Mueller lies by ommission, shady Russian Manafort met was working WITH US intelligence

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But 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.

…

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on Page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

thehill.com...


Here we have another omission from the Mueller report designed to make the trump team look bad.

The Mueller report in the first section is discussing Russian inference and connections to Trumps team. Even though it concluded there was no crime from Trump or anyone on his team conspiring with Russia, it still laid out shady looking connections between Trumps team and Russians.

This is important because it seems to be the same tactic that was used by the intel agencies to justify starting the investigation; make it seem like anyone connected to Russia in any way talking to anyone connected to Trum0 must be shady and worth investigating.

The problem with this is that many campaigns and politicians and campaigns have connections to all sorts of foreigners, Russia included.

So selectively going after one campaign to spy on for what just about everyone is doing is clearly biased.

In this case, we see that many of the same shady Russians that Mueller and intel agencies have looked into for having connections to Trump actually had connections to US intelligence of the Hillary team (Veselynetskya, Deripaska, and so forth).

So here we have Manafort meeting a Ukrainian that Mueller says has connections to Russian intel sources. Sounds bad, right?

Only it turns out that those connections were so he could spy on the behalf of the US state department AGAINST Russia.

Why would Muellers team fail to mention that Kliminik was a valued US asset? The article listed shows proof that Mueller had access to the documentation showing Kliminik was helping the US state department under Obama to look into Russia, so ignorance isn't the answer.

The only explanation is that this info was intentionally left out to paint Trumps team in a bad light. It wouldn't smear trump or Manafort the same if the report said "Manafort met with Ukrainian who was helping the US spy on Russia"

Now we have two examples of Muellers team omitting evidence to make Trumps team look bad. How much more of the report is deceptive?

I thought Mueller was supposed to be non partisan?

You can bet if trump tweets out something negative about someone, but omits exculpatory evidence the media would jump all over that tweet. But with the mueller report, most are strangely silent and just take the report as gospel without questioning it.


One other section I wanted to highlight from this article.

Mueller focuses on how shady Manafort meeting with Kliminik about a Crimea peace plane was, because Kliminiks plan put parts of Crimea under Russian control.

Sounds shady, right? Any politician meeting with a foreigner trying to have a plan that gave Russia control of territory in Crimea must be investigated as possible corruption.

Except, it turns out Kliminik met with Obama's state dept with almost the exact plan months earlier, and no one batted an eye.

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

For instance, the report makes a big deal about Kilimnik’s meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York.

By that time, Manafort had served as Trump’s campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych’s party.

Specifically, the Mueller report flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

“Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine,” the Mueller report stated.

But State emails showed Kilimnik first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama administration during a visit to Washington. Kasanof, his former handler at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, had been promoted to a top policy position at State, and the two met for dinner on May 5, 2016.

The day after the dinner, Kilimnik sent an email to Kasanof’s official State email address recounting the peace plan they had discussed the night before.

…
Kasanof replied the next day that, although he was skeptical of some of the intelligence on Russian intentions, it was “very important for us to know.”

He thanked Kilimnik for the detailed plan and added, “I passed the info to my bosses, who are chewing it over.” Kasanof told the FBI that he believed he sent Kilimnik’s peace plan to two senior State officials, including Victoria Nuland, President Obama’s assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs.

So Kilimnik’s delivery of the peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration wasn’t mentioned. That’s what many in the intelligence world might call “deception by omission.”

This is more proof that Mueller was never about having a fair investigation, he was about smearing and taking down Trump.

a reply to: Grambler

Their partisanship was clear from the start. Thank you for highlighting once more how this investigation is tainted.

I think after failing to come up with a clear case of criminal conspiracy or "collusion" Mueller desperately wanted to get out of all of it without giving either side a political victory. He failed and attempted to fix that in his final statement.

Failed again.

Mueller is going to decline being interviewed by Congress. John Durham will have to interview him. Private citizen Mueller cannot turn down a federal prosecutor.

More and more evidence, that this was a consorted effort to subvert a presidential candidate, knowing if that if he got elected, they would further use it to try and remove him from office.

If theyll do this to a potential president, do you think for one second the FBI, CIA, etc etc etc wouldnt do this us?

We need a serious cleaning in DC and of all the agencies.

a reply to: carewemust

I don't think that will happen. They have his report, and Barr is not motivated by politics like Congress.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller's team was part of the coup against President Trump.

a reply to: Grambler

Why is this not a surprise?

You might be interested in a little thread titled, "The Curious Case of Felix Sater," by ATS member, ucanthandlethetruth.

Klimnik is mentioned in that thread and there is a good bit of detail germane to your thread here.

a reply to: carewemust

There are no outright lies in the report. I would be extremely surprised if Barr made a move against Mueller.

Good thing the SC was non-partisan.

a reply to: Grambler

Paul Mannafort pled guilty to “conspiracy against the United States.” Conspiracy implies that there must have been conspirators.

What was Mueller supposed to do after such a confession? Let him and his conspirators go free?

Multiple three letter agencies have suggested that Kilimnik was working for the Russians and 'grooming' Mannafort.

Yes, Kilimnik may have also worked for the US, too, but that doesn't make up for it. Kilimnik, the double agent, would still be a threat to US national security.

This kind of binary 'either/or' rationale is used over-and-over again by apologists and is simply faulty reasoning.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

Why is this not a surprise?

You might be interested in a little thread titled, "The Curious Case of Felix Sater," by ATS member, ucanthandlethetruth.

Klimnik is mentioned in that thread and there is a good bit of detail germane to your thread here.

Very interesting thread

Don’t know how I missed it

It will take me a while to digest, but it seems other supposed shady Russians trumps team were meeting were longtime intel assets and had connections to the Clintons

Muellers ties to Sater seem to make his involvement with this investigation suspect as well

a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller was supposed to give us a complete picture

He knew Kliminik was a state dept spy and was meeting with Obama’s state dept, but left that info out of his report

Manafort charges had nothing to do with the 2016 election

This Kliminik as a cocinspirator claim is not sourced and is irrelevant

If he was conspiring to harm the us, why was the Obama state dept still engaged in a working relationship with him in August of 2016, after the Russia investigation had begun?

Mueller withheld this info because he knew it could diminish the optics of trump russia

originally posted by: ausername
I think after failing to come up with a clear case of criminal conspiracy or "collusion" Mueller desperately wanted to get out of all of it without giving either side a political victory. He failed and attempted to fix that in his final statement.

Failed again.

But Mannafort confessed to conspiracy against the United States.

He wasn't charged with conspiracy because the evidence wasn't strong enough, but there were other charges with stronger evidence brought against him which assured that the threat to national security is now removed.

a reply to: carewemust

Technically, he cannot turn down Congress, either. It'd be hysterical to see them try him for contempt, though, after building all their hopes around him for three years.



Do we have a single case of "Russian" contacts or approaches by people who are connected to the IC in the US, UK, or Australia? Honest question.

Well, if the guy is still an informant and working for the good of the USA, the information that he was working with the USA should not have been released. I can understand Mueller omitting this information. But I do not think they should have actually included that this guy was even corresponding with Manifort either, because now the whole story is being exposed and that guy might not be given access to information anymore.

I blame this on the Dems for stirring up a hornets nest of deceit. We now have lost some good intelligence since the whole story is being seen, both by Americans and those under Russian influence.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but that false report stimulated the unearthing of this information. Who funded that report, blame it on them.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Paul Mannafort pled guilty to “conspiracy against the United States.” Conspiracy implies that there must have been conspirators.

The "conspiracy" was against the IRS specifically.

According to the actual plea 😎

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: carewemust

There are no outright lies in the report. I would be extremely surprised if Barr made a move against Mueller.

The first outright lie was the first sentence.

The Mueller Report, the first line, says that they opened the file in 2016 after Papadopoulos had a conversation in the bar. That’s not what started the investigation.

The spying on the Trump Campaign by the Obama administration started way before the date they provided in the Mueller Report.

Now more and more facts are coming out with suggests at the very least that they omitted certain facts that they were well aware of to paint a worse picture then there was.

As this OP is talking about.

And why Barr says that he's trying to figure out the timeline of the investigation and "the pieces just don't fit."

a reply to: chr0naut

It's a common tactic. Threaten with charges and get them to plead to something smaller. Whether the person actually did it or not doesn't matter usually.

Now whether Manafort did it, it does not make the fact the government was trying to set Trump's people up any less chilling.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ausername
I think after failing to come up with a clear case of criminal conspiracy or "collusion" Mueller desperately wanted to get out of all of it without giving either side a political victory. He failed and attempted to fix that in his final statement.

Failed again.

He wasn't charged with conspiracy because the evidence wasn't strong enough, but there were other charges with stronger evidence brought against him which assured that the threat to national security is now removed.

Aaah, got it all screwed up with a double paste from the wrong source.