As more details about the origins of the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation seep out, it is beginning to look like the entire point of the special counsel was to justify – or perhaps even to cover up – the political nature of the Bureau’s activities. The Hill’s John Solomon, along with investigative reporter Sara Carter, has been relentless in pursuit of the truth, and his latest revelation now casts doubt upon the credibility of Robert Mueller’s report and conclusions. Principal among the many questions still to be answered is how much of what Mueller put in his report can be believed?
revelations, exposed by Solomon, casts a deep shadow over the political impartiality of Mueller’s investigation.
Another Sinister Russian Connection Discredited
Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian-born, Ukrainian businessman who worked for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The Mueller report portrays Kilimnik, essentially, as a Russian spy, though the evidence to support this accusation – presented on page 133 – is flimsy at best. The report states: “Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian ‘spy.’ The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.”
If Kilimnik was really a Russian intelligence asset, though, why did he have a long-standing relationship with the U.S. State Department? The special counsel withheld that information from his report, but the investigation had in its possession documents identifying Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the State Department. In fact, Kilimnik had regularly provided the U.S. government with reports on Russian and Ukrainian affairs.
Mueller Guilty of Cover-Up?
There is little doubt left, then, that the special counsel had all the information he needed to establish, well before he concluded the investigation and submitted a final report, that every trail connecting Trump campaign associates to the Russians led back to U.S. government informants. Quite simply, there is not a single individual connecting the president’s campaign team with Russians who were not associated – in some capacity – with the U.S. government.
Unless he was stunningly incompetent, Robert Mueller could not have failed to recognize a pattern of attempted ensnarement of the Trump campaign by the U.S. intelligence community. It has become obvious that the latter attempted to uncover a nefarious conspiracy and, when it failed to do so, manufactured that conspiracy using its own intelligence assets.
What was Mueller’s motive for continuing to investigate, for months or perhaps even for a year or more, after he was aware that the Obama administration, through intelligence agencies, had fabricated connections between Trump and Russia? Why did Mueller’s final report meticulously detail the many encounters between Trump associates and individuals with Russian connections, without revealing what he already knew: that each one of those Russia-connected people was working for – or was in regular contact with – U.S. intelligence agencies?
As William Barr’s Department of Justice digs into the genesis of the FBI’s counterintelligence operation, Crossfire Hurricane, which targeted Trump both before and after he became president, it must also investigate the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) itself. Though it could not possibly have failed to uncover a pattern of impropriety on the part of the FBI and other agencies, the OSC clearly chose to either ignore that pattern or to knowingly conceal its obvious intent.
Robert Mueller might never testify before Congress; it may be more appropriate for him to testify before a grand jury.
At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!