This isn't a new claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/manafort-russian-poll-share-konstantin-kilimnik-trump-investigation-2016-election-latest

Trump tried to deny knowing about it: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/trump-i-knew-nothing-about-manafort-sharing-poll-data-with-alleged-russian-spy.html

Manafort's own lawyers revealed it by screwing up redaction in court filings: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/trumps-campaign-manager-gave-polling-data-to-russian-agent.html

These conversations have gotten so boring and repetitive.

I remember when the bounty story came out and Icemage of course was the first one to post about it on here. Many of us pointed out that the story lacked any proof and the timing was highly suspect. I also remember so many talking heads saying things like Trump needs to do something and if he doesn't do something it's just further proof he's a Russian plant, weak, etc.

So now think about it for a second. Imagine if Trump acted on these headlines. We would have essentially been aggressors based on lies. We would have invited some sort of Russian revenge actions. This is why I and so many other people are so suspect and critical of the media. These types of lies are so damaging and their sole purpose was to just goad Trump into making a mistake and/or portraying him in a bad light for not responding.

Icemage is basically the 2000s version of a person who wanted to invade Iraq because 'Murica. Uncritically accepting 'news' that fits his political outlook while failing to look at the wider picture of cause and effect and who is actually benefiting from such headlines.

Manafort giving Kilimnik internal campaign info is not new. US intelligence claiming Kilimnik gave Russian intelligence internal campaign info is new.



As usual, you're unfair in characterizing my views.

I understand that some on this forum(like yourself) are kneejerk defenders of all things Trump and Russia, so the story did not pique your curiosity in the slightest. You'll see my initial reaction was "well, this is strange". We're then faced with the usual lies, contradictions, and obfuscation from Trump and his people, which doesn't support the claim that the story is bunk.

If you read my posts in the thread, it's a template for how I usually operate. I post relevant stories, bat down the kneejerk skeptics, and suggest ways that the administration could respond in a credible way to clarify the story.

It's not about goading Trump into war... it's about holding government accountable. If the bounties story was credible, and it was in Trump's brief, and the NSC held meetings to discuss options, but Trump chose not to act, I'd like to know why. I care if Russia is putting bounties on the heads of our soldiers, I'm just old fashioned like that.

After the story got clarified a bit, we learned some of the intelligence the IC had, how CIA had medium confidence and NSA low confidence, how Pompeo talked directly with Lavrov to warn them on the issue, etc. The way the Biden administration responded suggests that the intelligence was not rock solid enough for harsh action, which I suppose is consistent with the later reporting, and perhaps contradicts(as Bogie pointed out) the original story.

On a more general matter, I don't believe weakness in the face of Russian aggression is a good strategy. Sweeping their actions under the rug will not alter their behavior in a positive direction.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 17 2021 10:30am

Giving information to an intelligence asset and not expecting said intelligence asset to pass that information on to their associated agency is willful blindness. It's literally how intelligence works. Get the info, pass the info on.

Anyone in government who didn't think Kilimnik would pass that info on should have their security clearances revoked.

Completely agree, but for the skeptics out there who weren't convinced that Kilimnik was actually a Russian intelligence officer, this new claim confirms the Manafort -> Kilimnik -> Russian intelligence flow of information. Collusion confirmed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't most of the outrage re: Bountygate about how Trump wasn't reading his intelligence briefings and he denied knowing about it? Anyway, the playing field is a bit more unfair because conservatives really struggle with nuance because their education is woefully inadequate. If you have to explain something to them, you've already lost the battle.

I think the media needs to be more responsible with their narratives because far too many people jump to conclusions. This includes the original reporting as well as the characterization of the reporting by other outlets. IMO, the latter is far worse but I could understand the argument that the former is more important.



The problem with this narrative is that it's irrelevant. When you use the term "collusion," most people assumed that Trump was literally on the phone with Putin coordinating stuff. People like Maddow really didn't help in this regard. Is it wrong for the head of Trump's campaign to be doing this sort of thing? Absolutely. However, the reporting of this sort of thing was either "Trump is a criminal mastermind" vs. "Trump is totally innocent."

This post was edited by thundercock on Apr 17 2021 11:01am

Probably not most of the outrage, but that was one of the obvious questions. My guess is it was in Trump's written intelligence briefing, and he didn't read it. I don't think he got orally briefed much... maybe they didn't want to bring it up because of his infatuation with Russia, or because it wasn't a high confidence assessment, or a mix of both.



Maybe it's irrelevant in a political context, but from the evidence we have, it is factual to say "the Trump campaign colluded with Russia". Because of the nature of politics today and poor timing, it's not some bombshell that's running on all the news networks. But it happens to be the truth, and if we pull back from the numbness and fatigue of the story, it's absolutely insane that it happened. And the Trump campaign chairman who did it was pardoned by Trump.

Reward for not flipping.

Conservatives: “you can’t believe the US government!”

US government : “communism bad!”

Conservatives: “praise Jesus!”

Trump is so detached from reality that it's hard to tell his motivation for doing something. But him pardoning Manafort and Stone because of his cooperation in their collusion is a reasonable explanation.