A place for reasoned, civil talk about stuff we aren’t supposed to question

You need to log in or register to create posts and topics.

George Papadopoulos

I have just seen the Mark Steyn Show with George Papadopoulos and in Part 2 of the interview he mentions the sting operation where he was given $10,000 dollar in £100 notes which he thought was suspicious and wisely gave to his Italian lawyer for safe keeping just before he flew back to the States. On arrival he was instantly arrested without even the chance of going through the customs so he could declare the $10,000 and literally put into leg irons, well fortunately the money was not there as this was clearly a set up so that the deep state swamp creatures could then spin it in the legacy media that Papadopoulos, Trump adviser was acting as the bag man for an illegal payment to hackers which is my surmise, but the important thing is that these bills will doubtless prove to be marked and there will be a paper trail at Treasury and DoJ as to who signed off on this operation.

Yes, those are great interviews, highly recommended.  (And also his interview with Michael Tracey).  It certainly appears that he was a focus of this international covert action against the Trump campaign.  Interesting speculation as to what catching him with the bills was supposed to accomplish, though of course unsubstantiated at this point.

Here's a link to the first part of the interview:

This interview with his wife, Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos, only has 59 views at this point.  I think it also merits listening to:

I'd like to think that Barr and Durham will get to the bottom of this but I am unhappy with two factors with Barr 1) he's a long time family friend of Mueller who attended the wedding of one of his children. 2) Barr accepts the premise that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. Now Mueller did try to put Barr in a difficulties over his letter which said that Barr's report to Congress was mischaracterising his report, and Barr could be trying to placate politicians who are so captured by the Russiagate narrative.

Thanks for the two links.

I am aware that Barr has some unsavory history.  What I remember hearing is that he was recruited by the CIA out of high school, that the CIA paid for his legal education, that he first served as a legal advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence when the DCI was ... George H.W. Bush, and that he later played a role in limiting the inquiry into Iran-Contra.  Not one of the things I've had on the agenda to follow-up and pin down, so if any others can document or correct this brief summary, that would be helpful.

But having said this, I like what I've been hearing from Barr.  From his initial testimony to the Senate that he would be looking into the role the US intelligence agencies in general may have played in the "predicate" of the Russiagate investigation, to his recent interview with Fox's Bill Hemmer to his appointment of John Durham.  Not to mention the interesting exegesis that Will Chamberlain has presented to a wider audience regarding Andrew Weissman's cockamamie legal theory of "obstruction", with reference to a memo on this that Barr wrote in 2018, which appeared in the first issue of Human Events (new series): Chamberlain, "Checkmate", Human Events,  May 1, 2019:

The Mueller letter regarding Barr's four page summary of the Mueller report's conclusions (though I haven't actually looked at it yet) is reported not to have actually charged Barr with any mischaracterization of the report's conclusions.  Rather, as Lee has discussed on the show, it basically expressed the concern that this bare summary of conclusions, though perfectly accurate, was abstracted from the full context of the report, and therefore would adversely affect the way the media reported on the report.  But if the Mueller report itself was inherently political, as I think it was, this basically amounted to the complaint that its authors (primarily Andrew Weissman) were not given the opportunity to spin the report to the media the way they would have liked.  You probably understand this, but I think this bears clarification.

In regard's to the Mueller report's political and likely illegal nature (in terms of the Special Counsel statute specifying what is to be included in such a report), I thought White House counsel Emmet Flood's letter to Barr was informative:

Now, as for your point about Barr accepting the premise that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, I'd be curious to know more about what he has actually said on this score.  I probably should go back and look at his letter reporting the Mueller report's main conclusions - and his Senate testimony.  But particularly in the former context, I wouldn't attribute much firmly to Barr himself.  I mean, Michael Tracey could have said something similar in a similar context.  But I'll leave the question open and invite others to present more quotes from Barr on this score.

But this morning I transcribed some bits from the Bill Hemmer interview.  I didn't hear him dwell on how the poor, innocent, US was victimized by these dastardly Russians.  Instead he said things like this:

"The thing that's interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of those departments...."

"No one's really looked at it.  I think there's a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened.  The fact of the matter is that Bob Mueller did not look at the government's activities ...."

"Because I think people have to find out what the government was doing during that period.  If we're worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale.  I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that...."

Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos knew and worked with Mifsud, worked for Gianni Pittella in the European Parliament (and Pittella's support for Hillary Clinton was reported at the time of the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, which he attended) and was associated with the LINK Campus University in Rome and the London Centre for International Law Practice (which doesn't seem to have practiced much law, though Simona does have a law background).  These have raised some questions about whether she herself has an intelligence background.  Not saying she's not telling the truth, but these things do raise some questions.

Here's a link on Pittella in Philadelphia at the time of the Democratic Convention:

Yesterday I listened again to the S.M.P interview, marking down some times in my notes.  Now I've transcribed some excerpts of those points in the discussion.  They tend to underline this question.

@14:16 S.M.P.: "I had a close knowledge of this world.  I know this world to be connected to western intelligence, Italian intelligence and Democrats in particular...."

@14:47 S.M.P.: "Put yourself in my shoes.  I know this person [Mifsud].  I know these people for a long time.  They're part of my background.  I've been working with these people, both in European Parliament and later on and shortly for the London Centre for International Law Practice...."

@18:30 Alex Phillips: "These people are learning to be spies at this university."

S.M.P: "Totally.  Totally.  It's a spy school, 100 percent."

@34:00 S.M.P.: "I was caught in this situation as a completely clean person that happened to work for Mifsud that shared knowledge about this person with American authorities.  This is not fun.  [Here she was alluding to what she said just previously, about the Italian press having fun making unfounded rumors about her.]  And Italians didn't act as a proper government should act, to me."

A.P.: So you think they're trying to minimize the problem, to minimize the situation and their involvement, to protect their status with the public in Italy, their constituencies?

S.M.P.: "Yes, I think it makes complete sense that it's easier to make believe the public I'm a Russian spy, than put the spotlight on Italy.  Because, given my background, why not an Italian spy?  That's a big question mark." [Smiles.]



Misfud has a doctorate in Education not international law from Dublin I believe. His business partner who is a Swiss Petroleum Lawyer Stephan Roh with a principal office in Hong Kong but also in Moscow and Cyprus which may account for their interest in Papadopoulos as he was an energy consultant with close political ties to Cyprus. Isl Energy which is Roh company strikes me as an MI6 front and curiously he also has an interest in a Swiss bakery in Hong Kong. Roh was also a director of The No Vichok Ltd. This strikes me as a further red flag with regards intelligence assets.

Roh's wife is a former Russian fashion model and they have a fashion company together with renovating a Scottish castle. Mueller interviewed Roh but as a business partner of a supposed Russian asset he was simply let free without explanation. This is an interesting piece and there is a picture of Roh with Bill Clinton

interview w Tucker Carlson Tonight guest host comedian and musician Mark Steyn