Americans may begin to wonder if Mueller report is worth the paper it was printed on, media says

Editor’s choice

John Solomon, an award-winning investigative journalist of The Hill, has published an article questioning findings of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who led the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

According to Solomon, one of Mueller’s key findings was that Konstantin Kilimnik, Ukrainian businessman who work for Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, had ties to Russian intelligence. However, the Mueller omitted the fact that Kilimnik was also a “sensitive” intelligence source for the US Department of State informing on Ukrainian and Russian issues.

Having scrutinized Mueller’s report, Solomon concluded that Kilimnik’s portrayal was intentionally incomplete, as it is known from “hundreds of pages of government documents,” which Mueller had access to, Kilimnik visited the US twice back in 2016, which means that he wasn’t seen to be a threat. Besides working for Manafort, Kilimnik “interacted with the chief political officer at the US Embassy in Kiev meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government,” writes Solomon.

The fact that Kilimnik was portrayed wrongly in the report raises a question of what other misleading information does it contain and to what extent.

John Dowd, former Trump’s attorney, had previously claimed that his message to a witness was wrongly portrayed in Mueller’s report. Us Attorney General William Barr has also said that “some of the Mueller report’s legal reasoning conflicts with Justice Department policies.”

“A few more such errors and omissions, and Americans may begin to wonder if the Mueller report is worth the paper on which it was printed.” John Solomon


Natalia Veselnitskaya – official website

Natalia Veselnitskaya
Leave a Reply