Pages

Monday, February 24, 2020

UPDATED: Devin Nunes Looking At Team Mueller Lying Re Papadopoulos

UPDATE: A new article at Just the News expands on Lee Smith's earlier piece:

House Republicans considering criminal referrals against Mueller prosecutors 
Rep. Devin Nunes says action could force DOJ to look at conduct of Mueller team, accuracy of final Russia report.

Nunes is talking about referring the Team Mueller prosecutors to DoJ.


Lee Smith has a very interesting article today at John Solomon's new site, Just the News:

Declassified FBI memos undercut Mueller team claims that Papadopoulos hindered Russia probe
Prosecutor who recently resigned from Roger Stone case signed court filings omitting evidence of witness cooperation

Judicial Watch has obtained the FBI interview reports (FD-302s) on George Papadopoulos. The picture that those 302s paint of Papadopoulos' interviews is strikingly at variance with the picture that the Team Mueller prosecutors--Aaron Zelinsky, Jeannie Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein--paint in their sentencing memo.

The story line is a bit convoluted, perhaps intentionally so. Basically, Team Mueller claims that Papadopoulos "lied" repeatedly because Papadopoulos repeatedly maintained that when he was meeting with Mifsud and a pair of Russian nationals--in March, 2016--he was not yet part of the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos maintained that he became part of the campaign in April, 2016. But it appears that Team Mueller hedges a bit, rather slyly. Here's the actual wording of the sentencing memo:

the defendant met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after the defendant had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign;

"He would be" actually refers to the future. The future may well have been April--in Papadopoulos' mind. Moreover, Team Mueller frankly admits--but after long pages of turgid prose devoted to Papadopoulos' iniquity:

The government cannot definitively know what motivated the defendant to lie to the agents on January 27, 2017. But the record shows that at the time of the interview, the defendant was attempting to secure a job with the Trump Administration and had an incentive to protect the Administration and minimize his own role as a witness.

Again, notice that this is rather cagey language. If you don't actually know why a person makes a statement that appears to be at variance with the facts as you want those facts to be, well, that means you don't really know that the person was lying. Because lying involves motives; it involves intent to deceive. So Team Mueller is backhandedly admitting that they don't really know that Papadopoulos was lying--but they're quite willing to guess, and they're quite willing to make assertions in that regard, as long as they insert clever escape clauses. But the bottom line, ethically, is that if they couldn't show that Papadopoulos intended to deceive them about a matter that was, after all, pretty much public record, then they should never have charged him with lying.

You may ask, What harm did Papadopoulos' false statements do? Team Mueller claims they hindered an effective investigation of Mifsud and prevented the FBI from detaining Mifsud after they interviewed him in Washington, DC, in February, 2017. But the prosecutors never explain in the sentencing memo how that worked. After all, they don't dispute that Papadopoulos told them the whole truth and nothing but the truth when re recounted what Mifsud said to him about the Russians and the Hillary emails. It all seems to come down to the timing. Team Mueller wanted Papadopoulos to say that Mifsud approached him as a member of the Trump campaign, and Papadopoulos kept saying, No, it was before I was actually part of the campaign.

It all comes down to perception, on Papadopoulos' part. And you can imagine the frustration on the part of Team Mueller--so near and yet so far! But when you look at the 302s, the picture you get is of a Papadopoulos who is eager to be truthful and cooperative. Which, from Team Mueller's point of view, may have been the real problem. Team Mueller wasn't actually investigating Mifsud and what he may or may not have known about the Russians. They were simply trying to tie supposed Russian misdeeds to the Trump campaign, and Papadopoulos saying, No, that all happened before I was part of the campaign was no help at all. Papadopoulos confirming what Mifsud said was no use, because it didn't point to the Trump campaign.

Poor Lee Smith! He has lots of questions about all this, but nobody wants to comment! Not the FBI, not DoJ, and definitely not Aaron Zelinsky, who is back in Baltimore after very publicly quitting the Roger Stone prosecution. The only person willing to comment on it all was Devin Nunes:

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who played a central role in uncovering other abuses in the Russia investigation including insertion of false information in an application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign, said the new revelations about the Papadopoulos case are deeply troubling.
The declassified 302s "provide our first evidence of the Mueller team lying to the court,” Nunes told Just the News in a podcast set to be aired on Tuesday. "The whole idea seemed nonsensical from the beginning that in the sentencing memorandum they would say that he stalled their investigation into Joseph Mifsud. Now, we know from the 302 actually the opposite is true. The truth is that Papadopoulos offered, told the FBI, that Mifsud was going to be in the United States."

For more details, follow the link.

19 comments:

  1. You want to do some editing on this. At least a couple of places you have "Team Trump" when you want "Team Mueller"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sigh ... if this was ... say a Driving While Intoxicated or in other states Driving Under the Influence (or, really any other crime), and you presented this to the county/parish attorney's office, your case would have an extremely high chance of being rejected as non-prosecutable.

    Even worse, the law enforcement officers who worked the case have an extremely high chance of being put on what's called a Brady list in which all the cases from those officers are rejected due to the fact that the officers are not credible (ie they lie, fake/plant evidence, commit perjury, suborn perjury, make false statements of fact under oath, etc).

    Yet, this is the DOJ, FBI, CIA so they are golden, not subject to the laws of the US Constitution and US judicial precedent that a lowly street cop is subject to day in and day out.

    And some wonder what the problem is (smh).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have been looking over my Papadopoulos material this evening. I came across this comment I made last Spring on this site:

    "The tell was always that Papadopoulos was interviewed for the first time in January of 2017. I think if the investigation is ever declassified, you will find that Papadopoulos wasn't investigated at all until then. What happened in January 2017 that might make Strzok and company realize that the Steele Dossier is a liability in being the predicate for Crossfire Hurricane?

    It is interesting reading this again with the IG report now in hand. I can now answer my question about what happened in January of 2017 that caused the coup plotters to abandon the Steele Dossier- they had checked with Steele's primary source and found out Steele of full of crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which points toward a conscious conspiracy to pervert justice. A coup, you might say.

      Delete
  4. And I finally found the thing I was looking for from November of 2018 on this site:

    Well, my theory almost from the start was that Mifsud was a spy for the FBI/CIA sent to Papadopoulos intentionally to dirty him up. Indeed, the story told by Mueller's team in the charging of Papadopoulos makes no sense if one believes the narrative about how the Operation Crossfire Hurricane got its start- if you believe that story, then there is no way Papadopoulos' "lies" could have been the cause for Mifsud being allowed to leave the US in early 2017 without answering "tough" questions. Indeed, everything the FBI seems to have done implies strongly they knew about Mifsud and Papadopoulos' April 2016 meeting from the moment it happened, and everything they have leaked to the press is in service of obscuring that interesting little detail.

    Mueller's story never made any sense. They didn't charge Papadopoulos for lying in denying talking to Mifsud, so the inaccuracies about when the meeting occurred can't be why they rushed Mifsud out of the country on the next available flight out of Dulles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It begins to look like damage control as much as coup attempt. In this case an attempt to make the predication for Crossfire Hurricane look at least somewhat kosher.

      Delete
    2. Do they teach "retroactive predication" in prosecutor school?

      :-)

      Delete
    3. I think they have special in services for selected prosecutors.

      Delete
    4. I almost made this comment the other day in regard to a prior post, but the details weren't fresh in my mind and I didn't want to thrash about for the answer, but...

      The case against PapaD was a difference of opinion about when he joined the Trump campaign--a difference between his version and the FBI's version, and as the FBI didn't agree with PapaD, PapaD is charged with lying.

      PapaD was told by the campaign he was to join as an advisor (or whatever title), but the announcement wouldn't be for a few weeks, as the team of advisors was being assembled, and they would be announced together. PapaD's understanding was he would be officially joining the campaign when it was announced.

      This amounts to spending 14-days in jail and having your reputation y=tarnished as a convicted liar for a nothingburger.

      Delete
    5. Ask yourself: What kind of people would do that to another human being?

      Delete
    6. What type?? Those whose lust for power rationalizes the ends justifying the means.

      Delete
  5. The cover for this has always been the Russian Hoax. This has allowed civil rights violations of the highest order. Moreover, this appears to be cover for a kind of government surveillance that the USSR or current China does or many a Banana Republic.

    All actualized under Obama, but prepped by W with many others presidents since 1978 and, yeah, that includes Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It just got too easy to surveil, nobody can resist when you're talking about so much money.

    In the old days, you needed to have a man go in and plant a microphone with a long cord, or tap a land-line.

    Now you just need to press a few buttons, and you've got all texts, emails, phone logs and communications.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's not actually the problem. The real problem is that FISA gives the FBI pre-approval for electronic spying. That means that without a showing of outright criminality the order will stand and will not be challenged. And since the order is secret, normally no one will know to challenge it anyway. What we're seeing is a very exceptional breakdown of that, because the Left leaked re the FISA for political reasons. Probably because they couldn't come up with any legit political damage.

      The real problem is secret pre-approval.

      Delete
    2. Hah!

      The real problem is the utter corruption of the so-called Elite Class of America and those who lead it.

      They have lost their ethical moorings in their arrogant pursuit of money and power.

      And of course those at the top deserve the most blame...the chiefs of our political and governmental institutions, financial institutions, media and entertainment companies, and educational institutions.

      But especial blame must be reserved for those at the very top without whose direction and acquiescence this national nightmare could not have happened:

      Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

      Delete
  7. What about all the "contractors" going through NSA databases, with all their "about" queries that apparently Adm Rogers caught? And then all the unmaskings of those.

    That apparently went back to 2012 or before? Did they use FISA's for those?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No--again, that's not the real point of FISA. The point about the contractors--a huge concern--has nothing to do with the collection of the data. The collection itself is presumptively OK because pre-approved by the secret court. The problem with the contractors is that they were given access either/both 1) without proper clearance 2) without requisite need. Legally collected date--under the FISA regime--was made available to people that we suspect used it for political purposes. If that weren't the case I think we can presume we would have heard more about it.

      Contractors are widely used throughout the IC for all sorts of purposes--FISA and non-FISA--and if properly cleared and supervised there isn't necessarily a problem. Repealing FISA wouldn't change the use of contractors, but it would change the type and amount of data collected. The use of political operatives under the cover of intel contractors is a political problem, not a FISA problem per se.

      Delete