« Horowitz's Futile Attempt to Polish the FBI Turd by Larry C Johnson | Main | The impeachment - 13 December 2019 »

10 December 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

English Outsider

Mr Habakkuk - "As far as I can judge at the moment, the Horowitz report shows every sign of being a classic ‘limited hangout’, which will greatly assist the efforts of a group of seditious conspirators to portray themselves as not much worse than panic-stricken bunglers."

I see what you mean.  A "limited hangout" is required because there's a danger that in lifting one corner of the conspiracy they lift all.  Get to the bottom of the Steele affair and the general public will start looking more sceptically at Litvinenko, Skripal - then possibly on to any number of events where we've most of us in the general public bought the official line and most of us in the general public are still happy with that official line.

Can't be allowed to happen.  And won't.  On the other hand there are some  powerful American politicians who are indignant at the conspiracy to damage Trump and who need to see the fact that there was a conspiracy publicly and indisputably acknowledged by a court or by an official investigator.

So the problem they have is how to lift one corner to vindicate Trump without having to lift many others and thus allowing other scandals coming to light.  We might be seeing this attempted limitation of the investigation in Senator Sasse's suggestion -  "Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the collusion was between the DNC and the FBI..."  (28.58 of that part of the (as yet incomplete) transcript) -

https://www.rev.com/blog/inspector-general-report-hearing-transcript-michael-horowitz-testifies-on-fbis-findings

That would meet the need for an exposure of what happened at the American end without needing to go further.  Or perhaps the even more limited possible scenario that Mr Johnson sets out above - "that will expose the FBI, at a minimum, as unwitting dupes out-smarted by duplicitous intelligence operatives."

That can easily become, as reported by the BBC (above) -

"Democrats said the report undercuts Mr Trump's repeated claims that he was the victim of a "witch hunt".

"It was never a witch hunt, Democratic Senator Mark Warner said on Twitter.  "It was the men and women of federal law enforcement doing their jobs.""

That is the "limited hangout" that you fear, and with your encyclopaedic knowledge of all the moving parts and how they relate to each other you can see how that could occur.  But it does seem to me, at the other end of that scale of knowledge admittedly, that the Horowitz report, as expanded at the hearing, could also open the way for a more comprehensive account of the conspiracy.

English Outsider

Just ought to say to this - "If it does not bother you to learn that the FBI repeatedly and deliberately deceived the FISA court into granting it permission to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign, then it is virtually certain that you are either someone with no principles, someone who cares only about partisan advantage and nothing about basic civil liberties and the rule of law, or both."

You bet it bothers me. Not as much as running Jihadis into Syria to wreck a country, or using Right Sector street fighters in Kyiv to effect a coup but yes, it bothers me.

But just as witnessing a crime does not make one party to it, attempting to understand the circumstances in which this conspiracy went forward does not mean one approves or condones what was done.

Three years ago the British government failed to disavow a scurrilous and well publicised attack on a new US President. That's a little more than just a minor diplomatic hitch. As the possibility of an innocent explanation for that failure recedes ever further, I reckon the implications of that should bother quite a few people either side of the Atlantic.

ex PFC Chuck

Judge Sullivan did not rule in the way you predicted, Larry. Can this be appealed now? Or will the lower court process have to run to completion?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-denies-flynns-requests-for-exculpatory-information-case-dismissal_3176162.html

Keith Harbaugh

As EZ observed in his two questions at the beginning of his comment above:

A very key issue is how Papad got introduced to Mifsud and Downer.
The answer is significant, involving a curious change in attitude,
as Papad explains in his 2019 book
Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
The following presents some relevant excerpts from that book (emphasis is added):

In very early 2016, while working for an outfit called Energy Stream, Papad writes:
“I am approached by a man named Nagi Khlaid Idris who offers me a position at the London Centre of International Law Practice”. (p. 27)
Papad takes the ICILP position.

While there, Papad emails the Trump campaign, seeking a position,
which gets a positive response, pending a Skype interview.
He tells his colleagues at LCILP about the good news:

I notify Nagi that it is likely I’ll be joining the Trump campaign.
Nagi’s warm, “you are a star” attitude toward me immediately shifts.
“What are you thinking? Why would you do this?”
The hostility is palpable and leaves me confused.

Then another London Centre Director, Peter Dovey, drops by [and] rips into me:
“This is very bad. You should not be working with Trump.
He’s a threat to society. He’s a racist. He’s anti-Muslim. (p. 34)
In the interview, Papad impresses his interviewer, Samuel Clovis and is offered a position with the Trump campaign.
Papad records the reaction at ICILP:
Nagi comes by my office again.
His attitude has suddenly changed.
It’s a night-and-day difference.
He starts telling me there is someone I have to meet,
a very important person who will be very useful to me during my time with Trump.
I remember Nagi telling me,
“He’s a man who knows many people.”
(p. 36)

The introduction occurs a few days later (on March 12, 2016), during a trip of Idris, Papad, etc. to Link Campus Univ. in Rome.
Papad writes about what happens there:

I’m sitting in a conference room when Nagi Idris approaches.
At his side is a well-dressed man in his mid-fifties.
“George,” Nagi says.
“This is Professor Joseph Mifsud,, and you should talk.”

Joseph Mifsud is the man Nagi had planned for me to meet,
the man Nagi had asked Arvinder Sambei to contact,
and the man Nagi had portrayed as a major player,
a guy with diplomatic experience and extensive contacts. (p. 39)

Papad, et al. then return to London, where
“[Nagi Idris] tells me I’m going to meet Putin’s niece.” (p. 41)
This seems to be where that fictitious person entered Papad’s consciousness.


Papad’s introduction to Downer is equally arranged, just by different people, two people named Erika Thompson (who worked for Downer) and her friend Christian Cantor (who worked for the Israeli government) (p. 71).
The relations were Papad -> Cantor -> Thompson -> Downer.
This introduction was not at the volition of Papad,
but desired by the intermediate two.

Now for some dates and details:
The events described above occured in March-May 2016.
Papad was interviewed by the FBI on 2017-01-27, the interview which led to the charges against him.
Relevant government documents are:
2017-07-28 Complaint https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.189898.1.0.pdf
2017-10-06 STATEMENT OF OFFENSE (includes his guilty plea) https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.189898/gov.uscourts.dcd.189898.19.0_2.pdf
These give exactly the government’s version of what Papad said to them, and what they allege to be the true facts.
Then, in March 2019, Papad published his book,
from which the above excerpts were taken.
(The page numbers are from the print edtion; they are different from those in the apple edition from which LJ quoted in his 2019-04-22 post, "Mueller's Lies About George Papadopolous").
Anyhow, the point is that Papad had over a year to reconcile the government’s version of what he said with his memory.

It seems a central point is gaining information about Nagi Khlaid Idris and the London Centre of International Law Practice.
Also, to a lesser extent, Christian Cantor and Erika Thompson.
Anybody have information about at least the first two?

Keith Harbaugh

This seems to be an excellent analysis of the Page FISA application by a 22-year FBI agent:

"Two Possibilities in Trump Wiretapping, and Neither Is Good"
By Frank Watt, American Thinker, 2019-12-27

A sample:

The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every "bell" in the FBIs and Attorney General's Guidelines for sensitive investigations.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

May 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad