I googled "polling data to Russian intelligence"

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia...

Thanks. Answered this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995

His own lawyers admitted to it in documents they tried (and failed) to redact:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/manafort...

Because apparently we're going to pretend that NBCnews is somehow not a reputable news source, the link to the actual document so we can stop trying to change the subject:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-...

Page 6, copy and paste the blacked out text:

>The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6). The simple fact that Mr. Manafort could not recall, or incorrectly recalled, specific events from his past dealings with Mr. Kilimnik – but often (after being shown or told about relevant documents or other evidence) corrected himself or clarified his responses – does not support a determination that he intentionally lied.

This page is loaded with repeated headline statements but no substance. A collaborator to many of the NBC stories on the page you’ve provided is Ken Dilanian, a reported fired from the LA Times for his “collaborative relationship with the CIA.” I surmise this is consistent with the rest of the entire episode from LeavesTea onward.

I'm not sure I follow your point, nothing you've stated contradicts the fact that his own lawyers admitted to him supplying Russians with polling data. You can't refute the facts so refute the site to try to distract the discussion? It is LITERALLY in the redacted court documents:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-...

If you have an issue with that site you can go to literally dozens of others, how about the BBC?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46804127

My point is exactly this: this has been puffed to sound nefarious. It is a zero.

Fuzzy thinking around it was and is being used to excuse extraordinary abuse of the law and legal system.

To be illegal, information sharing has to violate some law. This does not. It is simply not illegal to share information with Russia citizens, the Russian government, or anyone affiliated with Russia.

Not even "secret" information, unless that information is governed under very specific laws. All this media puffery is absolute manipulation, and your distributing it shows that you either don't understand the law or don't wish to.

>To be illegal, information sharing has to violate some law. This does not. It is simply not illegal to share information with Russia citizens, the Russian government, or anyone affiliated with Russia.

I can't tell if you're intentionally stating falsehoods with the hope nobody will fact check you, or if you're just completely ignorant of the law. He was accused and convicted of acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Is it absolutely, unquestionably illegal to be a political operative for a foreign government and not register. For good reason. He broke the law, he went to prison. It was entirely illegal.

And NONE of that has anything to do with the original question or answer. Which is: what proof is there that he gave polling data to the Russians. Which I provided, and you still haven't refuted.

This is a non-argument. I do not dispute that he did or not.

I assert strongly that no one on earth should care in the slightest.

There were no charges related to information, sharing, or Russians.

Sharing non-classified information is completely legal. Working for a foreign business is legal. Getting paid is legal. Almost everything is legal.

Acting as an foreign agent without disclosure is illegal, in limited scope. The FARA violation related to Ukraine.

What do you think the punishment should be for giving mostly outdated, partially public and top line polling data (Trump 50% vs Clinton 48%) to Russians (as in citizens)?

I would need you to go back and edit your posts insinuating there was no proof before I have any interest in continuing the conversation. I get the impression you're more interested in trolling than having a conversation based in facts.

Please point me to when I said there was no proof for Manafort giving Kilimnik polling data. (I didn't, what I was skeptic about was that Manafort gave Russian Intelligence sensitive campaign data and that there was connection from the Trump campaign to Russian Intelligence).

Now, please answer my question.