Paul Manafort Shared Trump Campaign Polling Data with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2016

[raymond.lee.easton at gmail.com]

I find this subject boring and would be delighted were it to disappear entirely from the list.  
That said, this is just too nonsensical to let pass without comment.
I am told that Bob Woodword has seen no evidence of collusion.  And this is supposed to be of interest how?  This is supposed to establish what?  
Give me a break.
Ray
------ Original message------From: Thomas EckhardtDate: Thu, Jan 10, 2019 16:38To: Mark Kohut;pynchon -l;Cc: Subject:Re: Paul Manafort Shared Trump Campaign Polling Data with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2016
Am 10.01.2019 um 19:58 schrieb Mark Kohut:> The original post said "ultimately" it made its way to Deripaska, which is confirmed all over.How so? From the article you linked to:"Later on Wednesday, Ken Vogel, one of the authors of the Times piece, walked back entirely any reference to Deripaska (...)""Editor's Note: This post has been updated to reflect a New York Times correction indicating Paul Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik instructions to share the Trump polling data with two pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs, not Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska."Not that I am terribly interested in this, and I certainly have no sympathy for Manafort or Trump, but: I can see no confirmation there but just the opposite. So, where is it?While I am at it, here are some other Russiagate tidbits that I find much more interesting:"“Would you agree that a lot of what’s in the Steele dossier has been somewhat vindicated?”“No.”“You would not?”“No.”https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadca
 sting/2018-12-15-2-michael-isikoff(26:50)"’Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?’ Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.“’I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard,’ Woodward answered. ‘And so you know, there we are. …..’“’But you’ve seen no collusion?’ Hewitt asked again to confirm.“’I have not,’ Woodward affirmed."https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/09/18/woodward-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-i-searched-hard-for-two-years/And then there is the Guardian's Luke Harding (make sure to watch the interview with Aaron Maté on The Real News), who has now fabricated a story about Manafort meeting Julian Assange out of whole cloth. This was too much even for the WP:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-guardian-offered-a-bombshell-story-about-paul-manafort-it-still-hasnt-detonated/2018/12/03/60e38182-f71c-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm
 _term=.8e01d1c3c0c1Glenn Greenwald (I know, but perhaps we can stop shooting messengers and instead focus on the issues) has more on it:https://theintercept.com/2018/11/27/it-is-possible-paul-manafort-visited-julian-assange-if-true-there-should-be-ample-video-and-other-evidence-showing-this/The Politico actually claimed that this was a Russian plot to make Luke Harding look bad:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-manafort-julian-assange-222694The Guardian has issued neither an correction nor a retraction. Instead, Harding went on to write an article about the Skripal affair.--Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l