Long after any debate over President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia’s election interference in Russia in 2016 could have led to his dismissal fizzled out, the Senate Enterprise’s First Chamber on Tuesday dropped a bomb with an explosive new details of ‘ the sly affair.
While the new report does not completely enhance the story of the 2016 campaign, as we knew it – much of the context of the behavior was contained in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and previous news articles – it highlights new details and facts that emphasize the duality happening behind the scenes. It fully endorses the idea, driven by the president and attorney general, that there was no basis for the investigation and shows that there is ample evidence for what was once widely discussed as “collusion.” And this is especially important because the report was developed by a Republican-led committee – they can not be portrayed as enemies of the president, as Mueller’s team was.
Here are seven of the most striking details from the new report:
1. Paul Manafort worked closely with a “Russian intelligence officer.”
Among the most explosive allegations in the Mueller report were the ties between Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager for the summer of 2016, and Russia. In particular, he had a series of contacts and meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was known to have a past with Russian intelligence.
But the commission’s report is much more explicit about Kilimnik’s role:
Manafort hired and worked closely with a Russian citizen, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as the primary link from Manafort to Deripaska and eventually Manafort’s office in Kiev. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that lasted until the 2016 U.S. election and beyond. [emphasis added]
It stated: “On August 18, 2016, Kilimnik told a private journalist that he had ‘almost daily contacts with Manafort’ about this ‘Ukraine crisis’ these days.”
“The report states that Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer,” noted NBC reporter Ken Dilanian. “That makes it sink in: Donald Trump’s campaign president worked closely with a Russian intelligence officer. What do those who argue the FBI says have no reason to investigate?”
2. Kilimnik and Manafort are themselves potentially linked to the criminal hacking of Democratic emails.
Kilimnik’s links to Russian intelligence and Mueller’s finding that Manafort shared internal campaign data with him were some of the most explosive revelations in the entire scandal. And the Prime Minister’s report makes these findings even more inflammatory by tying Kilimnik to the hack-and-leak operation, the most important aspect of Russia’s attack in 2016:
Some evidence suggests that Kilimnik may be linked to the GRU hack-and-leak operation related to the 2016 U.S. election. This assessment is based on a body of fragmentary information.
The following information is returned.
The report also states: “However, two pieces of information increase the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to the hacking and leaking operations.” What follows is edited.
3. Trump discussed WikiLeaks with Stone during his 2016 campaign
In written responses during Mueller’s investigation, Trump denied that he had thought about communicating with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks’ leak of the hacked Democratic emails in 2016. A lot of evidence already suggested that it was false and that Trump probably lied to Mueller. – what would be a crime.
The report of the First Chamber clearly states the contradiction:
Trump stated in written responses to the SCO: “I do not remember discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], and I do not recall why I was aware that Mr. Stone has discussed WikiLeaks. with people connected to my campaign. “1624 Trump further claimed that he” had no recollection of the specifications of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016. “1625 Despite Trump’s recollection, the commission ~ says that Trump, in fact, spoke with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.
“Damn,” Lawfare said Quinta Jurecic, “especially in light of newly unedited material from the Mueller report that suggests that Mueller also thought Trump lied to him about talks on Wikileaks.”
4. Stone sent draft tweets to Trump attacking Hillary Clinton for her views against Russia
The report explained:
On Sunday, July 31, at 9:15 p.m., the day after a long conversation with Manafort, Stone called Gates. Ten minutes later, Stone had two phone calls with Trump that lasted more than ten minutes. Stone then emailed Jessica Macchia, one of Trump’s assistants, eight draft tweets for Trump, under the subject line “Tweets Mr. Trump requested yesterday.” 1552 Many of the draft tweets attacked Clinton for her opposing position toward Russia, calling for a new peace treaty with Putin, such as “I want a new detente with Russia under Putin.”
Politico’s Natasha Bertrand notes that Stone suggested these tweets, even as he tried to act as a channel between the campaign and WikiLeaks.
5. Stone wanted WikiLeaks to release new hacked emails after the Access Hollywood tape went live – and it did.
The report explained:
At about 4 a.m. on Oct. 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in preparing for the Trump debate recalled that the team first heard about the tape an hour from the tape. However, according to Jerome Corsi, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day: once at 1:42 for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 for 21 minutes. Corsi recalls Stone’s teaching that the Access Hollywood tape would come out, and that Stone “[w]anted the Podesta goods to balance the news cycle “whether” immediately then or at least coincidentally. “According to Corsi, Stone also told him that WikiLeaks” should drop the Podesta emails immediately. “
…
Corsi recalls the example of the Access Hollywood tape with conference attendees during one or two interviews that day: a WorldNetDaily staff at 1:08 a.m., or a 2-hour interview with Total Banking Solutions that included Malloch. Corsi reminded her at conference day to tell her that the tape was a problem and to contact Assange. Corsi “then watched” all day to see what Assap.ge would do, “and when the Podesta emails were released, he thought to himself that Malloch” had finally gotten to Assange. However, Corsi told investigators that he did not call Malloch as Stone after the release of WikiLeaks to convey this reaction, because, contrary to his earlier statements, he “doubted” that Malloch had succeeded.
…
After the Podesta emails were released on October 7, 2016, Trump and senior campaign officials acknowledged internally and against Stone that Stone had requested the WikiLeaks release on Podesta.
6. Kilimnik helped print the story that Ukraine intervened in 2016, but the commission found no evidence to support that view.
The report explained:
The Committee observed several actors of Russian government from the end of 2016 until; East January 2020 consistently disseminated overlapping false narratives that sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and disseminated false information about the 2016 events. Manafort, Kilimnik, Deripaska, and others associated with Deripaska participated in these impact operations. As part of these efforts, Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 US: elections and that the “ledger” name payments to Manafort were false.
It added:
Kilimnik appeared to be under the impression that Trump believed Ukraine was invading. Kilimnik made this statement in a private email with a journalist, making it difficult to assess the accuracy of the statement. The Committee’s efforts focused on investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections. However, in the course of the investigation, the Committee did not identify any reliable evidence that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 US elections. .
Fiona Hill, the former Trump White House aide specializing in Russian affairs, famously called Ukraine’s accusations a “fictional narrative that has been violated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
7. The Commission was of the opinion that WikiLeaks was actively working with Russia, despite its claims to the contrary.
“While WikiLeaks seeks to portray itself as a legitimate media organization, its disclosures have endangered the security and privacy of individual Americans and foreign allies, as WikiLeaks has made only minimal, and sometimes no, efforts to edit sensitive information,” and does not seem to dare if his revelations add any value of public interest, “the report noted.
It went on:
The Russian government has pursued a relationship with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that includes formal partnerships with state media platforms, government assistance to WikiLeaks staff and resources, and information sharing. This relationship has existed since at least 2012 and reflects an agreement between the Russian government and WikiLeaks in seeking to undermine US institutions and security.
And then, in one heavily reduced section, the report leaves one sentence uncovered: “However, the commission found significant evidence to indicate that WikiLeaks worked knowingly with Russian officials in the summer of 2016.”
