In a huge revelation, John Solomon of The Hill just exposed a massive omission from Mueller report.

First let me give you a little context.

The Mueller report attempts casts a shady light on Ukranian businessman named Konstatin Kilimnik who worked from time to time for one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The Mueller report made Kilimnik look as suspicious as possible by identifying him as a person having connections to “Russian intelligence.”

Here’s the kicker, though.

Since 2018, Mueller’s team had in its possession hundreds of pages evidence that reveal Kilimnik is a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U. S. State Department.

TRENDING: Tim Tebow Teams with Trump Administration To Fight Human Trafficking

As a source, Kilimnik reportedly gave intel on Ukrainian and Russian matters going back to as early as 2013.

So why would Mueller attempt to arouse suspicion about Kilimnik by preventing the whole truth from being mentioned?

Why would Mueller omit such a significant fact about Kilimnik even though he had the information to include it?

In a column published Thursday, Solomon points out that as far as intelligence assets go, “Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source.”

Do you trust the Mueller report's conclusions? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 9% (399 Votes) 91% (3981 Votes)

Kilimnik often met several times a week with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev as well as passed on messages to Ukraine’s leaders.

He also “delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words.”

And, as Solomon revealed, members of the Mueller team knew all of this well before they released their final report.

Solomon writes, “Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.”

In addition to that damning information, Solomon points out that Alan Purcell and Alexander Kasanof, two of the chief political officers in the embassy in Kiev, both knew Kilimnik and counted him as “valuable and “one of the few reliable insiders.”

RELATED: Mainstream News Outlet Trots Out 'Mostly Peaceful' Line Again, Suggests Police Responsible for Louisville Violence

Solomon compared Purcell’s and Kasanof’s comments to “scores” of emails that confirm Kilimnik’s intel was both reliable and regularly used.

“The memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections,” Solomon writes.

But to add further doubt to the growing credibility issues of Mueller’s report, the emails Solomon reviewed showed that Kilimnik was allowed to twice visit the United States in 2016, which Solomon notes is “a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligence threat.”

The most damning observation that Solomon noted was perhaps the deception Mueller showed in a part of the report when he flagged Kilimnik for delivering a Crimean peace plan to the Trump campaign. But, as Solomon reveals, Kilimnik gave Obama’s administration virtually the same plans just a few months earlier.

So Mueller flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of peace plan to the Trump campaign as “potentially nefarious” but failed to even mention delivery of the plan to Obama’s team not long before.

As Solomon puts it: “That’s what many in the intelligence world might call ‘deception by omission.'”

Solomon, who has been a regular source of blockbuster reporting on the “Russian collusion” investigations, makes the important point in his conclusion:

“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 …

“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.”

A good many Americans already are.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.