Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source

Mycroft said:

This isn't the only time the Mueller team has pulled this trick. They did the same regarding Mifsud, who had interactions with Papadopoulos. Mueller claims Mifsud has Russian connections, when in reality Mifsud is connected to Italian and US intelligence organizations.

We can expect a lot more questions about the Mueller report. Seems things just don't add up.

Click to expand...

We're talking about covert intelligence, Mycroft. Circles within circles... if you try and put your square pegs in there and try to get everything tidy and lined-up, it's just not going to work. I'm pretty sure Mifsud was working for Italian counter-intelligence and that he was working his own angle with Polonskaya. Now in the course of this relationship, I sincerely doubt that they exchanged business cards. He thought he was working her, she thought she was working him. But however you cut it, he was both a foreign intelligence asset (Italian counter-intelligence) and he had Russian connections (to Polonskaya). Now let's complicate matters even more.... as part of his cover, Mifsud was a professor with Link University in Rome. Well, the President of Link University is Vincenzo Scotti, a former Italian Interior Minister who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani during the Mafia Wars of the 1980's and 90's. So was Mifsud's role as a conduit between Polonskaya and Papadopoulos done to establish his credibility with Polonskaya as part of his job with Italian CI? Or was it done to help his boss' friends get information to help the Trump campaign? Why not both?

Same thing goes with this Kilimnik information... just because he may or may not have acted as an informant to the State Dept. doesn't necessarily mean that his connections to Manafort as outlined within the Mueller Report weren't 100% accurate. Or that the information he gave to the State Department was 100% accurate either. I'm sure some of might have been... but that's how disinformation works, is it not?

jmotivator said:

Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source | TheHill

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.

Why 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.

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.


.... How can Kilimnick be a known intelligence source for the State Department and have that not be mentioned in the Mueller report? :roll:

The Mueller team appears to have intentionally lied through misrepresentation. He knew that Kilimnick was not a Russian agent, but that fact was classified, so he could use Kilimnick to build his case against Manafort knowing that it would be a federal offense to divulge proof that Kilimnick was actually an Intel source for the United States.

Click to expand...

only Dem attacking this piece is calling it out for not being "Breaking News"....

Dems what say you?

Cordelier said:

We're talking about covert intelligence, Mycroft. Circles within circles... if you try and put your square pegs in there and try to get everything tidy and lined-up, it's just not going to work. I'm pretty sure Mifsud was working for Italian counter-intelligence and that he was working his own angle with Polonskaya. Now in the course of this relationship, I sincerely doubt that they exchanged business cards. He thought he was working her, she thought she was working him. But however you cut it, he was both a foreign intelligence asset (Italian counter-intelligence) and he had Russian connections (to Polonskaya). Now let's complicate matters even more.... as part of his cover, Mifsud was a professor with Link University in Rome. Well, the President of Link University is Vincenzo Scotti, a former Italian Interior Minister who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani during the Mafia Wars of the 1980's and 90's. So was Mifsud's role as a conduit between Polonskaya and Papadopoulos done to establish his credibility with Polonskaya as part of his job with Italian CI? Or was it done to help his boss' friends get information to help the Trump campaign? Why not both?

Same thing goes with this Kilimnik information... just because he may or may not have acted as an informant to the State Dept. doesn't necessarily mean that his connections to Manafort as outlined within the Mueller Report weren't 100% accurate. Or that the information he gave to the State Department was 100% accurate either. I'm sure some of might have been... but that's how disinformation works, is it not?

Click to expand...

So Mifsud planting a story with PapD was meant to help Trump even though by sheer coincidence it subsequently got the Trump/Russia conspiracy thing going?

Trump said:

only Dem attacking this piece is calling it out for not being "Breaking News"....

Dems what say you?

Click to expand...

uh-oh ... now you've done it.

Cordelier said:

We're talking about covert intelligence, Mycroft. Circles within circles... if you try and put your square pegs in there and try to get everything tidy and lined-up, it's just not going to work. I'm pretty sure Mifsud was working for Italian counter-intelligence and that he was working his own angle with Polonskaya. Now in the course of this relationship, I sincerely doubt that they exchanged business cards. He thought he was working her, she thought she was working him. But however you cut it, he was both a foreign intelligence asset (Italian counter-intelligence) and he had Russian connections (to Polonskaya). Now let's complicate matters even more.... as part of his cover, Mifsud was a professor with Link University in Rome. Well, the President of Link University is Vincenzo Scotti, a former Italian Interior Minister who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani during the Mafia Wars of the 1980's and 90's. So was Mifsud's role as a conduit between Polonskaya and Papadopoulos done to establish his credibility with Polonskaya as part of his job with Italian CI? Or was it done to help his boss' friends get information to help the Trump campaign? Why not both?

Same thing goes with this Kilimnik information... just because he may or may not have acted as an informant to the State Dept. doesn't necessarily mean that his connections to Manafort as outlined within the Mueller Report weren't 100% accurate. Or that the information he gave to the State Department was 100% accurate either. I'm sure some of might have been... but that's how disinformation works, is it not?

Click to expand...

Polonskaya was a nobody, though Mifsud introduced her to PapaD as "Putin's neice" (Putin doesn't have a niece). If anything, that lady was just a prop in Mifsud's operation against the Trump campaign.

No...instead of using this "Polonskaya" nonsense as an excuse to paint Mifsud as a Russian agent, Mueller should have been honest and looked into who Mifsud was REALLY working for. (Of course, that would have led Mueller right to Brennan. Can't have that, can we?)

But tell me...should anybody condone Italian counter-intelligence actions that affect the election process in a foreign country? Namely, the US?

Mycroft said:

This isn't the only time the Mueller team has pulled this trick. They did the same regarding Mifsud, who had interactions with Papadopoulos. Mueller claims Mifsud has Russian connections, when in reality Mifsud is connected to Italian and US intelligence organizations.

We can expect a lot more questions about the Mueller report. Seems things just don't add up.

Click to expand...

when Barrs claims his questions just raise more questions...answers don't make sense...this is the trail of Treason

Airyaman said:

So where is the evidence of this?

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.

Seems he doesn't link to any source.

Click to expand...

The source is FBI interview reports.

Airyaman said:

So where is the evidence of this?

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.

Seems he doesn't link to any source.

Click to expand...

Don't usually pay attention to anything Seth Abramson posts, but I think he has a point on this one. Solomon doesn't reveal his sources, or any documents, but if what he says is true -- that Kiliminick is potentially a double or triple agent, then this would not have been shared in the Mueller report because he would basically be burned. If the Russians get their hands on him, he's going to come to some unfortunate end. Also, if true, it appears Barr and/or Trump is leaking selective intel to conservatives.

Let's just hope that Solomon is simply a hack and is writing fake news.

haymarket said:

Only Trumpkins care about this as they cling to anything that pretends to cast doubt on their idols obvious guilt..

There, fixed it for you.... now that is a statement that rings true.

Click to expand...

Guilt over what? There was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia to fix the 2016 election.

Renae said:

That article is eye opening

Click to expand...

Actually you need to open your eyes. The cite is NOT an article, but an opinion piece written by a gentlemen known for conspiracy theories.

John Solomon (political commentator) - Wikipedia

Something fishy? - Columbia Journalism Review

Go find a real news source that says this, and maybe you have something. Until then, your eyes have merely opened to the darkness of "faux news"

jmotivator said:

Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source | TheHill

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.[/B]


.... How can Kilimnick be a known intelligence source for the State Department and have that not be mentioned in the Mueller report? :roll:

The Mueller team appears to have intentionally lied through misrepresentation. He knew that Kilimnick was not a Russian agent, but that fact was classified, so he could use Kilimnick to build his case against Manafort knowing that it would be a federal offense to divulge proof that Kilimnick was actually an Intel source for the United States.

Click to expand...

No, it seems that you merely can't pass up a good conspiracy theory. See above.

bubbabgone said:

So Mifsud planting a story with PapD was meant to help Trump even though by sheer coincidence it subsequently got the Trump/Russia conspiracy thing going?

Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea. There's necessarily a lot of reading between the lines here. From the Mueller Report, Vol. I, Page 6, there's this paragraph:

"July 2016 was also the month WikiLeaks first released emails stolen by the GRU from the DNC. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016 , based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

So who interacted with Papdopoulous and then reported the information to the foreign government? Seems to me that it could have only been Mifsud, Polonskaya or Timofeev. I think, by process of elimination, it's fairly easy to trace the source there. So Mifsud was/is an intelligence asset of the friendly foreign government who alerted the FBI as to what was going on. So if Mifsud was a friendly intelligence asset in July, why then was he so uncooperative when interviewed by the FBI in the lobby of a Washington Hotel on February 10, 2017? What changed between July of 2016 and February of 2017... other than everything? The change in administrations seems to have affected how cooperative this friendly foreign intelligence service was willing to be with the FBI.

Mycroft said:

Polonskaya was a nobody, though Mifsud introduced her to PapaD as "Putin's neice" (Putin doesn't have a niece). If anything, that lady was just a prop in Mifsud's operation against the Trump campaign.

No...instead of using this "Polonskaya" nonsense as an excuse to paint Mifsud as a Russian agent, Mueller should have been honest and looked into who Mifsud was REALLY working for. (Of course, that would have led Mueller right to Brennan. Can't have that, can we?)

But tell me...should anybody condone Italian counter-intelligence actions that affect the election process in a foreign country? Namely, the US?

Click to expand...

Question- Do you think all of this has something to do with PM Conti asking for the resignations of directors in his intelligence agencies last month?

Google Translate

Mycroft said:

Polonskaya was a nobody, though Mifsud introduced her to PapaD as "Putin's neice" (Putin doesn't have a niece). If anything, that lady was just a prop in Mifsud's operation against the Trump campaign.

No...instead of using this "Polonskaya" nonsense as an excuse to paint Mifsud as a Russian agent, Mueller should have been honest and looked into who Mifsud was REALLY working for. (Of course, that would have led Mueller right to Brennan. Can't have that, can we?)

But tell me...should anybody condone Italian counter-intelligence actions that affect the election process in a foreign country? Namely, the US?

Click to expand...

Polonskaya seems to me to have been a honeytrap. Timofeev was the handler.

If Mifsud was working for Brennan, I've got to figure he would have been a lot more forthcoming to the FBI when he was interviewed by them in the lobby of a Washington Hotel on February 10, 2017. (see Mueller Report, Vol. I, Page 193)

As for your last question, I get the impression that Mifsud was working his own angle with the Russians before Papadopoulos came along. I don't know what that angle was... but I sincerely doubt it had anything to do with the election. He knew the Russians were very interested in establishing contacts with members of the Trump campaign and so he arranged the meeting with Papadopoulos to build up his own bona fides to pursue his own objectives. I don't think he realized how explosive this situation was about to become.

Cordelier said:

To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea. There's necessarily a lot of reading between the lines here. From the Mueller Report, Vol. I, Page 6, there's this paragraph:

"July 2016 was also the month WikiLeaks first released emails stolen by the GRU from the DNC. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016 , based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

So who interacted with Papdopoulous and then reported the information to the foreign government? Seems to me that it could have only been Mifsud, Polonskaya or Timofeev. I think, by process of elimination, it's fairly easy to trace the source there. So Mifsud was/is an intelligence asset of the friendly foreign government who alerted the FBI as to what was going on. So if Mifsud was a friendly intelligence asset in July, why then was he so uncooperative when interviewed by the FBI in the lobby of a Washington Hotel on February 10, 2017? What changed between July of 2016 and February of 2017... other than everything? The change in administrations seems to have affected how cooperative this friendly foreign intelligence service was willing to be with the FBI.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about a foreign Government?

bubbabgone said:

Who said anything about a foreign Government?

Click to expand...

Did you read the quote?

"... On July 31, 2016 , based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

the liberal dems moved this to bias in the media....oh my gawd....isn't that what the whole ****ing mueller report was based on?:lamo

Cordelier said:

Did you read the quote?

"... On July 31, 2016 , based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

Click to expand...

PapaD met with Misud in April of 2016. The point was, who/what makes you think it was an office of a foreign government that sent ol' Joe Mifsud to talk to PapaD?

bubbabgone said:

PapaD met with Misud in April of 2016. The point was, who/what makes you think it was an office of a foreign government that sent ol' Joe Mifsud to talk to PapaD?

Click to expand...

What makes you think it wasn't? If Mifsud wasn't the source for the foreign government reporting on the meetings, then who do you figure was?

Cordelier said:

What makes you think it wasn't? If Mifsud wasn't the source for the foreign government reporting on the meetings, then who do you figure was?

Click to expand...

I asked "who/what makes you think it was an office of a foreign government that sent ol' Joe Mifsud to talk to PapaD?"
Not who was the "source for the foreign government reporting on the meetings"

bubbabgone said:

I asked "who/what makes you think it was an office of a foreign government that sent ol' Joe Mifsud to talk to PapaD?"
Not who was the "source for the foreign government reporting on the meetings"

Click to expand...

If you've got something to say, just say it.... I've already posted my source for the information.

Cordelier said:

If you've got something to say, just say it.... I've already posted my source for the information.

Click to expand...

Apparently you never considered the possibility before.
Tell ya what, do a search on "popadopolous set up" and you can accept or dismiss any or all of the sources returned ... there'll be a lot so crack a can.

jmotivator said:

It is breaking news, Tres, and it is an expose that was released late last night. This isn't an opinion piece, it is a story reporting newly discovered facts. Do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion?

Click to expand...

If breaking news then why did The Hill post this disclaimer at the top of the article?:

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 06/06/19 08:45 PM EDT 5,117 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that Tres is right.

Fishking said:

No one cares about what you just wrote.

Click to expand...

I do. And if you check my post above, she's correct.

bubbabgone said:

Apparently you never considered the possibility before.
Tell ya what, do a search on "popadopolous set up" and you can accept or dismiss any or all of the sources returned ... there'll be a lot so crack a can.

Click to expand...

That's the way these things work, Bubba.... you offer them some bait to get them on the hook and then you reel them in. But I think what you're missing is that the FBI was after the fisherman, not the fish.