• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

jmotivator

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,934
Reaction score
19,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:
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:
Click to expand...

That article is eye opening
 
Renae said:
That article is eye opening
Click to expand...

I haven't searched here, but has anyone printed the news that the Mueller report intentionally edited a transcript of a phone conversation, removing exculpatory passages? Because yeah, he did that as well.
 
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...

You do understand that this is not "Breaking News", and that John Solomon is an opinion writer for The Hill, right?
 
tres borrachos said:
You do understand that this is not "Breaking News", and that John Solomon is an opinion writer for The Hill, right?
Click to expand...

No one cares about what you just wrote.
 
tres borrachos said:
You do understand that this is not "Breaking News", and that John Solomon is an opinion writer for The Hill, right?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Part of the redacted? He's probably still a source.
 
Renae said:
That article is eye opening
Click to expand...

I think the next interesting question to ask is "Was Kilimnick's association with Manafort used to acquire Manafort's search warrant? And if so, how was Kilimnick presented to the court?"
 
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...

It isn't breaking news. It's Solomon's opinion. Breaking news is "Policeman shot by man" or "Trump signs Infrastructure bill into law" or "Ford announces 2500 layoffs".

This is his opinion on the Mueller report.
 
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...


Mueller is a lair and a hack.


 
tres borrachos said:
It isn't breaking news. It's Solomon's opinion. Breaking news is "Policeman shot by man" or "Trump signs Infrastructure bill into law" or "Ford announces 2500 layoffs".

This is his opinion on the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

What the Mueller report contains and does not contain is a fact. Assigning a motive for that report's content may be an opinion, but the report's content is a fact.
 
WCH said:
Part of the redacted? He's probably still a source.
Click to expand...

Good thought, but no. Any use of Kilimnick's name would be redacted, as would his short bio in B-10. Nowhere in his frequent mentions throughout the report is there a redaction that would indicate the Mueller team ever properly stated who Kilimnick was.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What the Mueller report contains and does not contain is a fact. Assigning a motive for that report's content may be an opinion, but the report's content is a fact.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But this is Solomon's opinion piece. It isn't Breaking News.

Maybe you know - which MSM outlet has used Solomon's opinion piece and declared it breaking news at this point? I just looked at Fox News, and don't see it there.
 
tres borrachos said:
It isn't breaking news. It's Solomon's opinion. Breaking news is "Policeman shot by man" or "Trump signs Infrastructure bill into law" or "Ford announces 2500 layoffs".

This is his opinion on the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

It's not opinion. It is stating a statement of facts about Kilimnick's actual identity which is at odds with the portrayal of Kilimnick by Mueller, and countless exposes written over the last 3 years tying Trump to Russia through Kilimnick.
 
jmotivator said:
It's not opinion. It is stating a statement of facts about Kilimnick's actual identity which is at odds with the portrayal of Kilimnick by Mueller, and countless exposes written over the last 3 years tying Trump to Russia through Kilimnick.
Click to expand...

Then please show me which MSM site has used Solomon's opinion piece and is reporting on it as breaking news. Fox News isn't. The Hill isn't calling this breaking news.
 
tres borrachos said:
Agreed. But this is Solomon's opinion piece. It isn't Breaking News.

Maybe you know - which MSM outlet has used Solomon's opinion piece and declared it breaking news at this point? I just looked at Fox News, and don't see it there.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion piece, Tres, as much as you want it to be. If all it took was a journalist drawing conclusions from evidence to make it an opinion piece then the *Breaking News* forum would be devoid of articles to discuss.

No point in entertaining your desperate diversion tactic any further.
 
tres borrachos said:
Agreed. But this is Solomon's opinion piece. It isn't Breaking News.

Maybe you know - which MSM outlet has used Solomon's opinion piece and declared it breaking news at this point? I just looked at Fox News, and don't see it there.
Click to expand...

News outlets should not use an opinion piece as "breaking news" but to assert that this has not been reported is BS.

In an email exchange Friday with The Washington Post, Kilimnik said the 448-page report by Robert S. Mueller III paints a false picture of his role, including the assessment by the FBI that he has ties to Russian intelligence.

“I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation,” he wrote in an email. “This is one of the biggest mistakes in the public perception and in the report. It is simply not based on any facts and is a made-up narrative.”

More broadly, Kilimnik said, “I absolutely have zero to do with the Russia interference in the U.S. elections investigated by Mr. Mueller.”
Click to expand...

According to Mueller’s report, investigators were not able to determine what Kilimnik did with the data, noting that it was among the topics about which Manafort lied to prosecutors. But the report said that multiple emails Kilimnik sent to U.S. associates and media contacts in late summer 2016 referred to “internal polling” and described the state of the Trump campaign.

Kilimnik said he never had a chance to explain his interactions with Manafort because Mueller’s investigators did not contact him.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bc984dc9eec_story.html?utm_term=.41673cb186a9
 
jmotivator said:
It's not an opinion piece, Tres, as much as you want it to be. If all it took was a journalist drawing conclusions from evidence to make it an opinion piece then the *Breaking News* forum would be devoid of articles to discuss.

No point in entertaining your desperate diversion tactic any further.
Click to expand...

It is an opinion piece. He's an opinion writer for The Hill. I suspect you don't know who he is.

Can you show me what MSM site is using his words and calling it breaking news or not? I can't find it on Fox News.
 
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...

Maybe Weissmann wanted to improve readability by eliminating what he felt were unnecessary words in his Report.
Yeah that must be it.
That would explain how this transcript of a voicemail from Trump's attorney to Flynn's attorney ...

Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-‘m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that … implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.
​

became this edited text of the same voicemail from Volume II of Weissmann's Report ...

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. . . . t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … f . .. there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. [R]emember what we’ve always said about the ‘ President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains ….
​


Yeah. Accuracy must be sacrificed for readability. That must be it.
Hey, that may explain the FISA applications too.
 
jmotivator said:
I haven't searched here, but has anyone printed the news that the Mueller report intentionally edited a transcript of a phone conversation, removing exculpatory passages? Because yeah, he did that as well.
Click to expand...

I just did in #20 before seeing that comment
 
tres borrachos said:
You posted an article from Wapo dated April 19. What does it have to do with Solomon's opinion piece from yesterday? You mean Wapo scooped this "breaking news" almost 2 months ago?
Click to expand...

The opinion piece is an attempt to assign a motive for what was and was not included in the Mueller report - what I provided was from the horse's mouth, so to speak, as to what Mueller reported about Kilimnik. Most notable was the fact that Mueller (et al) never talked to Kilimnik (thus relied on hearsay?).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
News outlets should not use an opinion piece as "breaking news" but to assert that this has not been reported is BS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bc984dc9eec_story.html?utm_term=.41673cb186a9
Click to expand...

Interesting. At least it seems that the news reports from the last 3 years pounding the Kilimnick tie were just oblivious to Kiliminick's true allegiances. Mueller's team, on the other hand, have been insanely reckless and dishonest. I'd bet after this expose that the Democrats demanding that Mueller testify before congress will dry up pretty quickly. No way in hell they want Mueller cross examined on this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The opinion piece is an attempt to assign a motive for what was and was not included in the Mueller report - what I provided was from the horse's mouth, so to speak, as to what Mueller reported about Kilimnik. Most notable was the fact that Mueller (et al) never talked to Kilimnik (thus relied on hearsay?).
Click to expand...

Thanks for agreeing with me. It's an opinion piece - not breaking news. I'm not saying Solomon is right or wrong. I wouldn't know any more than anyone else. But he is an opinion writer for The Hill. He even adds that caveat to everything he writes for them.

I'll wait until this actually becomes breaking news, agreed upon by any MSM outlet, and commented upon by Mueller, Barr, or anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom