• How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt
    15 replies, posted
[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html]Source[/url] [QUOTE]During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign. Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role. The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired. If Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature. He was brash, boastful and underqualified, yet he exceeded expectations. And, like the campaign itself, he proved to be a tantalizing target for a Russian influence operation. While some of Mr. Trump’s advisers have derided him an insignificant campaign volunteer or a “coffee boy,” interviews and new documents show that he stayed influential throughout the campaign. Two months before the election, for instance, he helped arrange a New York meeting between Mr. Trump and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt. The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election? It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies. Interviews and previously undisclosed documents show that Mr. Papadopoulos played a critical role in this drama and reveal a Russian operation that was more aggressive and widespread than previously known. They add to an emerging portrait, gradually filled in over the past year in revelations by federal investigators, journalists and lawmakers, of Russians with government contacts trying to establish secret channels at various levels of the Trump campaign. The F.B.I. investigation, which was taken over seven months ago by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s first year in office — even as he and his aides repeatedly played down the Russian efforts and falsely denied campaign contacts with Russians. They have also insisted that Mr. Papadopoulos was a low-level figure. But spies frequently target peripheral players as a way to gain insight and leverage. F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election. But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot. John O. Brennan, who retired this year after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers. Russia, he said, had tried to “suborn” members of the Trump campaign. [/QUOTE]
So, this is [I]interesting[/I]. Another piece of evidence proving that the Trump campaign knew by April or May 2016 that Russia was ready to interfere with the campaign and fuck over Hillary. And the investigation started, according to this story, not because of the dossier, but because Australian diplomats told their American contacts about Papadopoulis' loose lips. Considering Papadopopopopo has flipped and is now a cooperating witness in Mueller's investigation, this means one of two things: 1) Mueller knew about this months ago, and has probably caught several Trump transition team members, including Kushner, in lies as a result, or 2) Mueller did [I]not[/I] know about this, meaning Papadopoulis didn't tell him everything, which will not make Mueller happy. This really is Watergate But Everyone's Totally Retarded after all.
maybe things would be easier for the Trump team if they had just told the authorities as soon as the Russians started interfering. their honesty might have even won them the election fair and square
[quote]Mr. Papadopoulos was trusted enough to edit the outline of Mr. Trump’s first major foreign policy speech on April 27, an address in which the candidate said it was possible to improve relations with Russia. Mr. Papadopoulos flagged the speech to his newfound Russia contacts, telling Mr. Timofeev that it should be taken as “the signal to meet.” “That is a statesman speech,” Mr. Mifsud agreed. Ms. Polonskaya wrote that she was pleased that Mr. Trump’s “position toward Russia is much softer” than that of other candidates.[/quote] The "Coffee Boy" who literally wrote Trump's foreign policy positions. It's simple: if the campaign was aware of his communications (it was) and encouraged them (they did) and followed up on them (which, again, they did -- through Carter Page), then they are guilty of federal crimes against our country, and the greatest betrayal of our public and our democracy in US history. A [I]quid pro quo[/I] exchange of pro-Russian foreign policy positions negotiated by a private citizen running for office in exchange for a state sponsored cyberterrorism campaign from Russia targeting his political rivals, and which sowe public violence and dissent to exploit for his own gain, is criminal conspiracy, [I]at best[/I] -- and possibly even outright treason given Russia's openly hostile position towards the United States.
I agree with you, BDA, but let's not use words like 'Cyberterrorism'. Being hyperbolic it weakens the impact of your statement.
[QUOTE=archangel125;53016267]I agree with you, BDA, but let's not use words like 'Cyberterrorism'. Being hyperbolic it weakens the impact of your statement.[/QUOTE] That's literally what it is.
[QUOTE=archangel125;53016267]I agree with you, BDA, but let's not use words like 'Cyberterrorism'. Being hyperbolic it weakens the impact of your statement.[/QUOTE] What word should I use? Nearly every facet of this election was attacked by state-sponsored Russian hackers with the direct intention of destabilizing our country politically, socially, and economically.[URL="https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-page-organized-protest-texas-different-russian-page-l/"] It even went so far as to organize competing protests at the same time and location with the specific goal of inciting violence[/URL]. If "terrorism" isn't an appropriate word, the only other one I could imagine would adequately describe this campaign is "warfare," and in either case a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the people responsible is nothing short of treason. [editline]/[/editline] Not trying to be belligerent -- I'm open to suggestions. I'm honestly just not sure what else to call such deliberate attacks with such destructive aims.
In retrospect this make James Comey look really bad.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53016600]In retrospect this make James Comey look really bad.[/QUOTE] Why? Care to elaborate?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;53016616]Why? Care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] He would have known about this very early on but decided to meddle with the clinton email investigation instead.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53016725]He would have known about this very early on but decided to meddle with the clinton email investigation instead.[/QUOTE] Or he did both because the Bureau because they can do that.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;53016760]Or he did both because the Bureau because they can do that.[/QUOTE] The FBI did investigate both but for some reason didn't reveal one of them. Why is that?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53016871]The FBI did investigate both but for some reason didn't reveal one of them. Why is that?[/QUOTE] James Comey made a really, really bad mistake that he himself has been recounted as regretting. He felt like he had to keep a balance within the FBI, which at that point last year was already showing some partisan leanings in both directions. It's probably best he kept this close because it needs to be investigated fully. The secrecy he provided will hopefully let us get to the bottom of this.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53016871]The FBI did investigate both but for some reason didn't reveal one of them. Why is that?[/QUOTE] Because it came up. The actual problem came from someone, a certain individual with ties to Trump, leaking it and making it a big deal, not Comey.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53016871]The FBI did investigate both but for some reason didn't reveal one of them. Why is that?[/QUOTE] My memory's really fuzzy, but from what I recall not revealing it would undermine FBI's authority since apparently there was some false evidence involved in the investigation (even though FBI knew it was false). I recall him talking about it at the last hearing he was on, but honestly it's been a while. I hope someone can correct me on that.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53016317]What word should I use? Nearly every facet of this election was attacked by state-sponsored Russian hackers with the direct intention of destabilizing our country politically, socially, and economically.[URL="https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-page-organized-protest-texas-different-russian-page-l/"] It even went so far as to organize competing protests at the same time and location with the specific goal of inciting violence[/URL]. If "terrorism" isn't an appropriate word, the only other one I could imagine would adequately describe this campaign is "warfare," and in either case a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the people responsible is nothing short of treason. [editline]/[/editline] Not trying to be belligerent -- I'm open to suggestions. I'm honestly just not sure what else to call such deliberate attacks with such destructive aims.[/QUOTE] I'm something of a stickler for the definition of terrorism. Especially since 9/11. According to google: [quote]the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.[/quote] Ergo, violence with the intent of sowing terror. Start calling electoral interference and online propaganda 'terrorism' and you dilute the word, make it applicable to practically anything. Sorry it took me a few days to reply, by the way. But I seriously don't like the use of the word 'terrorism' for anything but its official definition, it becomes a buzzword with no meaning and the intent to provoke an emotional response above all else. The GOP has been repeatedly guilty of misusing it like that, and I hate to see the intellectuals on this forum going the same way. Instead of calling it terrorism, call it an attack on US sovereignty. That's perfectly accurate, and has historically been the most just of [I]Casi Belli[/I], or a just cause for war. In carrying out this interference, Russia has positioned itself firmly as a hostile nation, even if not officially recognized as an enemy state. It's serious enough without overblowing it by calling it 'cyberterrorism'. If I'm to concede that cyberterrorism actually exists, as much as I hate the word, I'd say that only something as serious as a cyberattack on a nation's essential infrastructure - full blown electronic warfare - would count.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.