Another Mueller Deceit: His ‘bad guy’ was an intel source for the U.S. State Department


Put ‘sinister’ light on Ukrainian who actually was State Department intel source

Robert Mueller

Special counsel Robert Mueller left a “game-changer” out of the report of his investigation into Democrat claims that the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

It was a key piece of evidence Mueller had concerning a Ukrainian businessman, Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, reported investigative journalist John Solomon for The Hill.

Mueller reported that Kilimnik had many ties to Russian intelligence, apparently trying to paint him in a negative light.

But what Mueller failed to include in his report was the fact that Kilimnik also was a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who had informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters for many years.

“Game-changer,” said the Twitter news aggregator Twitchy.

“A State Dept. informant. Now, why would Mueller have left THIS out?” Twitchy asked. “The whole thing is beginning to look like one big sham. Pulled on the American people.”

Solomon explained that while Mueller’s report tied Kilimnik to Russian intelligence, “hundreds of pages of government documents – which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 – describe Kilimnik as a ‘sensitive’ intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.”

Solomon said that the reason Mueller’s team “omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known.”

“But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.”

He pointed out that Mueller’s report immediately makes claims about Kilimnik’s ties in Russia and then puts “a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort.”

Solomon reported Kilimnik had been working with the State Department as far back, at least, as 2013.

“Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either,” Solomon said. “He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.”

The FBI knew all of this before the Mueller investigation was finished.

Kilimnik, in fact, was described by U.S. officials as “one of the few reliable insiders the U.S. Embassy had” providing information.

Solomon wrote: “Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.”

The facts show “how misleading, by omission, the Mueller report’s public portrayal of Kilimnik turns out to be.”

Solomon wrote, “Justice Department and Mueller’s office did not respond to requests for comment. Kilimnik did not respond to an email seeking comment but, in an email last month to The Washington Post, he slammed the Mueller report’s ‘made-up narrative’ about him.”

“If Mueller’s team can cast such a misleading portrayal of Kilimnik, however, it begs the question of what else might be incorrect or omitted in the report,” Solomon said.

It’s not the first report to undermine Mueller.

The Washington Examiner reported former Trump lawyer John Dowd predicted multiple instances of Mueller misleading the public in his report will be revealed.

Critics of the Mueller investigation long have expressed concerns that it would not be an unbiased investigation. They point out that Mueller stacked his investigative team with mostly bureaucrats and FBI agents who had donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.

The president repeatedly described the investigation as a “witch hunt.” But he cooperated, providing millions of pages of documents and allowing his staff to testify. The report found no collusion and insufficient evidence of obstruction.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.