So What Do We Make of THAT?!

So what do we make of THAT?  Paul Manafort, who served as the Trump campaign manager from June to August was, if not a Russian spy, a remarkably good imitation of one.  From May until August, he sent a steady, encrypted, stream of polling data and possibly other briefings to his translator, Konstantin Kilmmik, judged to be a Russian spy.  The communications were so well encrypted that neither Robert Mueller nor the Senate Intelligence Committee was able to figure out exactly what was sent, much less what became of the data.

The Committee has several pages, mostly redacted discussing the possibility of Kilmink's -- and even Manafort's -- "involvement" or "connection" with the hack and leak operation  Again granting that what is hidden is never as juicy as what the imagination fills in, and that it is wildly irresponsible to speculate, let me give some wildly irresponsible speculations.  First of all, to my untrained eye "involvement" and "connection" are not synonyms.  At least to my untrained understanding "involvement" implies some sort of participation, probably at a very minor or tangential level.  More central participation would be covered by a term like, "participated in" or "took part in."  At an absolute minimum, "involvement" would suggest advance knowledge of the hacks.  "Connection" could simply mean having some sort of tie to one of the participants, or even a tie to someone with a tie to a participant.  It seems wildly improbably that Manafort was in any way a participant in what appears to have been a highly secret and closely held operation.  As for whether he had some sort of direct or indirect ties to the participants, this can easily lead to playing a game of six degrees of separation, and that way lies paranoia.  

Paul Manafort

On the other hand, the Committee may be using "involvement" or "connection" to mean advance knowledge. It appears to believe that Kilimnik had advance knowledge and may be speculating whether Kilimnik passed this information on to Manafort, a thing the Committee has no direct evidence of.  Its redacted section may refer to Manafort behaving in a way that suggested advance knowledge.  It should also be noted that the GRU breached the DNC in April, 2016, that Kilimnik and Manafort met in person in May, and that the hack became public knowledge June 14, 2016. So possibly Trump's campaign manager may have known about the hack and started sending polling data to a representative of the organization responsible for the hack a month before the hack became public knowledge.  

The next and obvious question is what Kilimnik wanted with the polling data.  Neither the Mueller investigation nor Senate Intelligence Committee found any indication. Quite probably, Manafort himself did not know.  Operations of this type tend to be on a don't-ask-don't-tell basis.  Manafort was used to such things.  Rick Gates, Manafort's aide who testified against him, did not know the reason but speculated that Manafort may have been providing the information to prove that Trump had a chance of winning, and that Manafort could be useful in a Trump administration.  That could very well explain Manafort's motives, but why did Kilimnik, and whoever Kilimnik was reporting to, want the  information?  Were the solely interested in Trump's prospects?  There have been suggestions that the polling data may have been passed on to the Troll Farm to help them target their ads.  I suppose this is possible, although the trolls seem to have gotten quite a good understanding of how to navigate US politics by interacting with actual Americans. Nor is there any evidence, so far as I know, tying the Troll Farm to the hack and leak.  Another possibility, which I will discuss at greater length when commenting on the next section, is that the GRU may have used polling data to guide its direct release of information.  

And the other major question is what did Trump know and when did he know it.  So far as we can tell, he knew nothing whatever about these activities.  Manafort seems to have been a rogue player, acting for his own personal motives.  His motive appear to have been financial -- Manafort was in heavy debt to Deripaska and hoped that Deripaska would write off the debt if the data proved useful.  Nor is there any evidence that Trump willfully turned a blind eye on all of this.  Certainly that was my first thought.  If Trump's campaign manager was stealing polling data and using it for his own personal gain, one would expect Trump to be furious over the betrayal.  Or maybe not.  Maybe I am just not thinking like a patrimonialist.  Manafort, after all, offered his services to the Trump campaign for free.  But Trump could hardly expect Manafort, who was under serious financial pressure, to forego compensation altogether. Presumably he expected Manafort to make up the difference later on his own by influence peddling.   Maybe Trump, on learning of what had happened, decided that after all, data theft didn't hurt him any and was a small price to pay for Manfort's free services, and his silence.  

Alternately, it is possible that the Trump and Republicans in general never expressed outrage over Manafort's betrayal because, ensconced in their right wing media bubble, they never heard about it.

Look, I succumbed to paranoia over Trump and Russia once before and I really don't want to make the same mistake twice.  But Volume V is a positive invitation to, replete with invitations to connect the dots and play six degrees of separation.

And the following chronology seems -- troubling:

April 12, 2016    GRU successfully hacks the DNC server, starts making plans to release the contents

April 26, 2016    Joseph Mifsud, believed to be a Russian agent, approaches George Papadopoulos saying that the Russians have damaging information on Hillary in the form of "thousands of e-mails."

May 5-7, 2016    GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik visits the US and meets with Paul Manafort.  After he leaves, Manafort starts sending regular briefings and campaign polling data.

Granted, this was about when the campaign season got started in earnest.  The timing could be related only in the sense that the campaign season was getting seriously underway.  But it still makes you wonder.