Manafort aide Konstantin Kilimnik has been accused of being a Russian spy who shared polling data w/ Russia in 2016.
In an exclusive interview w/ me, Kilimnik refutes the evidence-free claims about him, & shares evidence exposing a key Mueller falsehood. realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/…
In April, the Treasury Department -- with no evidence -- called Kilimnik a "Russian Intelligence Services agent" who gave Russian intelligence "sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" in 2016.
These are "senseless and false accusations," Kilimnik says.
Kilimnik says that he shared general, mostly publicly available, outdated polling data with Ukrainian clients and US contacts -- not Russia. His account is backed up by key Mueller witness Rick Gates, who tells me that the Mueller team "cherry-picked" his testimony.
The Mueller report even quietly acknowledges that Gates (and Kilimnik's) account of the polling data is "consistent... with multiple emails that Kilimnik sent to U.S. associates and press contacts" in 2016. It even cites Kilimnik's emails in a footnote.
Kilimnik exposes a critical Mueller report falsehood.
To prove that KK has Russian intel "ties", Mueller claims he got a US visa "with a Russian diplomatic passport" in 1997.
But KK shared his passport & visa with me. It's a regular passport and visa -- not diplomatic.
This Mueller error is big. Mueller's claim about Kilimnik's passport is its first major "piece" of evidence to show KK's alleged Russian intel "ties."
Told about the Mueller error, a Justice Department spokesperson declined comment. Mueller & @AWeissmann_ did not respond to me.
Kilimnik also tells me that the Mueller team made another major error with his travel history: accusing Manafort of lying to them in denying that he met with Kilimnik in Madrid in Feb 2017. Kilimnik says no such meeting occurred. He made a travel booking but ultimately didn't go.
If Kilimnik's account is correct, then this raises questions about Mueller's allegation that Manafort broke their cooperation deal by denying the Madrid meeting. Kilimnik says they have no evidence.
DOJ declined comment. Mueller & @AWeissmann_ did not respond.
Incredibly, despite the explosive claims about him and his purported centrality to the Russiagate narrative, Kilimnik says that no US government official has ever contacted him.
"I never had a single contact with [the] FBI or any government official," he tells me. Why is that?
The failure by Mueller, FBI, SSCI, etc to contact Kilimnik echoes the curious disinterest in other central Russiagate figures. FBI had a brief chat w/ Joseph Mifsud, who supposedly sparked the entire Trump-Russia probe, then let him go. Mueller never tried to interview Assange.🤔
Claim that Kilimnik is a Russian spy who passed polling data is one of Russiagate's biggest conspiracy theories.
In early 2019, Mark Warner called it "closest we’ve seen yet to real live actual collusion." James Clapper said it has "a wisp of collusion."
Watch the insanity:
Two years and a Mueller report that found no evidence for it later, the Kilimnik conspiracy theory was revived in an evidence-free Treasury Dept. press release last month. Watch how leading Russiagate influence agents @Maddow and @AdamSchiff responded:
NYT's @MarkMazzettiNYT & @nytmike called Treasury's evidence-free claim "the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated... the Trump campaign" & declared that it helped "confirm" their dubious 2017 report on Trump camp-Russian intel "interactions."
Contrast the widespread parroting of Russiagate conspiracy theories about Konstantin Kilimnik -- that he is a Russian spy who passed Trump polling data to Russia -- with his own words, and documents backing him up: realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Although they add their best spin, this new story further weakens the "Russian Bounties."
Declassified Biden NSC talking points contain this amazing line: "We do not have evidence that the Kremlin directed this operation, but we call on the Russian government to explain itself."
In June, these NYT reporters -- & the disgraced @rcallimachi 🤔-- claimed that alleged Russian financial transfers to Taliban "were most likely part of a bounty program" and "bolstered" CIA claims.
No mention of these alleged transfers in new NSC talking points. Where'd they go?
Dirty Wars require cover-ups. So when it comes to Syria, there's a lot. We've seen the OPCW censor its own investigators. We're also seeing the NATO states that poured millions into the "White Helmets" desperately thwarting any public disclosure: volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achterg…
This Dutch outlet reports that a Netherlands cabinet minister, Sigrid Kaag, intended to inform lawmakers about fraud at Mayday Rescue, the group behind the White Helmets. But Kaag was pressured into not sending the letter. Netherlands saw itself politically as "extra vulnerable."
In Feb 2020, diplomats met in Istanbul about the White Helmets fraud. Discussion topics included "avoiding political risks" and "minimal exposure."
This came shortly after the death of White Helmets founder/UK operative James le Mesurier, who had admitted to financial fraud.
One of most shameful pieces in @theintercept’s history (strong competition).
@James__Harkin found staging in Douma yet still concludes “the government did it.” OPCW leaks came shortly after this ran in Feb 2019, yet zero mention by TI since.
On top of whitewashing the Douma war crime -- massacring civilians to stage a chemical attack -- & the OPCW cover-up, @James__Harkin portrays regime change orgs as independent sources.
All four of the groups in this graf are US-gov't funded, which The Intercept doesn't disclose:
Look how @James__Harkin portrays the NED-funded, NATO troll farm Bellingcat: "a U.K.-based organization specializing in open-source online investigations" run by Eliot Higgins, whose "eagle-eyed" work "won him a reputation in the field."
When it comes to their Syria cover-up, OPCW leaders should get their lies straight.
Just one graf from Ahmet Üzümcü, who presided over the Douma cover-up until it was taken over by his successor, current OPCW DG Fernando Arias, has multiple holes & lies. councilonstrategicrisks.org/2021/04/29/the…
Üzümcü claims that the OPCW team in Syria "determined the use of chlorine." He omits a small detail: the actual team found zero evidence of chlorine gas use, but had their findings censored and were then replaced by a "team" that didn't set foot in Syria. thenation.com/article/world/…
Trying to suggest a Syrian cover-up -- rather than the documented cover-up under his watch -- Üzümcü claims that the Douma team deployed "after some delay by the Syrian authorities."
He should consult the OPCW's own final report, which attributes the delay to security concerns:
You claim that Berlin Group 21 (BG21) -- eminent voices behind the Statement of Concern (SoC) on OPCW cover-up -- are a "front" for the Working Group (WG), a UK academic collective. You also claim WG "released" SoC in BG21's name.
I opened with a summary of the OPCW's Syria scandal: OPCW inspectors found no evidence of a Syrian government chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. But their findings were doctored and suppressed, and the entire team was sidelined:
On top of the censorship, a US delegation pressured the Douma team to back US claims of a chemical attack (its pretext for bombing Syria in April 2018).
OPCW has since attacked the dissenters; & US-UK state-funded media actors Bellingcat & BBC have been leaked disinformation: