The Mueller Investigation (Russiagate)

billmac91

NBA Starter
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
4,211
Points
113
If Kilmnik’s previous work doesn’t interact with the Trump investigation, it’s largely irrelevant.

It’s only going to be used to deflect from what Manafort did, which it absolutely should not.
The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is very important IMO, because a narrative is created 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. 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.

State officials told the FBI that although Kilimnik had Ukrainian and Russian residences, he did not appear to hold any allegiance to Moscow and was critical of Russia’s invasion of the Crimean territory of Ukraine.

“Kilimnik was flabbergasted at the Russian invasion of Crimea,” the FBI added, summarizing Kasanof’s interview with agents. Mueller’s office 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 Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.

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 show 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.
Russia wanted “a quick settlement” to get “Ukraine out of the way and get rid of sanctions and move to economic stuff they are interested in,” Kilimnik wrote Kasanof. The email offered eight bullet points for the peace plan — starting with a ceasefire, a law creating economic recovery zones to rebuild war-torn Ukrainian regions, and a “presidential decree on amnesty” for anyone involved in the conflict on both sides.

Kilimnik also provided a valuable piece of intelligence, stating that the old Yanukovych political party aligned with Russia was dead. “Party of Regions cannot be reincarnated. It is over,” he wrote, deriding as “stupid” a Russian-backed politician who wanted to restart the party.
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.”

In an email last month to The Washington Post, he slammed the Mueller report’s “made-up narrative” about him. “I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation,” he wrote.

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.
 
Last edited:

billmac91

NBA Starter
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
4,211
Points
113
In regards to human assets being "outted" by the way, that can largely be attributed to George Pappadapolous going public with the people he met during the campaign, including Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper. That certainly can't be pinned on Bill Barr. Halper, Azra Turk, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, have been part of the public discourse well before Barr was announced as AG.

When Pappadapolous confirmed publicly, after serving his prison sentence for lying to FBI about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud, he also spoke openly about other contacts he had during the campaign including Stefan Halper and Azra Turk, who were quickly determined to be western assets, surveilling on the campaign (now confirmed by the FBI and Comey). Which is why it seems a little over the top when people talk about "getting people killed". Everyone knows the key players already.....it's the truth behind the contacts and what actually happened that people want clarity on.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
35,756
Reaction score
36,569
Points
148
The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is very important IMO, because a narrative is created 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. 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.

State officials told the FBI that although Kilimnik had Ukrainian and Russian residences, he did not appear to hold any allegiance to Moscow and was critical of Russia’s invasion of the Crimean territory of Ukraine.

“Kilimnik was flabbergasted at the Russian invasion of Crimea,” the FBI added, summarizing Kasanof’s interview with agents. Mueller’s office 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 Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.

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 show 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.
Russia wanted “a quick settlement” to get “Ukraine out of the way and get rid of sanctions and move to economic stuff they are interested in,” Kilimnik wrote Kasanof. The email offered eight bullet points for the peace plan — starting with a ceasefire, a law creating economic recovery zones to rebuild war-torn Ukrainian regions, and a “presidential decree on amnesty” for anyone involved in the conflict on both sides.

Kilimnik also provided a valuable piece of intelligence, stating that the old Yanukovych political party aligned with Russia was dead. “Party of Regions cannot be reincarnated. It is over,” he wrote, deriding as “stupid” a Russian-backed politician who wanted to restart the party.
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.”

In an email last month to The Washington Post, he slammed the Mueller report’s “made-up narrative” about him. “I have no ties to Russian or, for that matter, any intelligence operation,” he wrote.

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.
This only seems to explain why Manafort wasn’t charged with conspiracy.
 

billmac91

NBA Starter
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
4,211
Points
113
This only seems to explain why Manafort wasn’t charged with conspiracy.
I don’t want to keep going in circles, but that information would have been very useful in the report to give a more complete and “fair” depiction.

To discuss Kilmnik giving Manafort a plan that called for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine made it seem nefarious. There’s zero mention he gave the same plan to the Obama State Department. That really changes the equation quite a bit....I’m sorry, but it’s actually laughable.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
35,756
Reaction score
36,569
Points
148
I don’t want to keep going in circles, but that information would have been very useful in the report to give a more complete and “fair” depiction.

To discuss Kilmnik giving Manafort a plan that called for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine made it seem nefarious. There’s zero mention he gave the same plan to the Obama State Department. That really changes the equation quite a bit....I’m sorry, but it’s actually laughable.
You realize that the only reason we believe the meeting was about polling data or a peace plan was because that’s what Manafort said.

We have no actual idea what was discussed there, as there is only a remote chance that Manafort is being honest.
 

Sumac13

Heretic
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
520
Points
93
So, quick poll. How many folk here have read the Meuller Report in its redacted version entirety (or near entirety)?
 

Phills14

Cleveland Sports Fan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
10,416
Reaction score
12,584
Points
123
I have not. I'm staying up to date with things but I am consciously taking a break from that level of detail because it was driving me crazy.
 

col63onel

Joe Thomas Fan Club
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
14,290
Reaction score
14,319
Points
223
I read the version that said, “No collusion, haha suck it libs you got owned”. I think I’m up to date.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
7,685
Reaction score
6,053
Points
113
So, quick poll. How many folk here have read the Meuller Report in its redacted version entirety (or near entirety)?
I read parts and have seen several summaries and excerpts of the more relevant portions. PBS Newshour posted this, which is straightforward:

EDIT: Sorry if this starts in the middle. YouTube is making it difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ_

Hurl Bruce

Sexual Tyrannosaurus
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,912
Reaction score
5,856
Points
113
So Hope Hicks wasn't allowed to give any meaningful answers to questions.

She did, however, answer my question last night of, "Who am I going to spank it to before bed?"

 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
12,422
Reaction score
15,904
Points
123
So Hope Hicks wasn't allowed to give any meaningful answers to questions.

She did, however, answer my question last night of, "Who am I going to spank it to before bed?"

Executive Privilege seems to cover everyone and everything.

Certainly not the behavior of people with a lot to hide.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
19,037
Reaction score
18,499
Points
123
There really need to be consequences for obstructing an investigation. I mean, this isn't whitewater or something that has nothing to do with anything. This is election interference and possible blackmail of our President. Seeing Trump say that the FBI did no hacking when the NYT reported it really solidified for me that he is under Putin's spell one way or the other.

Trump is definitely more scared of Russia than he is of the DOJ and i find that alarming.
 
Top