you don't do basic due diligence like this, the argumentation comes off as lazy and not very convincing.

Do you hate the Jim Croce song "I Got a Name" because you have no names?

Do you have any speculation as to why no warrant was applied for to surveil Papadopolous given that, according to you, one frivolous utterance of his justified a 2 year 40 million dollar investigation which resulted in zero convictions to the core inquiry? Tell me why there was no warrant to spy on Papadopolous or don't bother responding because we're done here. If you can't try to think a little then I'm just not interested in engaging.

So if you're a cop investigating the Russia thing--trump's campaign manager's longtime Russian spy biz partner wouldn't grab your attention? Not even a little?

You can make up whatever you want to about words, your superior grasp of them, and so on. I don't see how it explains Kilimnik not being indicted for any charges related to any election interference. Other Russians were indicted, on thin technical grounds given that their 5K budget of incoherent clickbait could have, theoretically, influenced our election by a half vote or something. But not Kiliminik, who is supposed to be the "smoking gun" of this big lie. No evidence on him, but premise everything on him. Got it.

I said no intelligence agency, security agency, or the Mueller report from the DOJ characterizes him as a Russian intelligence officer. Do you have any contradiction to that which I missed?

Did you not see where I gave direct quotes from the reports you cited which contradicted, directly, claims you attributed to those reports? Are you pretending that didn't just happen a few posts back? I guess if you can pretend Russia is the reason we elected Trump then you are capable of pretending just about anything.

This doesn't seem like something a journalist would say.

Where do you get spy biz partner? I guess the first thing I would do if I was some idiot cop too stupid to instantly see this was a nothing burger being contrived by political opposition, would be to familiarize myself with the voluminous surveillance already compiled on Manafort before and after he joined the Trump campaign. Then I would look into Kilimnik since he speaks English and Ukranian and Russian as he looks like a connector piece. Then I would see there is no evidence of Kilimnik being a Russian spy and not charge him with anything involving Russian interference with the election.

In other words I would do pretty much the same thing our intelligence agencies did except for feeding the media anonymous speculative leaks for them to turn into attack ads against Trump.

This doesn't sound like something a journalist would say, either. Who are all these people telling you that you sound like a journalist?

I'll just pre-empt the response - "Even journalists can take a day off".

Have at it, deuces.

I believe the exact term they're using is Russian Intelligence Officer but that seems to be happening over in a place called reality so it might not interest you much

Taibbi seemed happy to take Senate investigators at their word or did you skim by that part too?

Firstly this is again just flat out wrong. Take this quote from Mueller's report:

Quite clearly there are two categories of information that were being sent, publicly available information and internal data. This shows that Gates was in fact quite explicit about the fact that not all of the information being sent was publicly available.

Secondly the unclassified version of the NIC report is literally the first result if you had bothered to google "NIC 2020 election report". The specific wording in that report labels Kilimnik as a "Russian influence agent". You could argue about why its "influence" rather than "intelligence" but he is also referred to as a "Russian proxy" and ultimately the important point is that the intelligence agencies are saying that he was working for the Russian government. There is no argument to be made to the contrary since the EO under which the report was commissioned tasks and sanctions applied explicitly states:

This shows that Kilimnik was sanctioned specifically because intelligence agencies believe he was "acting as an agent of or on behalf of" the Russian government.

If a person utters they are aware of murder and that Person A killed Person B, you do not surveille the person who was the witness.

Only someone dumb thinks that.

The cops who investigate do so by checking on Person A and Person B.

Be smarter. Papadopolous had done nothing wrong at that point. He just told someone he was aware others in the Trump Campaign were doing wrong. So that is exactly where an Investigation will look.

It's actually a different set of people who are, at the core, responsible. They are referred to by various labels, one of which is the national security state. They have coerced and recruited centrist politicians on both sides, the media, and big tech into their vortex. These are the people who brought you AQ. These are the people who brought you sweeping, totally unconstitutional, domestic surveillance. These are the people who brought you WMDs in Iraq. These are the people who brought you ISIS. These are the people militarizing local police units in response to growing inequality. These people are now turning mainstream media and social media into tools of thought control through both lying to you (somewhat limited in s semantic technical sense and often retracted but still lying) and, mainly, through limiting the scope of what information you are likely to encounter which might shed any light on their activities.

It's hard to say what people really believe when they mainly tell you what they think they can justify given an apparent adherence to acceptable values. When we found no WMDs in Iraq and the Bush administration changed reasons for the war in mid war, did our country implode over the lives lost and hard earned money lost? Was anyone prosecuted? Nope. People got on board just like ok yeah that's what we meant whole time. People will often fold themselves into obvious lies if their leaders direct them to do so. Your thought leaders told you obvious lies and you voluntarily snapped into belief. Trump and other Republican leaders told their people obvious lies and they snapped into belief. The fact that your lies have the national security stamp on top only makes you less credible than them because the national security state has a longer history of audacious lying the even the orange idiot himself.

If you have any writing tips for me I will consider them. Unlike most people, including you no doubt, I can learn things from anybody.

We all have our versions of reality. I'm not too interested in yours tbh. I'll tell you where Kilimnik is never going to be called a Russian intelligence officer is in a U.S. court of law where, apparently, intelligence and security agencies still believe evidence might actually be required. That's why no intelligence or security agencies have so labeled him when, as should be obvious, if they could they would.

Deuces.
I'll say your posting and argumentative style has improved a lot since we exchanged barbs.

I agree with a lot of what you posted in this thread.

I'm surprised to see you are still trying to salvage your image ITT. Then again you can find plenty of video these days of people thoroughly getting their asses whipped yet, inexplicably, getting up and volunteering for more abuse. It's more important for people not to give up than to preserve themselves. I admire your courage I guess. I would admire you more if you could be one of the few people in the world able to independently look at evidence and reason and see they were wrong. Then again, I enjoy living in that exclusive territory which is sparsely populated. If everyone could be objective and think then what would make me special?

Back to your claim here. Yes, the Mueller report says that, in addition to publicly available polling data, there was "internal" data also distributed to Ukrainians and Americans. And, although I saw a different interview, I will grant you that Gates also referenced the non-public data. Kilimnik says otherwise. Unfortunately, we don't really know what "internal" means here, and we are dealing with lawyer speak.

But instead of getting tangled up in semantics, let's look at this from a slightly different angle. Mueller has the full emails including the content. Can we agree that the emails themselves are the evidence? That's a trivial designation. Mueller has decided to redact the email content. So, really, we have seen no evidence as to what type of data is contained therein. The evidence is there, the content mentioned poses no security threat, yet we can't see it for ourselves. What do you conclude from the decision to redact the emails? We have people saying this, people saying that, and we have the emails. But the people bringing the accusations won't let us see the evidence, obviously because it hurts their case. When the evidence hurts your case it means it helps the counter case, here meaning that the data is benign, unhelpful to any troll farm based thought control programs (consider what you are actually saying here in the larger context- it's ridiculous).

So what we have, in the absence of the revealing of the content of the emails, are just assertions or unverified claims. The evidence we do have, the recipient list of the emails and the context around them, is consistent with how Gates and Kilimnik describe the purpose of the polling data, which was that it was to enlarge their profile in the minds of their clients.


Influence agent is another vague, undefined term, probably being used to gin up government affiliation via the word "agent".

Influence agent and employee or asset of or agent of Russian government intelligence are different designations. I have nothing to add to your self-own here.

Thanks man. After Bernie lost I am more accepting of the current system being broken and immovable. Things just have to get a lot worse before they can get better and no one can stop that or significantly change that trajectory at this point.

Could this be it?


Gableman Peddled Election Conspiracy Theories At Trump Rally After 2020 Election



Head of Wisconsin 'audit' admits he doesn't know how elections work





The GreenBay City Counsel questioned him for the first time about his role and the purpose of the Audit and the foundations for his prior assertions of wrong doing?













Summary : he could not provide any substantiation for any of his claims. Said he could only show hours worth of accusations on the internet.

But you haven't familiarized yourself. You've made many factual errors regarding the Mueller report, the Senate report and Crowdstrike statements. Perhaps there is more as well, I haven't followed the entire debate in detail because a lot of it was playing on repeat.

When pressed on those issues, you talk about "media" in broad strokes, accuse people of believing in some hazy facsimile of "Russiagate" and any reference to direct sources that don't agree with your opinions you question the integrity of.

I'd say it seems like you have fallen into the trap you have accused others of so readily: You've read some dubious takes and instead of accepting that and moving on, you seem hellbent on just doubling down until the debate is exhausted.

Did you miss that the entire purpose of the investigation is explicitly to find agents of, or people acting on behalf of, a foreign government? He could not legally be sanctioned under EO 13848 unless intelligence agencies believed that Kilimnik was in fact working on behalf of the Russian government.

Besides it's not just "influence agent" used to describe him in the report; he is literally referred to as a "Russian proxy". Continuing to defend your claim that no intelligence agency has stated that he works on behalf of the Russian government is laughable.

Also while there is certainly a fair amount of subjectivity in the arguments on both sides that last post of mine was literally just facts countering objectively false statements that you had made without any subjective analysis. The fact that you couldn't just admit that you'd made a mistake on this/Gates' statements and instead deflected from the mistakes to rehash other subjective arguments is ironic given you seem to like emphasising how open minded you are and that "unlike most others" you can "learn from anybody".

Finally, remember this whole thing started because you compared Russiagate to 2020 rigging theories. At this point the argument regarding Russiagate is about whether the information the chairman of a presidential campaign shared with a pro-Russian political consultant was significant or intended to aid outside interference. The mere fact that it's acknowledged by both sides that some amount of information was in fact shared, and the debate is about whether it was significant or was done with any intention to affect the election, makes it obvious just how ludicrous the comparison with the riggie nonsense is.