General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow/Why do we know about the cigar bar meeting with Kilimnik??
There is a story out there that most of us have heard by now, that Manafort and Gates met with Kilimnik in a cigar bar, to discuss various things and that Manafort gave some documents (possibly polling data) to Kilimnik.
Andrew Weissmann said that this meeting goes to the heart of the whole investigation.
Where does this story come from?
I've been trying to figure it out and the closest I can come is that Mueller's team alleges that Manafort continued to lie after his plea agreement and one of the things that he lied about was his contacts with Kilimnik. In court documents:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_2.pdf
it clearly says that he lied about his contacts with Kilimnik.
But nowhere in those court documents can i find a description of the meeting, or any specifics on what he lied about, other than it was his contact with Kilimnik.
This NY Times article gets a little more specific, saying that in a closed door hearing, prosecutors revealed that Kilminik and Manafort were discussing russian sanctions and "peace" with ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/us/politics/manafort-mueller-russia-inquiry.html
and at the end of the article there is a cryptic sentence:
What Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik discussed about the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not all that concerned prosecutors. Another issue is a directive from Mr. Manafort to Mr. Gates to turn over Trump campaign polling data to Mr. Kilimnik in the midst of the presidential race.
The transcript suggests that Mr. Manafort claims that he wanted only public data transferred. But Mr. Weissmann told the judge that the question of whether any American, wittingly or unwittingly, engaged with Russians who were interfering in the election relates to the core of the special counsels inquiry.
my question is, can we see that transcript from the closed-door hearing? if the NY Times Reporter saw it, can't we see it too?
it appears that the fact that the NY Times reporter got to read the transcript from that closed door hearing is the only reason we know about the cigar bar meeting and the polling data transfer.
I for one would love to see that transcript myself.
does anyone know if that transcript is available to the public? and if not, how did the NY Times reporter get to see it?
thanks
manor321
(3,344 posts)I can't answer your question but isn't the giving of the polling data one of the things that Manafort's lawyers accidentally released because they didn't redact properly? I'd suggest googling what they failed to redact.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)I like the focus of your sleuthing.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)I'll ask the question.
garybeck
(10,069 posts)nt
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)you might find a hint somewhere.
Sneederbunk
(17,268 posts)garybeck
(10,069 posts)how do WE, the public, know about the meeting. is it in the transcript from the closed-door hearing referenced in the NY Times article? if so we should be able to see that transcript. if not, it must have been leaked.
either way, my motivation is that I like to know what i'm talking about. if i'm going to bring up that meeting in coversation with friends (or trumpsters on facebook). i want to know what i'm talking about. it is very helpful to have source information. at this point it is very hazy where that information came from.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)"The information about the Grand Havana meeting is not appearing now because its emerged as part of a leak or a deliberate release by the special counsel. Its because Manaforts statements about the meeting are a key feature of charges that he continued to lie to investigators even after agreeing to provide evidence to the special counsel in exchange for a reduced prison sentence. And one of the things that Manafort appears to have lied about was just how much of a two-way street there was between the Trump campaign and Moscow."
garybeck
(10,069 posts)your quote says it emerged as part of a leak or a deliberate release by the special counsel.
shouldn't we know which one of these it is?
if it was deliberately released by the special counsel, there should be a document somewhere, a court filing or a transcript.... how did they "release" it?
or if it is a leak, then usually we know who it was leaked to, and that reporter will give some kind of information about the sources without revealing who they are.
IMHO it is important for us to know if a story is a leak (not always trustworthy) or a deliberate release by the special counsel (that would be very trustworthy).
it is just kind of odd if you ask me, that we don't seem to know where this information came from.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)garybeck
(10,069 posts)searching thru it. thanks for finding it
FakeNoose
(40,227 posts)When Mueller learned the date and location of the meeting, he was probably able to get confirmation from other witnesses - people who were there but not involved. That's usually how those things work.
garybeck
(10,069 posts)my question is how do WE know about it. not how does Mueller know about it. thanks tho !