Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

bathroommonkey76

(3,827 posts)
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:11 PM Dec 2017

(THREAD) BREAKING - The NYT has published a bombshell report on George Papadopoulos [View all]



(THREAD) BREAKING: The NYT has published a bombshell report on George Papadopoulos—the biggest Trump-Russia news since Flynn's plea. This thread dissects the new revelations—as well as some major implications for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. I hope you'll read and share.

1/ First, here's the article. The NYT foregrounds the story's significance as a rebuttal of Trump's claims the Russia investigation began with the Steele Dossier. But in fact, anyone who knows criminal investigations knew long ago Trump's claim was untrue.




2/ As has been discussed by @AshaRangappa_, the Steele Dossier alone would never have been enough to earn the FBI the July 2016 FISA warrant it was granted to monitor Carter Page. So attorneys and those in intelligence long ago knew the Dossier didn't launch the probe by itself.

3/ The NYT story gives us—it appears—an additional piece of the warrant application the FBI filed to get a FISA warrant in July '16. But again, this is merely a piece—as was the Dossier. We know multiple intelligence agencies, not just Australia's, provided the FBI with evidence.

4/ So Trump's claim that the FBI grabbed a dossier of raw intelligence it hadn't yet confirmed and ran to the FISA court to secure a warrant to wiretap Americans connected to the Trump campaign has been laughably false from Day 1. And media has not done enough to underscore that.

5/ What we learn from the NYT (though again it's not—contrary to what the NYT seems to believe from its headline—what makes today's breaking news significant) is that the Australians informed U.S. law enforcement in July 2016 that Papadopoulos had made covert contact with Russia.

6/ In fact, while today's NYT story is indeed this month's second-biggest Trump-Russia revelation—after the December 1 guilty plea by Mike Flynn—what makes it significant isn't that it rebuts Trump's false claims but that it may have *sealed the Trump-Russia collusion narrative*.

7/ If the NYT understood this, it would've led with it. But one must know the *prior* reporting on Papadopoulos to understand why today's news constitutes one of the biggest revelations in the 18-monthy history of the Trump-Russia probe. So I'll *briefly* summarize what we know.

8/ On September 22—40 days before we learned Papadopoulos was cooperating with the Mueller probe—I said that he had directly identified himself to Trump as a Kremlin agent in March 2016. This led to major-media coverage of the now-infamous "TIHDC meeting."




9/ It hadn't previously been discussed that Papadopoulos was at the first meeting of Trump's national security (NatSec) team at the Trump International Hotel in DC (TIHDC) on March 31, 2016. But he was there—a *week* after revealing himself as a Kremlin agent to the NatSec team.

10/ So when (per the NYT) Papadopoulos revealed in May '16 to an Australian diplomat that he knew Russia had committed major federal crimes against the U.S.—via computer theft and fraud—it was two months after he told Trump's NatSec team *and Trump* he was in contact with Russia.

11/ The nature of the contact that Papadopoulos revealed in March 2016 to Trump and his team was that he was a *legal* agent—in the law we'd say "special agent"—of the Kremlin. He was authorized to represent the Kremlin's interests in setting up a clandestine Trump-Putin meeting.

12/ That authority came to Papadopoulos—from Kremlin officials—through another Kremlin agent, Joseph Mifsud. This is why Papadopoulos, per public reporting by WP, identified himself to Trump on March 31, 2017 as a Kremlin "intermediary" designated not by Trump but by the Kremlin.

13/ As has been exhaustively detailed by WaPo (WP), Trump's NatSec team spent *two months*—from March to May of 2016—discussing how to handle Papadopoulos' "offer" of acting as an intermediary between Trump and Putin. They did *not* dismiss the offer in March, whatever some say.

14/ It was in the *middle* of this deliberation by the NatSec team that Papadopoulos, in April 2016, was told the Kremlin had committed federal computer crimes by stealing emails from a presidential candidate. Papadopoulos *knew* his team was then deliberating a Trump-Putin meet.

15/ During this period, Papadopoulos was *personally* hounding top Trump officials—per the WP—to give him more authority and allow him to travel abroad to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting. His April intelligence on the Clinton emails was *without a doubt* a card he would've played.

16/ So while Australian law enforcement knew of the stolen Clinton emails in May 2016, and the FBI knew by July 2016 (via Australia), it's a *lock* that Papadopoulos gave this intel to Trump and his campaign—from whom he wanted present authority *and* a future job—in April 2016.

17/ So when Trump said, in July 2016, "Russia, if you're listening..." let's be clear—he a) knew they were listening, b) knew they'd stolen the emails he was urging them to release, and c)—this is key—had already promised, *via Papadopoulos*, to reward them for being good to him.

18/ This is the first real bombshell from the NYT: we now know Papadopoulos helped write the April 27, 2016 speech in which Trump promised Russia a "good deal" if they'd be his "friend," and that Trump *knew* Papadopoulos would transmit to Russia that that speech was a *message*.

19/ In March 2017, I was the first to argue that Trump's Mayflower Speech was the orchestrated beginning of a negotiation with the Russians—a negotiation about unilaterally dropping Russian sanctions. That thread essentially launched this feed (see link).




20/ The NYT has just confirmed the crux of that March 2017 thread: that Trump had—by April 27, 2016—established sufficient means to send a message to Russia that the careful placement of Kislyak at the event (violating diplomatic protocol) signaled the beginning of a negotiation.

21/ Per the NYT, Papadopoulos was that means. Papadopoulos told Trump he was a Kremlin agent; Trump put Papadopoulos on his campaign's Russia beat (not Papadopoulos' specialization); he let him help with the Mayflower Speech; he knew Papadopoulos would communicate that to Russia

22/ Per the NYT, Papadopoulos working on the Mayflower Speech was a signal to Russia negotiations had begun. So: Papadopoulos tells Russia he's helping with Trump's foreign policy; Russia tells him of the emails; Papadopoulos tells the campaign; Trump offers Russia a "good deal."

More
23/ All of this happens in April 2016, which is why Papadopoulos was feeling pretty damn good about himself in May 2016 when he let slip about the emails to an Australian diplomat.

It also explains why Trump was so frustrated when the Kremlin didn't give Don the emails in June.

24/ Don was excited to meet Kremlin agents in June 2016 to get Clinton "dirt" because Papadopoulos told the campaign in April Russia had that dirt. When Veselnitskaya left only a slim file with Don, the campaign was dissatisfied. They thought Russia would then release the emails.

25/ That didn't happen—other hacked info was released instead—which is why Trump made the appeal himself, on TV, in July 2016.

He'd already promised Russia a "good deal" on sanctions if they'd be a "friend"—he said he'd "reward" friends—but he felt they hadn't delivered enough.

26/ I've been arguing on this feed for over six months now that Trump-Russia collusion is *already known*: Trump negotiated sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for continued assistance with leaks—which constitutes *Aiding and Abetting Computer Crimes*.




27/ In October, I made this case in even greater detail.




28/ There is much, much more to say here about the NYT story and everything we know about Papadopoulos that makes this NYT story *much* bigger than the NYT thinks. But I have to take a break for a couple hours for an important event.

I will return *immediately* after with more.
107 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Malcolm Nance is right, it's a conspiracy. madaboutharry Dec 2017 #1
I also believe the high-ranking republican elected pols were in on this, too! TheDebbieDee Dec 2017 #2
Yes, exactly. lark Dec 2017 #73
#TrumpRussia 50 tweet MEGA-THREAD by Seth -- history's most explosive intel dossier ..... L. Coyote Dec 2017 #81
Wow, thanks for sharing this excellent synopsis, really pulls the whole picture together. lark Jan 2018 #103
Hearings will happen, meanwhile there is a deference to Mueller's investigation and its integrity. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #104
Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2017 #23
And throw away the key. dchill Dec 2017 #27
I was glad to see that jerkoff Miller implicated dawg day Dec 2017 #76
How long before Mueller delivers? quartz007 Dec 2017 #77
Ooooh! I've got a feeling FakeNoose Dec 2017 #83
Trump is a principal in the conspiracy of Aiding & Abetting Computer Crimes; can be charged with it. NBachers Dec 2017 #3
Paragraph 26 AmericanActivist Dec 2017 #4
They all knew and went along with this treason. BSdetect Dec 2017 #5
It's a flippin' James Bond movie. nolabear Dec 2017 #6
or "All the President's Men" revisited. calimary Dec 2017 #91
True dat. They're thieves, pure and simple. nolabear Dec 2017 #92
I dont want impeachment benld74 Dec 2017 #7
Same here. I want serious retribution. Wwcd Dec 2017 #9
Impeach Neil Gorsuch Thunderbeast Dec 2017 #16
That too! dchill Dec 2017 #28
I looked it up and a member of the Supreme Court can be impeached. If it can be proved Maraya1969 Dec 2017 #33
Sweet.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #65
Yes, and the grounds are simple. tomp Dec 2017 #53
I'm with you on this leanforward Dec 2017 #20
This defacto7 Dec 2017 #24
The end of the GOP would be another alternative / add-on. But I'm with you. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #44
Remove all dump-appointed heads of govt Departments and Agencies. BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2017 #63
All Executive Orders reversed, as well. nt Ilsa Dec 2017 #70
Yes, yes, yes... N_E_1 for Tennis Dec 2017 #71
When Cornyn blocked Obama's Wellstone ruled Dec 2017 #8
coming back tomorrow to read this rurallib Dec 2017 #10
I wish these bloggers, reporter types would come up with some word other than pangaia Dec 2017 #11
why not link to the NYT article instead of giving this guy so much free self promotion? msongs Dec 2017 #12
If you're a news hound, no one can read the NYT unless babylonsister Dec 2017 #14
That's not true babylonsister bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #59
Why not click on the link that is provided in this thread bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #15
Start your own thread if you don't like it. phleshdef Dec 2017 #21
??? You are welcome to start your own post and quit complaining! nt USALiberal Dec 2017 #26
Seth Abramson is a respected law professor FakeNoose Dec 2017 #86
This Ultimately.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #13
I think that meeting was imprompto Merlot Dec 2017 #45
You are probably right.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #64
Very interesting LiberalBrooke Dec 2017 #67
comeys Cell phone, hotwired elehhhhna Dec 2017 #68
Big Boom indeed! This looks exceptionally bad for the entire GOP. bronxiteforever Dec 2017 #17
Noted. leanforward Dec 2017 #22
Is this Fake News? BadGimp Dec 2017 #18
Tell your friend, "No. No they don't, Don." dchill Dec 2017 #30
This is laugh out loud funny! Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2017 #55
KNR Lucinda Dec 2017 #19
K&R... spanone Dec 2017 #25
Sorry to disappoint, but this has been all over DU and the internet since at least this morning. George II Dec 2017 #29
team trump knew about the emails mercuryblues Dec 2017 #31
Good thumbnail summary. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #42
Starting to detect a pattern ... when Two Scoops goes too far off the rails with his bullshit ... mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #32
Yes, NYT always checks it stories with principals, so Gang get alerted & go ape (in tRump's case) nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #36
Now, that quote from an unidentified member of the intel community calimary Dec 2017 #47
I've been thinking for a while now... better Dec 2017 #49
Donnie Two Scoops Scarsdale Dec 2017 #69
Thank you for posting it all; it's a gadawful thing to have to do (hard enough to read). . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #34
It took a couple of minutes. bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #57
From Sen. Blumenthal via Twitter. sarcasmo Dec 2017 #35
When did he post that tweet? bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #58
Yesterday NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #80
NICE !!! uponit7771 Dec 2017 #102
RW line today was that Sen Lindsey Graham had "confirmed" that the Steele Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #37
And, it was recently shown NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #72
Kind of annoying how Seth Abramson thinks he knows more than the NY Times oberliner Dec 2017 #38
Meanwhile NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #74
abramson is trying to inform the public so no one can cover all this up questionseverything Dec 2017 #88
As I recall, Abramson was first one emphasizing the important Mayflower event wishstar Dec 2017 #96
NY Times has raw facts MaryMagdaline Jan 2018 #105
Mueller is still going to have to prove that improved relations with Russia Calista241 Dec 2017 #39
Denying collusion 16 times is not acting like he's going down? bucolic_frolic Dec 2017 #46
I would bet my last dollar Trump never got on the phone and said Calista241 Dec 2017 #50
Trump fired Comey and by all accounts John Fante Dec 2017 #51
Trump can say that he fired Comey for legit reasons. Calista241 Dec 2017 #52
I don't see how this in any way invalidates the previous post. triron Dec 2017 #54
I suppose it doesnt. Calista241 Dec 2017 #60
Solid convo here ... lot of good points raised ... mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #62
Comey firing memo came from Rosenstein! quartz007 Dec 2017 #79
Your assumptions are completely wrong Juliusseizure Dec 2017 #89
Excellent! triron Dec 2017 #90
This. So much this Arazi Dec 2017 #48
RICO. BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #66
A RICO prosecution for money laundering is not in the cards. Calista241 Dec 2017 #78
Sorry but BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #85
They need significantly more than just tax records to prove a money laundering case. Calista241 Dec 2017 #87
Why are you assuming they are as incompetent BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #93
I have said no such thing Calista241 Dec 2017 #95
What? BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #97
If George Papa NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #75
"improved Russia relations" is only one of tons of quid pro quo's that could be established no? tia uponit7771 Dec 2017 #100
As If We Didn't Know Me. Dec 2017 #40
Yes, must be. But his NYT leaker got confused / upstaged by the tRump interview. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #41
This piece has been a long time in the making bucolic_frolic Dec 2017 #43
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2017 #56
Coffee Boy? dlk Dec 2017 #61
Wine boy underpants Dec 2017 #82
There's actually more to this thread in case RandomAccess Dec 2017 #84
Hope that's close (to 90+%)! triron Dec 2017 #94
The problem, however NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #98
That was a mystery -- I didn't find any tweets in the middle RandomAccess Dec 2017 #99
Seth added to the thread today bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #101
OMG. Thanks. His additions are REALLY important IMO RandomAccess Jan 2018 #106
Meanwhile, over in the land of "fearless and adversarial" journalism: Blue_Tires Jan 2018 #107
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»(THREAD) BREAKING - The N...