New evidence links Russia to Trump

About five years too late, of course.

Paul Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager for part of the 2016 election. He ordered his deputy, Rick Gates, to share campaign info with Konstantin Kilimnik, an intelligence officer.

Kilimnik has ties with oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Why is this important? Manafort, who owed Deripaska lots of money, was working for the Trump campaign for free.

(I’m a bit surprised that Manafort didn’t handle this himself. The fewer witnesses to your wrongdoing, the better!)

It’s interesting (and entirely unsurprising). What everyone wants to know, of course, is: will any of these treasonous clowns experience ANY consequences?

Kilimnik seems unlikely to regain his free access to American politicians, but other than that…

Small excerpt from the long Wapo article linked in the OP:

Good stuff, but…there’s always that ‘but.’ Do we really want such conduct to be a freebie in American politics?

As we’re reminded near the end of the article:

We already knew there was collusion. We’ve had rock solid proof of that for years.

But now we know for a fact that the Russian intelligence effort to get Trump elected in 2016 was materially aided by Trump’s campaign chairman.

Still won’t change any minds. The, “No collusion,” crowd will ignore this like they ignored everything else.

What if Congress or some other investigator calls Manafort up, and asks him the same questions that Mueller asked in the first place. And what if Manafort tells the same lies again (or any lies) this time. Can Manafort then be charged afresh with a new crime? Or does the original pardon prevent that?

I have always heard that a pardon cannot apply to future acts. But if he is asked the same questions and gives the same lies, then double jeopardy might apply. Maybe.

Can you clarify what is new here?

I’ve not clicked on the WP link (not a subscriber) but the facts described in your OP have been known for years and much discussed and publicized years ago in all sorts of public forums including this MB.

What exactly has been revealed at this time?

I think what’s coming out now was all pretty much what we all assumed had happened. The campaign shared intel with the Kremlin. I respect Mueller, but it’s really unfortunate that he couldn’t have come up with this a couple years ago.

I don’t see anything new.

Best as I can tell from this Lawfare blog post, Mueller and the Senate Committe report, who covered the same ground, were unwilling to definitively say that Deripaska passed the info to Russian intel, while the Treasury is now saying that explicitly. OK.

It sure is.

Mueller couldn’t because it was hidden from him by the Trump administration. Manafort lied under oath, knowing Trump would pardon him, and Mueller did not receive cooperation from Trump administration officials who had the proof.

It’s only now that actual proof has finally come to light with the recently-declassified DNI report referenced below:

Anyone who read Mueller’s report knew, but knowing is not the same thing as proving.

You don’t need a Wa-Po subscription to read the above.

I wouldn’t think so. Lying to the FBI on a specific date is a separate crime from lying to Congress on a different date. In spite of what you may have seen in some movies. Just because you served your time for killing your husband once doesn’t mean you can do it again with impunity.

I will always believe that Trump’s election was the single greatest act of espionage in history. :beers: to Putin for getting away with it.

(Lights up.)

(Political observers lay out the most likely scenario for the Trump administration’s collusion with Russia.)

Trump defenders: “You don’t have any hard evidence!”

(Lights fade. Time passes. Lights up.)

(Hard evidence appears.)

Trump defenders: “Those are old accusations! It’s old news! There’s nothing new there!”