Pages

Friday, February 28, 2020

Kevin Clinesmith And The Papadopoulos Interrogation

A few days ago we took a look at recently released FBI 302s reporting on the FBI interviews of George Papadopoulos: Devin Nunes Looking At Team Mueller Lying Re Papadopoulos. Our conclusion was that when those 302s are compared with the sentencing memo re Papadopoulos, the picture that emerges is that the FBI really had no interest at all in the substance of what Papadopoulos had to say about his conversations with Joseph Mifsud. They knew that Papadopoulos was telling the truth--that Mifsud had told him about the Russians supposedly having Hillary's emails--because Mifsud had told Papadopoulos exactly what the FBI had told him to tell Papadopoulos. Instead, the whole point of the lengthy interrogations of Papadopoulos was to get him to change what he had said about the timing of his conversations with Mifsud.

There's a review of Papadopoulos' book, Deep State Target, at American Greatness: The FBI Considered Joseph Mifsud an Asset. The concluding portion of the review recounts a portion of Papadopoulos' recollection of his interrogation by the FBI, which bears directly on our earlier discussion of what motivated the FBI:

... when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos, the FBI interrogators showed very little interest in the source of Mifsud’s information.  
“One of the investigators is an FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith,” Papadopoulos writes. “And he seems to be leading a lot of this inquisition.” 
Papadopoulos was asked over and over to name anyone in the Trump campaign with whom he may have shared the Mifsud emails story. “I keep waiting for someone to ask me about Mifsud himself. But nobody seems to care about him. I can’t believe these people are not interested in the source of this information.”  
In a later exchange, Papadopoulos is subjected to another round of questioning that becomes so repetitive and suggestive that Papadopoulos asks, “I don’t know if you are trying to implant a memory in my mind, or what. But I cannot sit here and tell you I told [the Trump campaign] about emails when I don’t have a memory of doing that.”  
That didn’t stop the Mueller team. They continued for seven hours, suggesting Papadopoulos had indeed told the Trump campaign about the hacked email rumor that Mifsud fed to him.  
“Unfortunately,” Papadopoulos writes, “the truth was not what they wanted to hear. No matter how much Robert Mueller and his team of FBI agents and prosecutors wished I had told the campaign members about Mifsud’s claim, I hadn’t.” 

The interesting aspect to this, of course, is that Kevin Clinesmith has already admitted to submitting fraudulently altered documents to the FISC. IG Horowitz referred Clinesmith's case to John Durham for consideration of criminal prosecution of Clinesmith. I assume that when Clinesmith was selected to interview Papadopoulos, there was more to that decision than Weissmann popping into Clinesmith's office and saying, 'Hey, why don't you go talk to Papadopoulos, OK?' This was an interview that could have potentially led to Trump's impeachment and removal from office, so I assume that many hours of preparation went into that interrogation. I further assume that Durham and his team want Clinesmith to tell them all about that preparation, in excruciating detail. They will want to know who made the decisions, who led the discussion of tactics, goals, etc. What they hoped to obtain from Papadopoulos.

11 comments:

  1. -->“I don’t know if you are trying to implant a memory in my mind, or what. But I cannot sit here and tell you I told [the Trump campaign] about emails when I don’t have a memory of doing that.”<--

    Seven hours of that and anyone might, as Dershowitz remarks, sing and compose, just to end the ordeal. I wonder how overtly this tactic of overly long interrogation with questions repeated over and over, is in actuality an attempt to couch a preferred story from the witness to the event in question. The power of suggestion, especially repeated, is robust.

    Now I've not read PapaD's book, but the Mifsud meeting couldn't have taken very long--small talk chit-chat breaking the ice, and then Mifsud plants the seed with PapaD, hoping it germinates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll bet that if someone did a bit of searching they'd come up with some studies to support that. "Implant a memory" is a nice phrase.

      Delete
    2. Here's the technique used on an 18 year old:

      >False Confessions<
      https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/02/27/false-confessions/

      Delete
    3. Thanks. The difference is there was a video of the false confession. There was no video of Papadopoulos' 7 hour interrogation.

      Delete
    4. This isn't the first time that I, or anyone else, for that matter, has broached the topic of taping interviews.

      It benefits the truth-teller, whether that is the subject or the investigator. That's probably why it isn't used.

      It's interesting how Dems and Reps and conservatives and liberals are switching positions due to government abuse. For example, I'm now a huge fan of Miranda readings (I didn't use to have much opinion either way) when I read how Weissmann, et. al., abuse PapaD and others. Maybe a new Miranda right is that as soon as I say "I want a lawyer", the investigators must cease and desist in questioning me.

      There is such an unequal balance in power that the common man needs all the help he can get. If a few guilty men go free to protect a lot of innocent men, so be it. Technology has given a lopsided advantage to the government.

      Delete
    5. Years ago I might have disagreed, but not now.

      Delete
    6. You and I agree because we are both in pursuit of the truth in our lives. I want the truth whether I like it or not. It's the truth. Others pursue power, the end result, money, etc. They go by the names of Weissmann, Brennan, Schiff, etc.

      I'm assuming that Robert Davis is innocent. I see no reason to believe that he's not, other than the prosecutors assertion that he was an accomplice to the brother and sister.

      If he is innocent, this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

      Delete
    7. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the Readers Digest was a conservative publication, at least on many topics. They'd have articles about Soviet abuses of citizens, kangaroo courts, how electricity couldn't be provided because of Communist rule, etc.

      I was so proud and thankful to be an American. Now I see how corrupt we've become. My illusions have been shattered. But, that is a good thing. (That my illusions are shattered; not the corruption).

      Delete
  2. The key takeaway from this anecdote is that the FBI's conduct during the RussiaGate Hoax was not simply malfeasance, but crossed the line into overt criminal behavior. These actions were not "mistakes" or the rogue actions of a few bad apples. Rather, this is an example of a systemic disease that infected the FBI as a result of the dirty cops that inhibited the highest levels of the FBI at the DC headquarters and several key field offices.

    And this is a problem that Wray will not (and likely cannot) address, either because he suffers from the same institutional corruption or simply lacks the manhood necessary to fix a problem this big.

    Trump and Barr cannot ignore this problem forever, and it still applies to DOJ and CIA as well.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Here is information on memory implantation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_implantation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Bebe. It's a good example of why false statement prosecutions are so prone to abuse.

      Delete