Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[James DiEugenio]

David:

That was a plea deal.  It was another process crime that Mueller got him on.   It was  a  perjury trap.  He was never tried, let alone convicted, on anything dealing with Russia Gate, just like no one else has been.

 

Paul:

As I have said, that report was commissioned by the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch.  If congress does not like the redacted version that Barr will likely give them, then they have the option of going to court.  Which I am sure they will do.

Edited March 30, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

Papadopolous’ lawyers negotiated a plea deal over two charges of “lying” to the FBI. Papadopolous said his introduction to mysterious professor Mifsud and Mifsud’s introduction of a fake “Putin’s niece” occurred before he was appointed to the Trump campaign, when actually such appointment occurred shortly before. Was he lying or was he simply mistaken? The indictment doesn’t establish how exactly the FBI were at all hindered by the misappropriation, as they already knew the material facts which were easily verifiable. The amazing thing, considering all the speculation, is that Papadopolous was a passive figure other than trying to impress the Trump campaign by making Russian contact (efforts which were not successful and received little response). Mifsud was the active party in befriending Papadopolous, in arranging the fake “Putin’s niece” episode, and in sharing information that Russians had Clinton emails. Similarly, it was Alex Downer who took the initiative and arranged to meet Papadopolous, a meeting which Papadopolous says consisted of one drink and in which Russia never came up. Then Downer waited seven weeks before contacting US authorities supposedly because Papadopolous supposedly spilled the beans over Russia’s involvement with Clinton emails. It seems the investigators really needed to speak to Mifsud and Downer, but apparently never did.

Controversy over the release/non-release of the Mueller Report has been largely driven by a poor understanding of legal procedure. This is entirely the fault of the media. I had previously shared an interview with attorney John Dowd in which the procedure was clearly explained. I’ll relink as it is distinctly sober and grounded compared to most everything else:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

The Mike Rogers/ FISA story is the other shoe which will soon drop when an Inspector-General report is released. The rampant misuse of surveillance authorities is the actual shocking information of this whole imbroglio, but most persons have no clue because the media has been wildly misrepresenting the facts.

[Douglas Caddy]

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

[Douglas Caddy]

Daniel Hopsicker posted this on Facebook yesterday:

 

A CLIFF NOTE'S VERSION OF WHAT MUELLER FOUND II

New York Mob affiliate Donald Trump made common cause with a Russian Mob Boss named Semion Mogilevich. On the U....S. side of the Russiagate equation were gangsters as well as Saudis led by Adnan Khashoggi.

Trump’s links to Khashoggi take hours to fully detail. Both were part of Germany’s criminal Deutsche Bank’s money laundering operation for Russian Mobsters. For Deutsche Bank’s grift with Khashoggi, the bank was fined $278 million.

Working in Khashoggi’s financial fraud and drug trafficking operation— he’d been named in a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report — was Sarasota grifter Jonathan Curshen (currently in prison until 2030), along with Steve Bannon’s chief lieutenant Andy Badolato.

Khashoggi and his chief lieutenant Ramy El Batrawi will later be deeply implicated in the two defining drug trafficking busts of the early 21st Century. Both involved American-registered planes flying out of St. Petersburg Florida.

Pavel, Curshen, Voyeurdorm

In the early 1990’s Curshen had attempted a last minute save of Semion Mogilevich’s effort to worm his way into the Western financial system with a company named YBM Magnex, by offering to take the company private on the eve of the Fed’s seizure of the entire enterprise.

Pavel Vrublevsky, the first Russian hacker named by the FBI, ran back-end operations for a Khashoggi-owned company called “Blue Moon Group Inc,” run by Tampa Mobster Mike Muzio, (currently in prison) that ran dozens of Mob porn sites.

A Guyanese drug pilot named Michael Francis Brassington flew co-pilot in 2000-2001 on a Lear jet (N351WB) belonging to Wally Hilliard, owner of Huffman Aviation in Venice Florida, where Mohamed Atta was then taking flying lessons.

When Hilliard’s Lear jet was caught with 43 lbs of heroin in Orlando in late July 2000, The Orlando Sentinel (Aug 2 2000) called it a “record-setting heroin seizure.”

Evidence in Orlando Federal court indicated that before being busted the Lear jet made 39 weekly drug flights from Venezuela to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, to Teeterboro Airport outside New York City.

Oleg the Oligarch

Wally Hilliard was charged in 2004 with flying “numerous unauthorized and unsupervised flights” for Saudi nationals. Discovery showed a Hilliard-owned Lear jet had also been flying regularly, without an FAA air carrier operating certificate, to Rum Cay in the Bahamas for Adnan Khashoggi, who was involved in a struggle for control of the isolated island and its recently-completed 5000-foot runway.

Back home in Guyana, Brassington’s politically prominent family cut a billion dollar bauxite deal—while Brassington’s father and uncle were successive Ministers of Privatisation—with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Several years later Deripaska became Paul Manafort’s $18 mil-a-yr sugar daddy, as well as, no doubt coincidentally, Kellyanne Conway’s neighbor in Washington D.C.

In April 2004 pilot Michael Brassington entered the US through Fort Lauderdale International Airport. The lone U.S. Customs Agent on duty, J. L. Sanders, a rookie, saw that Brassington’s computer profile showed the him listed as a drug trafficker. But he was carrying a letter from a top Customs official clearing him to enter the U.S.

Confused, Sanders phoned his supervisor at Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). The supervisor instructed him to treat Brassington as a “grave threat to national security.”

Welcome to South Florida

“He said you can just disregard the letter, and told me to ignore it. And he described Mike Brassington to me as a ‘grave threat to national security.’ He told me that I needed to check him, search him, and search all his passengers.”

Brassington will later figure prominently as the personal pilot for deposed Turks & Caicos Premier Mike Misick in a British Commission report into allegations of systemic corruption in the British dependency of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Taking back sovereignty it had already ceded to the Turks and Caicos Islands in order to prosecute rampant corruption by Misick—an unprecedented move—left the British in a deeply awkward position. Among other more serious crimes Brassington and Misick were accused of stealing millions from government coffers in the suddenly-bankrupt Turks & Caicos.

Later there was a bitter fight to keep details of the findings from being made public, and exposed a connection between Brassington and another 9/11-connected pilot in Florida, German national Wolfgang Bohringer, said to be a close associate of Mohamed Atta’s, who became the subject of a manhunt in the South Pacific in 2006 after the FBI issued a terror alert for him.

Brassington was convicted in 2010 in Federal Court in Newark New Jersey of endangering the lives of his passengers, who included two ex-Presidents, Luciano Pavarotti, Keith Richards, Burt Reynolds and Snoop Doggie Dogg, because of a near-fatal crash of one of his charter company’s luxury jets at Teterboro Airport outside New York City.

There are not “multiple truths.” The truth is not subject to long division. There are, however, multiple interpretations. But the best evidence that Donald Trump’s connections with Russian Mob Boss Semion Mogilevich point to only one conclusion is in the character of the man himself.

Would he do this?

Note: I don’t know that this is what Mueller found. This is what I found. But if people feel free to characterize a report no one’s seen, I’m okay taking a little license too.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Papadopolous’ lawyers negotiated a plea deal over two charges of “lying” to the FBI. Papadopolous said his introduction to mysterious professor Mifsud and Mifsud’s introduction of a fake “Putin’s niece” occurred before he was appointed to the Trump campaign, when actually such appointment occurred shortly before. Was he lying or was he simply mistaken? The indictment doesn’t establish how exactly the FBI were at all hindered by the misappropriation, as they already knew the material facts which were easily verifiable. The amazing thing, considering all the speculation, is that Papadopolous was a passive figure other than trying to impress the Trump campaign by making Russian contact (efforts which were not successful and received little response). Mifsud was the active party in befriending Papadopolous, in arranging the fake “Putin’s niece” episode, and in sharing information that Russians had Clinton emails. Similarly, it was Alex Downer who took the initiative and arranged to meet Papadopolous, a meeting which Papadopolous says consisted of one drink and in which Russia never came up. Then Downer waited seven weeks before contacting US authorities supposedly because Papadopolous supposedly spilled the beans over Russia’s involvement with Clinton emails. It seems the investigators really needed to speak to Mifsud and Downer, but apparently never did.

Controversy over the release/non-release of the Mueller Report has been largely driven by a poor understanding of legal procedure. This is entirely the fault of the media. I had previously shared an interview with attorney John Dowd in which the procedure was clearly explained. I’ll relink as it is distinctly sober and grounded compared to most everything else:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

The Mike Rogers/ FISA story is the other shoe which will soon drop when an Inspector-General report is released. The rampant misuse of surveillance authorities is the actual shocking information of this whole imbroglio, but most persons have no clue because the media has been wildly misrepresenting the facts.

Here are some facts:

He admitted the following, in writing and under coarse instructions not to admit to something untruthful, from a Judge, duly appointed under a Republican President. His attorneys also agreed to the stipulations of the agreement and had gone over them with the defendant. The plea agreement states:

a. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor (Milsfud - warned and disappeared), who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.

b. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was " a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

c. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and that their communications consisted of emails such as, '"Hi , how are you?"' In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become an adviser to the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period of months in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

Through his false statements and omissions, defendant PAPADOPOULOS impeded the FBI 's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government' s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

That was a plea deal.  It was another process crime that Mueller got him on.   It was  a  perjury trap.  He was never tried, let alone convicted, on anything dealing with Russia Gate, just like no one else has been.

This insistence that a "process crime", the favored republican rationalization that everybody involved in them were lilly white roses, is ridiculous. To wit: The murder of Rosselli before his appearance in front of investigators would make the assassin guilty of a "process crime" that had nothing to do with the JFKA. Right (I know I'm being facetious but that's what this reasoning would conclude even if this person admitted to the murder).

Did it ever occur to you that these "process crimes" may have interfered with an investigation to the point where actionable charges would be difficult to mount? Could it be that a joint defense agreement with 20 or 30 of these people may have allowed the subjects to confer with Trump's counsel to "fix the books", which is what looks like happened to GP and Manafort at least?

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Here are some facts:

He admitted the following, in writing and under coarse instructions not to admit to something untruthful, from a Judge, duly appointed under a Republican President. His attorneys also agreed to the stipulations of the agreement and had gone over them with the defendant. The plea agreement states:

a. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor (Milsfud - warned and disappeared), who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.

b. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was " a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

c. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and that their communications consisted of emails such as, '"Hi , how are you?"' In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become an adviser to the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period of months in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

Through his false statements and omissions, defendant PAPADOPOULOS impeded the FBI 's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government' s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

This insistence that a "process crime", the favored republican rationalization that everybody involved in them were lilly white roses, is ridiculous. To wit: The murder of Rosselli before his appearance in front of investigators would make the assassin guilty of a "process crime" that had nothing to do with the JFKA. Right (I know I'm being facetious but that's what this reasoning would conclude even if this person admitted to the murder).

Did it ever occur to you that these "process crimes" may have interfered with an investigation to the point where actionable charges would be difficult to mount? Could it be that a joint defense agreement with 20 or 30 of these people may have allowed the subjects to confer with Trump's counsel to "fix the books", which is what looks like happened to GP and Manafort at least?

Bob, if you compare the indictment which you quoted to statements made by Papadopoulos and Mifsud there is a distinct disconnect between events as described by the two men and events as interpreted by the prosecutor.

In the first count, (a), the prosecutor asserts that Papadopoulos career with the Trump campaign began when he was informed he would be named an advisor, while Papadopoulos believed it officially began a few weeks later on March 31 when he first participated in a campaign meeting. That’s slicing a definition very thinly, and in context the so-called”lie” was completely inconsequential.

In the second count, (b), Papadopoulos shared his subjective opinion that Mifsud was “a nothing” - based on his personal experience whereby Mifsud was unable to establish any connections to high-placed Russians and had also arranged a fake “Putin’s niece” event. The prosecutor asserts that Papadopoulos rather “understood” Mifsud did in fact have “substantial connections” - although such understanding was based solely on Mifsud’s say-so, with no evidence that Papadopoulos sought or received any independent confirmation of such connections and entirely discounting Papadopoulos’ personal experience with Mifsud.

The third count, (c), again treats as a “lie” the completely inconsequential understanding by Papadopoulos that his active role with the campaign began with his first official appearance on March 31. The ‘Russian national” is the fake “Putin’s niece”, and it was “Putin’s niece” who initiated all further contacts, communications which Papadopoulos suspected were some kind of ruse. At no time were any connections or meetings held.

So, whatever this indictment represents, it’s not really “facts” because there is a lot more information available and the very narrow presentation by the prosecutor doesn’t really generate any understanding of the events.

The prosecutor then asserts that Papadopoulos’ subjective understandings somehow impeded the FBI’s ongoing investigation - although when he was first interviewed the FBI already had all the information, knew the individuals involved, and in fact went on to interview Joseph Mifsud shortly thereafter. He told them that his meetings with Papadopoulos were entirely “innocuous”.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/404275-what-professor-really-told-fbi-about-trump-russia-and-papadopoulos

 

[James DiEugenio]

Bob, I cannot really comprehend that you honestly think that the murder of Roselli is the same as a perjury trap. 

C'mon.

In simple terms, a perjury trap is when an FBI agent or a prosecutor gets a subject to admit something on the record that he usually knows is either contested or wrong.  It is not related to the actual aim of the inquiry, but he hopes to use it to further its ends.

You are going to compare the murder and dismemberment of Roselli, his involvement in the plots to kill Castro,  and his remains being stuffed into an oil drum to that?

This is really indicative to me of how the Democrats have stretched this thing into dimensions it simply will not fulfill.

Jeff outlined above how Mueller got George P to plead.

But again, if you read his deposition its probably even more interesting than that.  One can make a case that Mifsud was a ringer.  As Halper was.  This is an area where the Dems and the likes of Jonathan Marshall did not want to tread.

Edited March 30, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David:

That was a plea deal.  It was another process crime that Mueller got him on.   It was  a  perjury trap.  He was never tried, let alone convicted, on anything dealing with Russia Gate, just like no one else has been.

 

You are correct Jim regards Trump's "Coffee Boy" George Papadopoulos.

"Plea Deal" is not a conviction. 

However, my main point here is in regards to Papadopoulos's shameless and immediate monetizing of his notoriety no matter how trivial his involvement was in the larger picture.  

A "entire book" about this lightweight's involvement?

With the heavyweight title ... "Deep State Target?"

How embarrassing!

A much more appropriate title would have been ...

"Deep State Decaf"

"Confessions Of A Hillary Clinton Dirt Seeking Coffee Boy."

Well, like Trump himself, his family and so many in his administration and world ... it's all about the money.

Always was.

Obviously I am not Trump supporter.

I have always felt he was a very corrupt person who has actually committed serious crimes in his business affairs over decades.

I've said many times and all along that it's these corrupt business dealings that will eventually bring Trump down.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this incorrectly....

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

I find that extremely hard to believe. To me it seems much more likely that the plea deal was honest and that Papadopolous is now lying about it.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Sandy Larsen

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob, I cannot really comprehend that you honestly think that the murder of Roselli is the same as a perjury trap. 

C'mon.

In simple terms, a perjury trap is when an FBI agent or a prosecutor gets a subject to admit something on the record that he usually knows is either contested or wrong.  It is not related to the actual aim of the inquiry, but he hopes to use it to further its ends.

You are going to compare the murder and dismemberment of Roselli, his involvement in the plots to kill Castro,  and his remains being stuffed into an oil drum to that?

I was being facetious and so stated. He admitted to all of these things and yet you insist that "process crimes" have no influence on an investigation which is wrong. They do or they wouldn't be against the law. "Perjury trap" is another rationalization which is a gangster defense, or defense attorney flak, to throw suspicion on law enforcement. Trust me, I know these things from personal experience and it's BS. They don't go after innocent little starlings and pin a prison sentence on them for no reason, especially in a high profile case.

Neither you nor Jeff have said anything about the existence of the joint defense agreements which would point to the ex-post facto backpedaling of many of these targets, which seems highly suspect to me. A joint defense agreement with a President seems very handy considering the leverage an unindictable (according to the DOJ) US citizen  who can hand out pardons like candy enjoys. His abrupt turn about along with Manafort's suggests the possibility that more shenanigans may have been involved particularly with Trumps public pronouncements.

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this incorrectly....

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

I find that extremely hard to believe. To me it seems much more likely that the plea deal was honest and that Papadopolous is now lying about it.

 

Right Sandy. Please see my last post. Utter BS and very likely arranged. Please keep your eye on pardons.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this incorrectly....

According to Jeff and Jim D.,  Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal,  Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality,  Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.

In other words,  Mueller made Papadopolous lie.

I find that extremely hard to believe. To me it seems much more likely that the plea deal was honest and that Papadopolous is now lying about it.

 

That is a very superficial reading.

The persons involved have nothing actually to lie about because nothing actually suspicious ever occurred. Do you think otherwise? Where are the indictments? What do you base your suspicion on?

Papadopoulos explained his reasoning during sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in October 2018. Do you think he was lying to the Committee? That’s what you suggest. What makes you think that?

The FBI, apparently, were focussed on Mifsud’s declaration, to Papadopoulos in March 2016, that his high-level contacts in Moscow had told him that they had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of emails. Presumably this was addressed when the FBI interviewed Mifsud in February 2017. No  suspicion of sinister activity has been since articulated regarding this, and leaked information says that the situation was regarded as “innocuous”. Do you have contrary information?

[James DiEugenio]

Read this about Mifsud

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/31/joseph-mifsud-professor-trump-russia-inquiry-kremlin

What to make about someone like that?

But Mueller used his word to nail George P.

[Douglas Caddy]

https://www.madcowprod.com/2018/08/29/a-prime-minister-a-drug-pilot-an-oligarch-russiagate/

[Douglas Caddy]