John Solomon is, among other things, an investigative reporter for thehill.com.
In that capacity, Mr. Solomon has earned a Pulitzer Prize for ferreting out the details of both Russian collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the deep-state’s concerted effort to overthrow the 2016 election by removing Donald Trump from office.
Too bad he’ll never get that Pulitzer Prize, though.
He’ll never get it because his superb investigative reporting puts him on the “wrong” side of the issue, you see.
How significant are Mr. Solomon’s findings? Well, here are the first three paragraphs from his latest commentary: you be the judge:
In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.
What? Can this possibly be?
Can one of the main players, presented in the mueller report as a Russian intelligence functionary, actually be a U.S. State Department plant? And robert mueller knew he was, but did not mention this fact in the report?
What does this tell you about the veracity of the mueller report – which, let’s never forget, was put together by a Star Chamber-quality staff (13 Democrats, 3 unaffiliated, 0 Republicans), obviously designed not to get the true story, but to “get” Trump?
Plenty, that’s what.
Here are Solomon’s last three paragraphs:
If Mueller’s team can cast such a misleading portrayal of Kilimnik, however, it begs the question of what else might be incorrect or omitted in the report.
Attorney General William Barr has said some of the Mueller report’s legal reasoning conflicts with Justice Department policies. And former Trump attorney John Dowd made a compelling case that Mueller’s report wrongly portrayed a phone message he left for a witness.
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.
How I wish Mr. Solomon were wrong about this. But is he?
