The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly concluded that it has no “direct evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Ranking minority member Mark Warner begs to differ.
Is there “direct evidence” of collusion or not?
The answer can be found in the story of Konstantin Kilimik, a longtime associate of Manafort who was trained as a translator at a school run by Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU. Today The Washington Post has more detail on why special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation is focused on Kilimnik.
In August 2016, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met his long time friend Kilimnik at a cigar bar in Trump Tower. Kilimnik has told interviewers they merely talked about “unpaid bills.”
At the time Manafort owed $19 million to Oleg Deripaska, Russian billionaire and friend of President Putin. Manafort thought the Trump campaign might be a way that he could “get whole” with Deripaska.
According to Mueller, Manafort lied about the meeting.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, called the details about what occurred at the Grand Havana Room gathering “the most interesting and potentially significant development we have seen in a long time.” Prosecutors have alleged that among the false statements Manafort made to investigators during his interviews in recent months were key lies about the Aug. 2 meeting and other interactions with Kilimnik.
This story suggests the nature of the collusion: financial relief for Manafort in return for Trump’s support of Russia’s position on sanctions. This is not proof of collusion but the details of this meeting are some of the strongest evidence to date.
The Deep State on Robert Mueller.
