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

[Mark Kohut]

Thomas, you are correct re my mistake. 

I googled and found articles from Esquire and "all over" that, when more slowly rechecked I see were written off of the original story. 

I can find no "confirmation" anything definitely can be proven (yet) went to Deripaska. 

Time will show us more, maybe even this. 

I do suggest you read "all over" analyses of what this (as nakedly known) probably implies re Trump campaign and Russia. 

I'm done here. 

Thanks. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:30 PM, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> 
>> 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/freespeechbroadcasting/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=.8e01d1c3c0c1
> 
> Glenn 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-222694
> 
> The Guardian has issued neither an correction nor a retraction. Instead, Harding went on to write an article about the Skripal affair.