W. Niederhut Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) Kevin, Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed. You, certainly, seem to be in the dark about long-time Kremlin lobbyist and psy-ops consultant Paul Manafort's conduct and sentencing during the Mueller investigation. In fact, Manafort never did come clean about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik during Mueller's investigation. He went out of his way to conceal his 2016 "collusion" with the Russian GRU. Part of the Trump/Fox/MAGA "No Collusion" psy op. Is your apparent ignorance about the facts in the Manafort case possibly a result of your usual "news" coming from Russiagate-denying MAGA media sources, or is it simply a result of a lack of interest in the case at the time? I followed the case closely, then and now. And I, certainly, hope that Senator Wyden can obtain the release of the Manafort files that were classified and withheld from Congress and the public by Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh. So, voila. Here is a February 2019 article about Manafort and the Mueller investigation to help you better understand the facts about Manafort's perjury and witness-tampering during the Mueller investigation. I'm re-printing this article, in full, for you and WaPo non-subscribers on the forum. Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide By Spencer S. Hsu February 13, 2019 at 8:57 p.m. EST Inside Paul Manafort's 2016 meeting with a Russian operative 4:41 Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian political operative Konstantin Kilimnik, just blocks away from Trump Tower on Aug. 2, 2016. (Video: Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post) Share Comment5614 Add to your saved stories Save Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The judge’s finding that Manafort, 69, breached his cooperation deal with prosecutors by lying after his guilty plea could add years to his prison sentence and came after a set of sealed court hearings. Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case. Read the judge’s order here. Federal judge finds Manafort lied to Mueller probe, breached plea deal 1:23 A federal judge said Feb. 13 President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors, and breached his plea deal. (Video: Reuters) Manafort’s actions mean Mueller’s office “is no longer bound” by the plea agreement including prosecutors’ promise to support a possible sentencing reduction for Manafort accepting responsibility for his crimes. Advertisement Jackson said she would factor in his deception at sentencing March 13 and will make public her reasoning about her findings as early as Friday in another filing. Manafort had denied intentionally lying after his plea deal and through his attorneys attributed any conflicting statements to confusion or faulty recollection. Then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs-up as his campaign chairman Paul Manafort looks on at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 21, 2016. (Rick Wilking/Reuters) Manafort pleaded guilty Sept. 14, on the eve of jury selection for his trial in Washington, to conspiring to defraud the United States, violate lobbying laws and obstruct justice — by witness tampering — in connection with years of undisclosed work in Ukraine for a pro-Russian political party and Ukrainian politician, Viktor Yanukovych. He also was convicted by a jury in August for bank- and tax-fraud crimes in a separate federal case in Virginia. Jackson has said previously that she would consider whether to order Manafort to serve penalties in the two cases consecutively. Legal experts say Manafort faces a possible seven-to-10-year sentence in his related Virginia federal case, which U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III postponed this month to await Jackson’s ruling. Manafort faces up to 10 years in his District case. Advertisement Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Advertisement Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018. Jackson issued her order after a hearing Wednesday that was held under seal to permit both sides to discuss matters under investigation and people who are not charged. Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare In her order, the judge agreed with Manafort’s defense and said the government had failed to show he lied when he denied having ongoing contact with Trump administration officials since they took office in January 2017 and failed to show he lied about Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction-of-justice conspiracy over witness tampering in which Kilimnik was accused and Manafort pleaded guilty. Revelations about Manafort’s 2016 interactions with Russian associate show special counsel’s intense focus on Russia contacts In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016. Mueller says Manafort lied after pleading guilty, should be sentenced immediately Instead, the deal collapsed, with prosecutors withdrawing any offer of a recommendation for leniency and accusing Manafort in late November of lying repeatedly to them. Advertisement Manafort has been jailed just outside Washington, in Alexandria, since June. Manafort will cooperate with Mueller as part of guilty plea, prosecutor says Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik. Kilimnik has told The Washington Post that he and Manafort discussed “unpaid bills” and “current news” at the meeting and that the sessions were “private visits” that were “in no way related to politics or the presidential campaign in the U.S.” Advertisement In 2017, Kilimnik denied to The Post having connections to Russian intelligence. He is believed to be in Moscow. The order marked the latest instance in which Manafort was found to have flouted the court’s directions. Shortly after his indictment in late 2017 — with a gag order in place in his case — Jackson scolded Manafort for helping ghostwrite an op-ed article for a newspaper in Ukraine defending his work there. In July, Jackson revoked Manafort’s bail and ordered him jailed after prosecutors charged him with tampering with witnesses while he had been free pending trial, a crime to which he later pleaded guilty. Mueller says Manafort lied after pleading guilty, should be sentenced immediately Revelations about Manafort’s 2016 interactions with Russian associate show special counsel’s intense focus on Russia contacts Edited March 30 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Matt Taibbi: Intel Blob COOKED THE BOOKS In 2016 Probe; Russians Wanted HILLARY, Not Trump The Hill | Feb 27, 2024 | https://youtu.be/uHt5ZF9i8qg?si=QJq6UFASWVWIgG1w Keven H.-- I have really enjoyed Matt Taibbi's reporting for the last many years. He really avoids the bandwagons, having cleansed himself of party affiliations, and then also ideological/clique affiliations, in recent years. He has also avoided the creepy tendency of certain alt-left elements to valorize terrorists, or present Putin as the good guy. Nor does Taibbi demonize Christians, or any particular racial group. For me, Taibbi is just about the last man standing in DC. I may not agree with him on everything, but I think he remains earnest, unaffiliated, and avoids intellectual fads. IMHO, Taibbi's takes on Russiagate and Jan. 6 are about as good as one is going to get. Edited March 30 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 On 3/28/2024 at 8:05 PM, Keven Hofeling said: Sandy, your assumption or allegation or whatever it is that I have in this thread been deceitfully concealing some sort of personal MAGA allegiance as, according to you, revealed by the post you are responding to -- which has absolutely nothing to do with the January 6 hearings... Spare me, Keven. Comparing Liz Cheney to a high profile Democratic politician has everything to do with the January 6 hearings. And calling her annoying, loud, and obnoxious, while comparing her to a pig, only serves to reveal your contempt for her participation in the hearings (What is it that is Ben Cole always calls Liz Cheney? A Cheneycrat?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Spare me, Keven. Comparing Liz Cheney to a high profile Democratic politician has everything to do with the January 6 hearings. And comparing her to a pig reveals your contempt for her participation in the hearings (What was it that is Ben Cole always calls Liz Cheney? Cheneycrat?) So you are directly calling me a liar. This says more about you than it does about me. Very disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 20 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: I'm convinced that there was a massive FBI cointelpro operation in play for the events of J6 at the U.S. Capital... Which is precisely what I accused you of when I wrote this: On 3/28/2024 at 11:19 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Keven, I think you just outed yourself. Anybody who believes the 1/6 hearings were a farce -- which is what your post suggests -- has either got to be a Trump supporter or is a believer in wacko anti-Trump conspiracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Which is precisely what I accused you of when I wrote this: Purely evidence based. Didn't you listen to the testimony of the Ex-Chief of Capital Police? It's not possible to understand evidence-based people if you confine yourself to labels and headlines. If you'd have made it past the first headline you would have seen my take on Trump's illegal false elector conspiracy. The world is not black and white the way it looks through those partisan political lenses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 18 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Purely evidence based. Didn't you listen to the testimony of the Ex-Chief of Capital Police? It's not possible to understand evidence-based people if you confine yourself to labels and headlines. If you'd have made it past the first headline you would have seen my take on Trump's illegal false elector conspiracy. The world is not black and white the way it looks through those partisan political lenses... https://sashastone.substack.com/p/how-i-knew-the-democrats-and-the Interesting take on Jan. 6. Written one year ago. Sasha Stone predicted they would take down Carlson...and they did. She did not mention JFKA, though. My guess is Carlson's JFKA-CIA coverage was a part of what did him in. I don't really know much about Sasha Stone, but she got 350 comments on this story. I guess she is in that group of people considered "social media influencers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 18 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Didn't you listen to the testimony of the Ex-Chief of Capital Police? I don't think Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund should have resigned. I think only the Sergeants-at-arms Paul Irving and Michael Stenger should have resigned, for not acting on Sund's requests for assistance from the National Guard. Which, of course, they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I don't think Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund should have resigned. I think only the Sergeants-at-arms Paul Irving and Michael Stenger should have resigned, for not acting on Sund's requests for assistance from the National Guard. Which, of course, they did. If you'd listen to Steven Sund's story I think you would understand why he didn't believe the resignations of the Sergeants at Arms would address the problems he experienced before and after J6. You would also understand why I hold the view about it that I do, despite the fact that I am at the entire opposite end of the political spectrum as MAGAs (in 1980 I was what was at the time considered to be a traditional pro-free speech, anti-war Democrat; but the Democratic party started leaving me about the time Bill Clinton was elected [See "How The Democratic Party BETRAYED Workers & Its Base - THOMAS FRANK Interview Part 1" https://youtu.be/M9u2aR19P3g?si=cYF0iczRfisPj9LE ]) : Edited March 30 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: If you'd listen to Steven Sund's story I think you would understand why he didn't believe the resignations of the Sergeants at Arms would address the problems he experienced before and after J6. There was a serious breakdown in intelligence sharing between agencies. Even Steven Sund's department dropped the ball. According to this article: Sund told the lawmakers that he didn’t know then that his officers had received a report from the FBI’s field office in Norfolk, Virginia, that forecast, in detail, the chances that extremists could bring “war” to Washington the following day. The head of the FBI’s office in Washington has said that once he received the Jan. 5 warning, the information was quickly shared with other law enforcement agencies through a joint terrorism task force. But I don't see anything nefarious about it. It looks like a lack of planning to me. Appropriate procedures hadn't been set in place. However, once the riot began, there should have been no excuse for not bringing in the National Guard. The decision not to was just plain incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 15 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: If you'd listen to Steven Sund's story I think you would understand why he didn't believe the resignations of the Sergeants at Arms would address the problems he experienced before and after J6. You would also understand why I hold the view about it that I do, despite the fact that I am at the entire opposite end of the political spectrum as MAGAs (in 1980 I was what was at the time considered to be a traditional pro-free speech, anti-war Democrat; but the Democratic party started leaving me about the time Bill Clinton was elected [See "How The Democratic Party BETRAYED Workers & Its Base - THOMAS FRANK Interview Part 1" https://youtu.be/M9u2aR19P3g?si=cYF0iczRfisPj9LE ]) : KE-- Keep on truckin'. The Capitol Police acted so oddly on Jan. 6...it reminds one of the Watergate burglars...could anyone truly be so heroically incompetent? This makes Keystone Kops look deft and valiant. If awards were handed for bungling, rather than valor...or was this an intentional flop on the part of the Capitol Police? ---- "Despite employing 1,879 sworn officers as of September 2020, a congressional inquiry forced USCP to admit that on January 6th, only 195 officers were deployed to interior or exterior posts at the U.S. Capitol and 276 more were assigned to the Department’s seven civil disturbance unit platoons." "USCP documents show that at 2pm on that day, only 1,214 officers were “on site” across the Capitol complex of buildings [there are other large buildings, such as Russell or Longworth, in addition to the Capitol]. Congressional investigators concluded, however, that USCP could only account for 417 officers and could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers." The head of Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU, aka riot squads) was at home making meatloaf during the Jan. 6 scrum, according to the WaPo. https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf And that is how Mr. Buffalo Horns breached the Capitol, entered the Senate chambers, and then was sentenced to prison for 41 months. From WaPo: "About 1:30 p.m., Capt. Carneysha Mendoza, a 19-year veteran of the Capitol Police, was at home in suburban Maryland. She had just pulled meatloaf from the oven and sat down with her 10-year-old son, Christian, before he was to spend the rest of the day with babysitters. The commander for a Capitol Police civil disturbance unit, Mendoza was about to head into work for her shift in the Capitol starting at 3 p.m. But sitting at the table, Mendoza’s phone rang. It was a fellow captain. Things were bad. A few minutes later, another call: “You better come in.” Mendoza left in her workout clothes and started driving up Pennsylvania Avenue." ---30--- https://archive.is/xlwyj#selection-4283.0-4313.226 The Commander of the Capitol Police civil disturbance unit (CDU) was at home making meatloaf when the Jan. 6 scrum broke out? The one time in decades when the commander of the CDU absolutely had to be on duty? Nevertheless, the WaPo lionized Commander Mendoza for "battling" rioters that day. So it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) On 3/29/2024 at 7:13 PM, W. Niederhut said: Kevin, Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed. You, certainly, seem to be in the dark about long-time Kremlin lobbyist and psy-ops consultant Paul Manafort's conduct and sentencing during the Mueller investigation. In fact, Manafort never did come clean about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik during Mueller's investigation. He went out of his way to conceal his 2016 "collusion" with the Russian GRU. Part of the Trump/Fox/MAGA "No Collusion" psy op. Is your apparent ignorance about the facts in the Manafort case possibly a result of your usual "news" coming from Russiagate-denying MAGA media sources, or is it simply a result of a lack of interest in the case at the time? I followed the case closely, then and now. And I, certainly, hope that Senator Wyden can obtain the release of the Manafort files that were classified and withheld from Congress and the public by Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh. So, voila. Here is a February 2019 article about Manafort and the Mueller investigation to help you better understand the facts about Manafort's perjury and witness-tampering during the Mueller investigation. I'm re-printing this article, in full, for you and WaPo non-subscribers on the forum. Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide By Spencer S. Hsu February 13, 2019 at 8:57 p.m. EST Inside Paul Manafort's 2016 meeting with a Russian operative 4:41 Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian political operative Konstantin Kilimnik, just blocks away from Trump Tower on Aug. 2, 2016. (Video: Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post) Share Comment5614 Add to your saved stories Save Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The judge’s finding that Manafort, 69, breached his cooperation deal with prosecutors by lying after his guilty plea could add years to his prison sentence and came after a set of sealed court hearings. Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case. Read the judge’s order here. Federal judge finds Manafort lied to Mueller probe, breached plea deal 1:23 A federal judge said Feb. 13 President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors, and breached his plea deal. (Video: Reuters) Manafort’s actions mean Mueller’s office “is no longer bound” by the plea agreement including prosecutors’ promise to support a possible sentencing reduction for Manafort accepting responsibility for his crimes. Advertisement Jackson said she would factor in his deception at sentencing March 13 and will make public her reasoning about her findings as early as Friday in another filing. Manafort had denied intentionally lying after his plea deal and through his attorneys attributed any conflicting statements to confusion or faulty recollection. Then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs-up as his campaign chairman Paul Manafort looks on at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 21, 2016. (Rick Wilking/Reuters) Manafort pleaded guilty Sept. 14, on the eve of jury selection for his trial in Washington, to conspiring to defraud the United States, violate lobbying laws and obstruct justice — by witness tampering — in connection with years of undisclosed work in Ukraine for a pro-Russian political party and Ukrainian politician, Viktor Yanukovych. He also was convicted by a jury in August for bank- and tax-fraud crimes in a separate federal case in Virginia. Jackson has said previously that she would consider whether to order Manafort to serve penalties in the two cases consecutively. Legal experts say Manafort faces a possible seven-to-10-year sentence in his related Virginia federal case, which U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III postponed this month to await Jackson’s ruling. Manafort faces up to 10 years in his District case. Advertisement Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Advertisement Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018. Jackson issued her order after a hearing Wednesday that was held under seal to permit both sides to discuss matters under investigation and people who are not charged. Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare In her order, the judge agreed with Manafort’s defense and said the government had failed to show he lied when he denied having ongoing contact with Trump administration officials since they took office in January 2017 and failed to show he lied about Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction-of-justice conspiracy over witness tampering in which Kilimnik was accused and Manafort pleaded guilty. Revelations about Manafort’s 2016 interactions with Russian associate show special counsel’s intense focus on Russia contacts In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016. Mueller says Manafort lied after pleading guilty, should be sentenced immediately Instead, the deal collapsed, with prosecutors withdrawing any offer of a recommendation for leniency and accusing Manafort in late November of lying repeatedly to them. Advertisement Manafort has been jailed just outside Washington, in Alexandria, since June. Manafort will cooperate with Mueller as part of guilty plea, prosecutor says Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik. Kilimnik has told The Washington Post that he and Manafort discussed “unpaid bills” and “current news” at the meeting and that the sessions were “private visits” that were “in no way related to politics or the presidential campaign in the U.S.” Advertisement In 2017, Kilimnik denied to The Post having connections to Russian intelligence. He is believed to be in Moscow. The order marked the latest instance in which Manafort was found to have flouted the court’s directions. Shortly after his indictment in late 2017 — with a gag order in place in his case — Jackson scolded Manafort for helping ghostwrite an op-ed article for a newspaper in Ukraine defending his work there. In July, Jackson revoked Manafort’s bail and ordered him jailed after prosecutors charged him with tampering with witnesses while he had been free pending trial, a crime to which he later pleaded guilty. Mueller says Manafort lied after pleading guilty, should be sentenced immediately Revelations about Manafort’s 2016 interactions with Russian associate show special counsel’s intense focus on Russia contacts @Sandy Larsen@Roger Odisio@Benjamin Cole@W. Niederhut W. Neirdehut wrote: Quote Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed. Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Especially when you allege doing so to be the equivalent of taking me to the "wood shed"? Don't you have any "evidence" that I cannot so easily demonstrate to be completely without foundation as I have below with your piece of Washington Post yellow journalism? I have insisted that you provide evidentiary support for your Russiagate hoax claims, to which you have provided this Washington Post nothing burger, which I suspect is about the best I am ever going to be able to get out of you. The Ron Wyden letter you have been clamoring about for the last few days illustrates the problem with your article (which I am going to demonstrate below): https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_on_2016_election_report_declassification.pdf Senator Wyden, unlike you, has the good sense to have done his preliminary research. and has become aware that the Paul Manafort case suffers from a severe shortcoming, that being, a total absence of solid substantiating evidence. Thus, he has written to the Director of National Intelligence requesting declassification of redacted portions of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion. Senator Wyden knows, of course, what the redacted sections amount to, and therefore knows that they won't be redacted, because -- it is my prediction -- the redactions are exculpatory in nature and were redacted to save the Committee from further embarrassment. In any event, for your purposes, the redacted portions of the Senate Committee report do not constitute "evidence," and your allusions to the contrary are mere speculation. The headline of your Washington Post article is "Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide," so we shall see if it delivers the content it promises. Your Washington Post article begins with the following paragraph: "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." It certainly sounds damning, but is it true? In determining this, I want to expand the scope of the inquiry to include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings addressed in your article (Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia), but also for Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the subject matter of your Washington Post article, the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Washington Post article -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." -- is absolutely and categorically false. Your Washington Post article goes on to state the following: "Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case." Note how the author of the article inserted that Konstantin Kiliminak was "a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" to imply that Manafort's non-Russiagate related convictions were in fact related to Russiagate. Then, again, the article falsely insinuates that the OSC's prosecution of Mantafort involved Russiagate, when it in fact did not: "In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016." And throughout the article are allegations that imply Russian involvement in the past associations between Kilimnik and Manafort which were not substantiated in the Virginia or D.C. cases, nor by the Mueller Report or the Senate Committee Report on Collusion: "Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018.... ...Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik." Mr. Neiderhut, your Washington Post article is yellow journalism in its purest form, and that you think it is solid evidence of Russiagate makes you and Russiagate appear all the more ridiculous. The following is an example of real journalism by Aaron Matte that deals the final fatal blow to your Washington Post article: https://www.aaronmate.net/p/accused-russian-spy-kilimnik-refutes Accused Russian 'spy' Kilimnik refutes US intel claims and exposes key Mueller falsehood In an exclusive interview, key Russiagate figure Konstantin Kilimnik responds to evidence-free allegations that he is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data in 2016. AARON MATÉ MAY 19, 2021 This article originally appeared at Real Clear Investigations. The man cast as a linchpin of debunked Trump-Russia collusion theories is breaking his silence to vigorously dispute the U.S. government’s effort to brand him a Russian spy and put him behind bars. In an exclusive interview with me for Real Clear Investigations (RCI), Konstantin Kilimnik stated, "I have no relationship whatsoever to any intelligence services, be they Russian or Ukrainian or American, or anyone else." Kilimnik, a longtime employee of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, spoke out in response to an explosive Treasury Department statement declaring that he had "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the 2016 election. That press release, which announced an array of sanctions on Russian nationals last month, also alleged that Kilimnik is a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf." Treasury’s allegation came shortly after two other accusatory U.S. government statements about the dual Ukrainian-Russian national. In March, a U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment accused Kilimnik of being a "Russian influence agent" who meddled in the 2020 campaign to assist Trump's reelection. A month earlier, an FBI alert offered $250,000 for information leading to his arrest over a 2018 witness tampering charge in Manafort's shuttered Ukraine lobbying case, which was unrelated to Russia, collusion, or any elections. In February 2021, the FBI issued a surprise alert for information leading to Kilimnik’s arrest on a 2018 witness tampering charge. The $250,000 bounty is more than double the reward for most members of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, including six alleged murderers. Treasury provided no evidence for its claims, which go beyond the findings of the two most extensive Russiagate investigations: the 448-page report issued in 2019 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the 966-page report issued in August 2020 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Treasury has declined all media requests for elaboration on how it reached conclusions that those probes did not. Two unidentified officials told NBC News that U.S. intelligence "has developed new information" about Kilimnik "that leads them to believe" (emphasis added) that he passed on the polling data to Russia. But these sources "did not identify the source or type of intelligence that had been developed," nor "when or how" it was received. "Nobody has seen any evidence to support these claims about Kilimnik," a congressional source familiar with the House and Senate's multiple Russia-related investigations told RCI. Despite the absence of evidence, the Treasury press release's one-sentence claim about Kilimnik has been widely greeted as the Trump-Russia smoking gun. Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC that Treasury's assertion about Kilimnik proved that Russian intelligence was "involved in trying to help Trump win in that [2016] election. That's what most people would call collusion." Speaking to RCI in fluent English from his home in Moscow, Kilimnik, 51, described these U.S. government assertions as "senseless and false accusations." His comments are backed up by documents, some previously unreported, as well as by Rick Gates, a longtime Manafort associate and key Mueller probe cooperating witness. (Gates pleaded guilty to making a false statement and to failing to register as a foreign agent in connection to his lobbying work in Ukraine.) The evidence raises doubts about new efforts to revive the Trump-Kremlin collusion narrative by casting Kilimnik as a central Russian figure. "They needed a Russian to investigate 'Russia collusion,' and I happened to be that Russian," Kilimnik said. Highlights from the interview and RCI's related reporting: Kilimnik denies passing 2016 polling data to Russian intelligence, or any Russian for that matter. Instead, Kilimnik says he shared publicly available, general information about the 2016 American presidential race to Ukrainian clients of Manafort's in a bid to recover old debts and drum up new business. Gates told RCI that the Mueller team "cherry-picked" his testimony about Kilimnik to spread a misleading, collusion-favorable narrative. The U.S. government has never publicly produced the polling data at issue, nor any evidence that it was shared with Russia. Despite his centrality to the Trump-Russia saga, Kilimnik says no U.S. government official has ever tried get in touch with him. "I never had a single contact with [the] FBI or any government official," Kilimnik says. Kilimnik shared documents that contradict the Special Counsel's effort to prove that he has Russian intelligence "ties." Photos and video of his Russian passport and a U.S. visa in his name, shared with RCI, undermine the Mueller report’s claim that Kilimnik visited the United States on a Russian "diplomatic passport" in 1997. To judge from the images, he travelled on a civilian passport and obtained a regular U.S. visa. The Mueller team has never produced the “diplomatic passport.” Kilimnik denies traveling to Spain to meet Manafort in 2017. If true, this would undercut the Mueller team’s claim that Manafort lied in denying such a meeting. That denial was used to help secure a 2019 court ruling that Manafort breached a cooperation agreement. The Special Counsel never furnished evidence for the alleged Madrid encounter. While the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee claim that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer, no U.S. security or intelligence agency has adopted this characterization. Kilimnik has never been charged with anything related to espionage, Russia, collusion, or the 2016 election. Instead, the Mueller team indicted Kilimnik on witness-tampering charges in a case pertaining to Manafort's lobbying work in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the FBI's $250,000 bounty for Kilimnik is larger than most rewards it offers for the capture of violent fugitives, including those accused of child murder. Reviving the Polling Data Conspiracy Theory Kilminik has provided an inviting target for proponents of Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. He was born in 1970 in Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union, and later worked for Paul Manafort as a translator and aide there. This background makes him one of the few people in the broad Trump 2016 campaign orbit to possess a Russian passport. To this Mueller and others have added a series of ambiguous and disputed allegations to say that the FBI "assesses" him to "have ties to Russian intelligence." This characterization, first made in a 2017 court filing, quickly transmogrified into a presumed fact of the collusion narrative. Rather than prosecute Manafort for any crime related to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, the Mueller team instead pursued him on financial and lobbying charges involving his pre-Trump stint as a political consultant in Ukraine. In 2018, it accused Kilimnik of seeking to pressure two "potential witnesses" by sending them text messages about Manafort's Ukraine lobbying work. As the Russia probe came to a close without a single indictment related to a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, the Mueller team used Kilimnik to suggest collusion without formally alleging it. "This goes to the larger view of what we think is going on, and what we think is the motive here," lead prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. "This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating." Weissmann's musings became collusion fodder. Media pundits and influential Democrats, namely Congressional intelligence leaders Schiff and Mark Warner, speculated that Kilimnik shared Trump campaign polling data with Russian intelligence officers as they allegedly worked to turn the election in Trump's favor. "This appears as the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual collusion," Warner told CNN. "Clearly, Manafort was trying to collude with Russian agents." But soon after, the Mueller team quietly undercut Weissmann's "larger view" and the conspiratorial innuendo that it had fueled. One month after igniting the frenzy about the polling data, Weissmann submitted a heavily redacted court filing that walked back some of his claims. The following month, the Special Counsel's final report acknowledged that its musings and speculations about Kilimnik could not be corroborated. The Mueller team not only "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election," as the report stated, but also "could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it." "I have no idea who made up the lies about 'detailed' or 'sensitive' polling data, or why they did it," Kilimnik says. "They were mostly quotes of the polls from the media, such as LA Times and others. They would be 'Clinton – 43, Trump – 42.' Never anything more detailed. I never got even a page printed out with either polling data or any other info." This public data was shared, Kilimnik says, with Ukrainian clients of Manafort's as part of both regular political chatter and an effort to encourage future business. "I shared this info with a lot of our clients in Ukraine, who were closely following the race and who were excited about Paul working for [Trump]," Kilimnik says. If any government official did receive his polling data, Kilimnik adds, they were not Russian but rather from Ukraine or even the United States. "I would share it with our political contacts in Ukraine, basically to keep their interest to Paul and our Ukrainian business alive. Also I shared it with the U.S. and other embassies, basically offering the opinion that the election is not over." Kilimnik's account is corroborated by Gates, the ex-Manafort associate and Trump campaign official whose testimony was used by the Mueller team – deceptively, he says – to suggest a connection between the polling data and possible Trump-Russia collusion. The Special Counsel's office "relied heavily on Mr. Gates for evidence" about the polling data, the New York Times noted in February 2019. According to Gates, that reliance entailed significant creative license by Mueller's prosecutors, particularly Weissmann. Gates says he told the Special Counsel's Office that the polling data was not sensitive information, but rather publicly available figures taken from media outlets. "I explained to them, over the course of many interviews, what the polling data was about, and why it was being shared," Gates told RCI. "All that was exchanged was old, topline data from public polls and from some internal polls, but all dated, nothing in real time. So for example, Trump 48, Clinton 46. It was not massive binders full of demographics or deep research. No documents were ever shared or disclosed. And this is part of what Mueller left out of the report. They cherry-picked and built a narrative that really was not true, because they had pre-determined the conclusion." Asked why Manafort shared any polling data with clients in Ukraine, Kilimnik and Gates stressed the same reason: money. "The were some outstanding debts, which we were working to get repaid, which never happened," Kilimnik says. "And there was also Paul's reputation. He was very well known to a lot of people in Kiev, and he hoped [he] could generate some new business" by showcasing his work for Trump's campaign. "This was a way that Paul was using to let people in Ukraine know that he was doing very well in the United States running the election of Donald Trump, and that he was trying to collect the remaining fees that he was owed," for prior work in Ukraine, Gates says. "He was trying to position himself. This is not unlike any other political operative, Republican or Democrat, in politics. They all do it." The Mueller report itself quietly bolsters Gates' and Kilimnik's converging recollections. "Gates' account about polling data is consistent [redacted]," it states, "…with multiple emails that Kilimnik sent to U.S. associates and press contacts" in the summer of 2016. "Those emails referenced 'internal polling,' described the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's role in it, and assessed Trump' s prospects for victory." The corresponding footnote cites eight emails from Kilimnik to these "U.S. associates and press contacts." This indicates that the Mueller team obtained direct evidence of the polling data that was shared; how it was discussed; and whom it was shared with. The Mueller report notes that Gates’ account of the polling data is “consistent” with a body of evidence, including Kilimnik’s own emails to "U.S. associates and press contacts." Rather than highlight the Kilimnik emails that it obtained, and Gates' account that the polling data was shared for financial reasons, the Mueller report mentioned this information only in passing and ultimately concluded that it "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing" the information. Weissmann did not respond to a request for comment. The Kilimnik Passport Although the Mueller report walked back Weissman’s innuendo regarding polling data, its assertion that Kilimnik has “ties to Russian intelligence" remains a foundation of the Russia collusion narrative. Putting aside the fact that the government has never produced any evidence that Kilimnik communicated with Russian intelligence or the Kremlin, RCI has obtained documents that undercut the government’s basis for assuming those unspecified "ties." In Mueller's own telling, Kilimnik's only direct link to the Russian government was his enrollment in a Soviet military academy from 1987 to 1992, where he trained as a linguist. "It's a language school, similar to what you guys have in Fort Monterey," Kilimnik said, referring to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, in Monterey, California. "It's a university that trains military translators, mostly for the army, not for the intelligence services. Basically it was a military training, for five years, focusing on English and Swedish. In normal circumstances, I would actually go and serve in the army, but because Soviet Union was falling apart, I was able to get a job as the instructor of Swedish at the university. I never served in the real army. If teaching Swedish counts as spying – that will be very surprising." To substantiate Kilimnik's alleged Russian intelligence "ties," the Mueller team wrote that Kilimnik "obtained a visa to travel to the United States with a Russian diplomatic passport in 1997." (Intelligence operatives often travel to foreign countries under diplomatic cover.) To support the FBI’s assessment that Kilimnik “has ties to Russian intelligence”, the Mueller report falsely claims that he travelled to the US “with a Russian diplomatic passport in 1997.” The Mueller report cites Kilimnik’s Visa Record of 10/28/1997. But Kilimnik's passport from that period – to judge from the images he shared with RCI via a messaging app – was issued in the standard red color, not in the green color of the diplomatic corps. The document also contains a regular U.S. visa issued on October 28, 1997 – the same date the Mueller report claims he traveled to the U.S. "with a Russian diplomatic passport." The U.S. visa to Kilimnik is issued under the category of "R" – which stands for Regular – and "B1/B2," the designation for a temporary visa for business and tourism. Contradicting Mueller’s claim, Kilimnik’s visa from 10/28/1997 shows that he travelled to the US on a standard Russian passport and obtained a regular US visa. The Mueller team's claim that he possessed and travelled on a diplomatic passport is "a blatant lie," Kilimnik told RCI. "I never had a diplomatic passport in my life. It's one of many very sloppy things in the Muller report, which don't make sense." Told of the Mueller report's apparent error concerning Kilimnik's passport, a Justice Department spokesperson declined comment. Former Special Counsel Mueller and former lead prosecutor Weissmann did not respond to emailed queries. Ironically, at the time when Mueller team claims that he visited the U.S. on behalf of the Russian government, Kilimnik was in fact working for the U.S. government at the U.S. Congress-funded International Republican Institute (IRI) in Moscow. As RealClearInvestigations has previously reported, Kilimnik's 10-year IRI tenure is among several substantial Western government connections that have been ignored in amid efforts to accuse him of ties to the Russian government. "I gave IRI my CV which clearly said which school I graduated from, and gave my detailed background," Kilimnik recalls. "I never concealed anything." Kilimnik: No Madrid Meeting With Manafort When it comes to his travel history, Kilimnik says that the Special Counsel's Office made another significant error: falsely claiming that he and Manafort held a meeting in Spain. When Manafort denied that he and Kilimnik met in Madrid in 2017, the Mueller team accused him of lying and cited this as one of several alleged breaches of their cooperation agreement. The Mueller report claims that the two met in the Spanish capital on Feb. 26, 2017, "where Kilimnik had flown from Moscow." It also states that Manafort initially denied the Madrid meeting in his first two interviews with the Special Counsel's office, but then relented "after being confronted with documentary evidence that Kilimnik was in Madrid at the same time as him." But Kilimnik tells RCI that no such meeting occurred, and that he believes that Manafort was coerced into changing his story. "I have never been to Madrid in my life," Kilimnik says. The "documentary evidence" referenced in the Mueller report was, he speculates, a flight booking that was ultimately cancelled. "I was thinking about going to Madrid, and I discussed it with Paul," he says. "But it made no sense. And ultimately, it was too expensive. So I didn't go." Had he actually visited Madrid, Kilimnik says, the Mueller team would have "easily found proof – tickets, boarding passes, border crossings – all that stuff. It's not rocket science to get it. The European Union is a pretty disciplined place. There would be at least be a record of me crossing the border somewhere in the EU." Kilimnik told RCI that the last time he saw Manafort was one month before the alleged Madrid trip, around the time of Trump’s inauguration in Janaury 2017. "I did not attend any of the inauguration events myself," he recalls. "But I spent some time to meet with Paul, and to catch up. That was our last meeting in-person, in Alexandria [Virginia]." Asked why Manafort would have admitted to a Madrid meeting that did not in fact take place, Kilimnik said that his former boss faced heavy pressure while locked up by the Mueller team, which included a long stint in solitary confinement. "I don't know why he said that. I have difficulties to imagine Paul's psychological state when he was jailed. A guy who [had] a very high-level life. Jail is a tough place. I still get the shudders to think what he had to go through." The allegation that Manafort lied to the Mueller team proved consequential. In February 2019, U.S. District Judge Jackson sided with the Special Counsel and voided Manafort's plea deal. No longer bound to give him a reduced sentence for cooperating, Jackson nearly doubled Manafort's prison term on top of his earlier conviction and excoriated him for telling "lies." President Trump pardoned in Manafort in December 2020. Told that Kilimnik denies ever visiting Madrid, and asked whether the Special Counsel's office collected concrete evidence to the contrary, both former Special Counsel Mueller and lead prosecutor Weissmann did not respond. A Justice Department spokesperson declined comment. FBI Alert Contradicts Senate-Treasury Spy Claim Over one year after Mueller closed up shop, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) unilaterally upgraded Kilimnik's alleged Russian intelligence status. The panel's August 2020 report declared that Kilimnik, far from merely having "ties" to the GRU as Mueller had claimed, is in fact a full-fledged "Russian intelligence officer." The Senate made the leap despite offering no new public evidence to support its explosive "assessment", and even acknowledging that its "power to investigate" – as well as "its staffing, resources, and technical capabilities" -- ultimately "falls short of the FBI's." The Senate also labelled Kilimnik a Russian spy despite simultaneously presenting new evidence that he was, in the Committee's own words, a "valuable resource" for officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, with whom he was "in regular contact." In September 2020, RCI asked the FBI and Justice Department whether it shares the SSCI's judgment that Kilimnik is a "Russian intelligence officer." A DOJ spokesperson replied that "the Mueller report speaks for itself," and advised that the public "defer" to how Kilimnik was characterized in the Mueller report and the Special Counsel Office's indictments. This strongly suggested, RCI reported, that the FBI has not adopted the SSCI's view that Kilimnik is a Russian spy. The FBI’s February "alert" offering $250,000 for information leading to Kilimnik's arrest bolsters this reporting. It once again states that Kilimnik is "assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence" – shunning the SSCI's spy language and reverting to Mueller's original, ambiguous characterization. Shunning the language adopted by the Treasury Department, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the ODNI, an FBI alert from February does not describe Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer or “influence agent.” It instead reverts to the vague Mueller claim that he has unspecified Russian intelligence “ties.” The wording of the FBI alert underscores that while the Senate Intelligence Committee and Treasury Department have declared that Kilimnik is a Russian spy, the nation's top law enforcement agency has never adopted that assessment. When Manafort's legal team asked the Special Counsel's Office for any communication between Manafort and "Russian intelligence officials," they were told that "there are no materials responsive to [those] requests." In unsealed notes from early 2017, Peter Strzok – the top FBI counterintelligence agent who opened the Trump-Russia investigation – wrote: "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." Asked whether the FBI has altered its characterization of Kilimnik in light of Treasury's claim that he is a "known Russian Intelligence Services agent", an FBI spokesperson declined comment. The FBI's alert was also remarkable for the size of the Kilimnik bounty, which is more than double the amount of most members of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List. While the bureau is offering $100,000 each for information regarding six alleged murderers, and $200,000 for another, the FBI is offering $250,000 for help nabbing Kilimnik on a lone witness tampering charge in Manafort's Ukraine lobbying case. The Mueller team accused Kilimnik of sending text messages to two individuals with whom Manafort had worked during his Ukraine lobbying days. Kilimnik's aim, the Special Counsel's Office alleged, was to pressure the pair to attest that their prior work was focused on lobbying officials in Europe, not in the United States. These individuals – identified in court documents as "Person D1" and "Person D2" – were not active witnesses for the Mueller probe, but instead, according to the Special Counsel's Office, "potential witnesses." The 13 Kilimnik messages to these "potential witnesses" cited by Mueller include the following: [Person D2], hi! How are you? Hope you are doing fine. ;)) My friend P [Manafort] is trying to reach [Person D1] to brief him on what's going on. If you have a chance to mention this to [Person D1] - would be great. Basically P wants to give him a quick summary that he says to everybody (which is true) that our friends never lobbied in the U.S., and the purpose of the program was EU. Hi. This is [Kilimnik]. My friend P is looking for ways to connect to you to pass you several messages. Can we arrange that. Kilimnik says that he was not trying to tamper with anyone. "I do not understand how two messages to our old partners who helped us get out the message about Ukraine's integration aspirations in EU, and asking them to get in touch with Paul, can be interpreted as 'intimidation' or 'obstruction of justice,'" he says. Whether or not Kilimnik sought to tamper with "potential witnesses" in Manafort's Ukraine lobbying case, the alleged 2018 infraction has nothing to do with 2016 Trump-Russia collusion. The FBI alert from February raises questions about the bombshell Treasury Department claims released two months later. If the U.S. government stands by Treasury's claims about Kilimnik, why is he wanted only on a minor, non-Russia related witness-tampering charge, and not for taking part in alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election? If Kilimnik indeed passed on "sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" to Russian intelligence while working as a spy, why has he not been indicted alongside the Russian social media company charged by Mueller in February 2018, or the Russian intelligence officers charged by Mueller in July 2018? To Kilimnik, the answer is found on that same Russian passport that Mueller mischaracterized. "It is clear to me that the indictment of 2018 was pulled out of the thin air, simply to have a Russian face in the mix," he says. "I understand that they needed a Russian to investigate 'Russia collusion,' and I happened to be that Russian," he says. "The funny thing is that I'm not hiding. And I would have explained the same thing to the FBI or anyone who never reached out to me. They don't because they don't want the truth." From Russian Spy to "Influence Agent" In Kilimnik's eyes, his utility as a Russian national for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative also explains his prominent inclusion in the recent U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment, released in March one month after the FBI alert for his arrest. In yet another new iteration of how Kilimnik is described by the U.S. government, the ICA does not call him a Russian intelligence officer, but instead a "Russian influence agent." A US Intelligence Community Assessment, released in April 2021, accuses Kilimnik of being a “Russian influence agent” who sought to aid Trump’s re-election campaign. The ICA does not define the term "Russian influence agent," or explain how it reached that new assessment about Kilimnik. Nor does it put forth any evidence for the alleged Russian influence activities ascribed to him . The report alleges that Kilimnik was part of a "network of Ukraine-linked individuals … connected to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB)" who "took steps throughout the [2020] election cycle to damage U.S. ties to Ukraine, denigrate President Biden and his candidacy, and benefit former President Trump’s prospects for reelection." As part of this alleged meddling network, the ICA asserts that Kilimnik tried to influence U.S. officials; helped produce a documentary that aired on U.S. television in January 2020; and worked with Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker alleged to have Kremlin ties. "Derkach, Kilimnik, and their associates sought to use prominent U.S. persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to U.S. officials and audiences," the ICA states. Kilimnik says the U.S. intelligence officials who wrote those words are using their anonymity and power to launder their false narratives about him. "I have no idea what they're talking about," he says. "I would really love to see at least one confirmation of the things they allege. Pulling me into this report with zero evidence really shows that [U.S. intelligence] people high up do not give a damn about the truth, facts, or anything." As for Derkach, "I have never met him in my life," Kilimnik says. "I don't know why, or on what basis, they're making claims that he has any relationship to me." "I had zero meetings with anybody related to the Trump campaign. In fact, I have tried to do my best – understanding how I've gotten into this mess – to stay as far as possible from any U.S. politics." If he had held such meetings, Kilimnik adds, "this should be easy to prove." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment. No Effort to Contact Russiagate's Top Russian Even though Kilimnik's name fills dozens of pages of the Mueller and Senate Intelligence reports after years of federal scrutiny and he is the target of a $250,000 FBI reward, this seemingly critical Russiagate figure has never been contacted by a single U.S. government official, to judge from the public record as well as Kilimnik's account. The lack of contact is similar to the way FBI, Mueller, and Senate investigators treated other supposedly central Russiagate figures. When Joseph Mifsud, whose conversations with George Papadopoulos triggered the FBI's Trump-Russia probe, visited the U.S. in early 2017, the FBI subjected him to a light round of questioning and then let him leave the country. The Mueller team later claimed in its final report that Mifsud had lied to FBI agents, yet inexplicably did not indict him. Despite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's central role in publishing the stolen Democratic Party emails supposedly hacked and supplied by Russia, the Mueller team never contacted him and the Senate Intelligence Committee shunned an offer to interview him. Kilimnik believes that this avoidance is deliberate. "The FBI and others could have had the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv or Moscow, or have any of my numerous contacts in the U.S., reach out and start a conversation, if they wanted info," he says. "But they do not really need it. All they is need is a scarecrow. And as one of the few people within reach of the Trump campaign who has a Russian passport, they picked me." "They never reached out to me," he adds. "I never had a single contact with FBI or any government official, basically since charges were brought [on] Paul. Nobody ever tried to talk to me because they know the truth. They understood damn well that I will tell them what I'm telling you." Kilimnik says that he has had only minimal contact with Manafort since the former Trump campaign chairman was released to home confinement in March 2020 and subsequently pardoned by Trump in late December. "We had one short contact after he got out of jail, basically catching up about family and kids and everything," Kilimnik recalls. "I want to give him time to just basically get his life back to normal. We have not spoken on the telephone." After years in Ukraine working with Manafort, Kilimnik now lives full-time in Moscow with his wife and two children. "I have been pretty open all my life, and have not been hiding from anyone," Kilimnik says. "I would have been happy to answer any questions from the FBI, or whoever. But I refuse to be a toy in bizarre political games and have my life ruined more than it has been because of the senseless and false accusations." Despite being labeled a Russian spy who meddled in the 2016 election, Kilimnik has no plans to return to the U.S. and try to clear his name. "I am not going to the U.S. on my own dime, with no visa in COVID times only to be crucified by the media, having zero chance of justice," he says. "This is a sad continuation of a deeply wrong story. I thought it would be over with Trump gone and the need to create lies about his 'ties to Russia.' But obviously, I was wrong." Edited March 31 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) Sandy, This is getting ridiculous... We have a new, sophomoric forum member who doesn't know the difference between journalistic fecal material and shinola. And he loves to flood the zone with fecal material. IMO, Kevin Hofeling's MAGA spam belongs at the Education Forum's MAGA Water Cooler. Hofeling just posted the following ridiculous comment about Spencer Hsu's excellent February 2019 Manafort article at WaPo (at the top of this page.) "Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Geez... I've forgotten more about Russian history, culture, and politics than Hofeling will ever know. Spencer Hsu is a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist at America's top-ranked political newspaper. The facts in his article about Manafort's trial and sentencing (above) will be evident to any informed reader. Notice that Hofeling didn't refute a single fact that Hsu documented about Manafort and the Mueller investigation. Hofeling, basically, ignored the well-documented facts in Spencer Hsu's WaPo account of Paul Manafort's perjury and witness-tampering during the Mueller investigation. Then Hofeling posted a steaming pile of fecal material from the Trump/MAGA propagandists at Real Clear Politics.* Incidentally, Hofeling's Real Clear MAGA propagandists are affiliated with such right-wing American "luminaries" as The Federalist, Dick Uihlein, and the Scaife family. These Real Clear Robber Barons are, basically, only interested in one thing, as we all know-- Trump/GOP tax cuts! If nothing else, Hofeling has unwittingly given us a good example of what is so terribly wrong with American political discourse in the age of Trump. Here's the skinny on Hofeling's latest Trump/MAGA propaganda site, Real Clear Politics (italics mine.) *RealClearPolitics Rightward turn during Trump's presidency[edit] In 2020, The New York Times noted that since 2017, when many of its "straight-news" reporting journalists were laid off, RealClearPolitics showed a pro-Trump turn with donations to its affiliated nonprofit increasing, much from entities supported by wealthy conservatives. [25] The New York Times also said that "Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president's political opponents, through a mix of its own content and articles from across conservative media...." and that for days after the election, "Real Clear Politics gave top billing to stories that reinforced the false narrative that the president could still somehow eke out a win."[25] An October 2019 article in The Daily Beast reported that RealClear Media manages a Facebook page of "far-right memes and Islamophobic smears". Anand Ramanujan, chief technology officer for RealClear Media, responded that the company created the website that was affiliated with the Facebook page "as part of an effort to understand the flow of traffic from social media—particularly Facebook—to political websites."[26] Real Clear Politics heavily promotes content by The Federalist, a conservative website which draws funding from the same pool of donor money as Real Clear Politics.[25] In 2016, RealClearInvestigations was launched,[27] backed by foundations associated with conservative causes, such as the Uihlein Family Foundation and Sarah Scaife Foundation.[28] In 2019, the site published an article by a conservative author, Paul Sperry, containing the supposed name of a U.S. intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[28] The article's publication came as part of a month-long effort by Trump allies on media and social media to "unmask" the whistleblower, whose identity was kept confidential by the U.S. government, in accordance with whistleblower protection (anti-retaliation) laws.[28] Most publications declined to reveal the whistleblower's identity; Tom Kuntz, editor of RealClearInvestigations, defended the site's decision to publish the article.[28] 25 Peters, Jeremy W. (2020-11-17). "A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-20. 26 ^ Poulse, Kevin; Maxwell, Tani (October 8, 2019). "RealClear Media Has a Secret Facebook Page to Push Far-Right Memes". Retrieved October 8, 2019. 27 ^ "A New Destination for Investigative Journalism". RealClearInvestigations. Retrieved 2019-11-12. 28 ^ Jump up to:a b c d Isaac Stanley-Becker & Craig Timberg, Trump's allies turned to online campaign in quest to unmask Ukraine whistleblower, Washington Post (November 7, 2019). Edited March 31 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 43 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: This is getting ridiculous... We have a new, sophomoric forum member who doesn't know the difference between journalistic fecal material and shinola. And he loves to flood the zone with fecal material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 After the very disappointing Mary Ferrell trial, it is abundantly clear to me that no President, either Democratic or Republican, will ever admit to the truth of what happened. It was an embarrassing day all around, and the cover up is too hot to admit because a lot of people will become angry. I’ve got a good idea of what happened and while I don’t blame the SS so much for their actions during the shooting, I am angrier than ever for the very active cover up. I tried to submit an amicus brief to the case but the judge rejected it because I am just a researcher. The brief is on my website for anyone who wants to read it. That rejection makes me angry, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now