Papadopoulos Court Docs Provide More Evidence Russiagate Was A Setup To Get Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Late Friday, attorneys for former Donald Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos filed their client’s sentencing memorandum in preparation for his September 7, 2018 sentencing hearing before federal judge Randolph Moss.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Special Counsel Robert Mueller previously argued that a sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment would be appropriate, but in Friday’s filing Papadopoulos’s attorneys argued for a sentence of probation.
In reporting the latest developments in the case, the mainstream media quickly latched onto two sentences in Papadopoulos’ memo to push the dying Russia narrative. The language the press proffered as supposed evidence of collusion came in a passage in which Papadopoulos’ attorneys sought to portray the Trump advisor as out of his depth.
As his legal team explained to the court, at a March 31, 2016 “National Security Meeting” with Trump and Jeff Sessions, “eager to show his value to the campaign, George announced at the meeting that he had connections that could facilitate a foreign policy meeting between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. While some in the room rebuffed George’s offer, Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr. Sessions who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.”
The press predictably played up this exchange as a gotcha moment, while it was nothing of the sort. There is nothing nefarious about this discussion, and it has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the presidential election.
In addition to playing up the irrelevant, the press passed on the noteworthy: Papadopoulos’ sentencing memo reveals new evidence that further indicates the FBI’s goal in Crossfire Hurricane was to investigate Trump—not Russia’s interference with the presidential election.
In the memo , Papadopoulos’s lawyers detailed the FBI’s January 27, 2017, questioning of their client, explaining that for two hours, Papadopoulos answered questions about professor Joseph Mifsud, Carter Page, Sergei Millian, the “Trump Dossier,” and others on the campaign. According to Papadopoulos, “[t]he agents asked George if he would be willing to actively cooperate and contact various people they had discussed.” Papadopoulos said he would be willing to try.
Yet when Mifsud—the Maltese professor who in late April 2016 told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt on Hillary” in the form of “thousands of emails”—visited the United States just two weeks later to speak at a State Department-sponsored conference, the FBI didn’t even bother to have Papadopoulos reach out to his former colleague.
Instead, the FBI questioned Mifsud, then in the special counsel’s sentencing memorandum blamed Papadopoulos for the government’s inability “to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States.” According to Mueller’s office, Papadopoulos’ “lies also hindered the government’s ability to discover who else may have known or been told about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on Clinton,” and prevented the FBI from determining “how and where the Professor obtained the information [and] why the Professor provided information to the defendant.”
I previously explained why the special counsel’s claim that Papadopoulos’s lies impeded the FBI’s investigation doesn’t fly. Papadopoulos’s attorneys similarly argued in their memo that their client’s lies did not actually harm the FBI’s probe, adding significantly that “George was still a cooperating source in their investigation” at the time investigators questioned Mifsud.
That final point and the revelation in Papadopoulos’ sentencing memo that the FBI had asked the former Trump advisor if he would be willing to contact Mifsud—and Papadopoulos’ agreement to do so—exposes the FBI’s purported investigation into Russia as a sham.
Why didn’t the FBI wire Papadopoulos and arrange for him to meet with Mifsud during the State Department conference? What would be more natural than Papadopoulos, who had spent months in London communicating with Mifsud and working at Mifsud’s London Centre of International Law, attending the professor’s speech at the February 2017, Washington D.C. Global Ties conference and inviting him for dinner or drinks? Then Papadopoulos could steer the conversation to the Russia hacking and Mifsud’s earlier comment about Russia having “thousands of emails.”
This isn’t Monday-morning quarterbacking, either. This is exactly what the FBI did with its now-named source Stefan Halper when it wanted to know what Papadopoulos and the Trump campaign knew about the emails. As The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reported earlier this year, in September 2016, Halper met with Papadopoulos in London and asked the former Trump campaign advisor: “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”
Papadopoulos denied knowing anything about the hacked emails when Halper raised the question (which, by the way, is entirely consistent with Papadopoulos’s claim that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails). While the press conflates the two, the hacked emails were the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, while the emails Papadopoulos believed Mifsud meant were the ones missing from Hillary’s homebrew server.
So, let’s lay it out: In September 2016, the FBI used an informant in an attempt to ensnare Papadopoulos and establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s hacking of the DNC emails. Then in January 2017, after Papadopoulos confirmed Mifsud was the source of his claim that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary, and had agreed to cooperate and contact Mifsud, and after the FBI “located” Mifsud in D.C., the FBI didn’t use Papadopoulos to ensnare the supposed Russian-agent whose purported foreknowledge of the hack justified the launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
With each passing day, it is becoming more and more obvious that the target of the FBI’s investigation was Trump, not Russia.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
69 visitors
"So, let’s lay it out: In September 2016, the FBI used an informant in an attempt to ensnare Papadopoulos and establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s hacking of the DNC emails. Then in January 2017, after Papadopoulos confirmed Mifsud was the source of his claim that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary, and had agreed to cooperate and contact Mifsud, and after the FBI “located” Mifsud in D.C., the FBI didn’t use Papadopoulos to ensnare the supposed Russian-agent whose purported foreknowledge of the hack justified the launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
Yes Ms Cleveland, I think you've got it. The FBI neither got nor tried to get the supposedly vital info from Papadopoulos. They just used him as a reason to spy on the Trump Campaign and more importantly a phony starting point for the investigation.
Papadopoulos Court Docs Provide More Evidence Russiagate Was A Setup To Get Trump
Sorry Vic, Trump's arrogance and quite frankly His unmitigated ignorance is what has brought Him to this juncture. If Mr. Trump wants to visualize His enemy, He only needs to look into the nearest mirror.
No sympathy here.
No, I'm sorry, The President continues to be President despite who dislikes him nor how much power they have.
This just doesn't even make sense. Russia gate harmed the GOP field to clear way for Trump and then they went after Hillary...again because they wanted trump to win.
These wacko conspiracy theories are entertaining, but they are insane. Believe the person who plead guilty to lying? Na, not for a minute.
You know why it doesn't make sense? Because it's bullshit. Here, from the seed:
"Mifsud—the Maltese professor who in late April 2016"... visited the United States just two weeks later - So that means either April or May of 2016.
Yet " the FBI didn’t even bother to have Papadopoulos reach out to his former colleague."
The FIRST TIME the FBI talked to Papadopoulos was on January, 27, 2017.
So exactly HOW does the author expect the FBI to have Papadopoulos do something in MAY of 2016?
Perhaps the author believes that the FBI has time travel and hasn't shared that fact with the public. /s
That's as far as I got in 'vetting' this ridiculous piece of trash.
Your'e misreading, Let's try it again:
"In the memo , Papadopoulos’s lawyers detailed the FBI’s January 27, 2017, questioning of their client, explaining that for two hours, Papadopoulos answered questions about professor Joseph Mifsud, Carter Page, Sergei Millian, the “Trump Dossier,” and others on the campaign. According to Papadopoulos, “[t]he agents asked George if he would be willing to actively cooperate and contact various people they had discussed.” Papadopoulos said he would be willing to try.
Yet when Mifsud—the Maltese professor who in late April 2016 told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt on Hillary” in the form of “thousands of emails”—visited the United States just two weeks later to speak at a State Department-sponsored conference, the FBI didn’t even bother to have Papadopoulos reach out to his former colleague."
In the middle of those two paragrahs they identify Misfud - as "the professor who in late April 2016 told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt on Hillary” in the form of “thousands of emails” - then visited the US JUST TWO WEEKS AFTER THE FBI's JANUARY 27, 2017 INTERVIEW
From CNN on the same story:
Mifsud was in Washington in February -- he spoke at an event organized by Global Ties, which describes itself on its website as a non-profit partner organization of the US State Department.
Nope, you're ADDING content that DOES NOT EXIST in the seeded article. MY comment is based on the content of seeded article and it stands.
Secondly, it's STILL bullshit. READ the actual statement in the governments sentencing memo.
Here's an article that debunks your author's bullshit.
The last time that Mifsud was in the US was Feb. 11, 2017.
So the author of the seed is full of shit based on the facts documented in the Government Sentencing Memo that she allegedly bases her article on, in part.
That time travel ability they use to re-write history is apparently working well. Many of them believe the obvious lies and misdirection.
I'm not adding, I'm explaining the intent
MY comment is based on the content of seeded article and it stands.
Your comment is taking a line out of context
The last time that Mifsud was in the US was Feb. 11, 2017.
And that was two weeks after the Papadoupolos interview that the article was referencing. That was exactly when Misfud spoke before a State Department- sponsored conference.
Actually you are.
I don't need you to explain the intent. I relied on the author to do that.
Yours is ADDING a line that didn't exist.
The Papadoupolos interview in which he LIED about the date of his contact with the 'professor'. He LIED in his second interview in February TOO.
I wonder if you understand why the timing of Papadoupolos' contact with the 'professor' is pertinent?
Yours is ADDING a line that didn't exist.
I am explaining what was meant - not adding.
I'll let the objective observers decide:
"Yet when Mifsud—the Maltese professor who in late April 2016 told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt on Hillary” in the form of “thousands of emails”—
That line was inserted to identify Mifsud. It shouldn't have been put in the middle of that sentence regardless of the lines used. Obviously, the "two weeks later" refers to Feb 2017 when Mifsud actually spoke at the State Department sponsored conference. That would make perfect sense.