Tuesday, May 31, 2022

August 14, 2018: Paul Manafort Was Selling Positions in the Trump Administration

 

8/14/18: The prosecution rests in the Manafort trial. They wrap up with allegations of a shady loan deal, worked out between a Chicago banker named Stephen Calk and the defendant. In months leading up to and after the 2016 election, Manafort obtained $16 million in loans from Calk’s Federal Savings Bank, even though he was essentially broke. The two often emailed back and forth. Two weeks after Trump won the presidency, Manafort suggested he could get the banker a post in the administration. How would Calk like to be Army secretary? 

Calk wasn’t going to be picky and wasn’t going to be known for spelling prowess, no matter what role he won. In an email to Manafort he listed “perspective rolls” he’d be happy to fill. Those roles included Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Commerce, or head of Housing and Urban Development. Secretary of the Army was his sixth choice. Calk added that he might enjoy being an ambassador, listing 19 countries where he’d be willing to serve. 

In other words, evidence appeared to show that loans to Manafort were part of a quid pro quo. Top executives at Federal Savings Bank originally refused to give Manafort any money. Calk, as founder and majority owner, overruled them and signed off on the deal. Sadly for Calk, and his partners, he never got a post in the Trump administration and his bank lost $11.8 million.

 

* 

SPEAKING OF CRIMES, the president is back from vacation and hard at work at the White House. At 11:15 his busy day begins with an intelligence briefing, which for a president with a notoriously short attention span involves sock puppets to illustrate key points. 

An hour later, he’ll have lunch with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 

After that, Trump will be done with business for the day and have time to digest, tweet and nap. 

Meanwhile, the president is worrying about the spreading taint of the Russia investigation and legal battles on multiple fronts. Summer Zervos’ civil case, involving charges of sexual harassment and defamation, looms. Michael Avenatti remains a thorn in his side and claims to have three more clients who say they had affairs with Trump but were paid to keep quiet. Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer, is ready to flip. Omarosa has turned. Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, says he expects to be indicted soon in the Russia investigation.



What skills did Omarosa bring to the job to begin?


 

Up early and tweeting by 5:59 a.m., Trump starts with a series of attacks on everyone involved in the Russia investigation. He aims one blast at Omarosa, a woman he handpicked for a coveted spot on his staff. 

True. Omarosa is a piece of work. But if you thought the president had an ounce of dignity left, you’d be wrong. “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break,” he tweets, “and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” 

“That dog.” 

He gave that dog an annual salary of $179,700 and kept her around so long as what she said about him was “GREAT.” 

Trump said so himself.

 

POSTSCRIPT: At a Trump campaign rally in Ohio, a good Christian pastor decides to take his own shot at the free press. 

In his invocation, Pastor Gary Click, who doubles as a member of the Republican State Central Committee had this to say: 

Tonight, I pray that You will protect our President and his family with a shield of faith, Lord, that shield of faith against the fiery darts of the wicked one, Lord, against that jungle journalism (that) extorts the truth and distorts honesty and integrity every single day, gets in his face with lies and mistruths and innuendos. Lord, protect him.

 

So, let’s put Rev. Click down as a fan of Trump, and at least one part of the First Amendment. 

Not the “freedom of the press” part, for sure. (See 8/16/18, for the response of 350 newspapers to Trump’s attacks.)


BLOGGER’S NOTE (2/7/22): Calk eventually pays an even steeper price for his flirtation with Paul Manafort. He is sentenced to spend one year and one day in federal prison, for soliciting “A Presidential Administration Position.”

August 15, 2018: Paul Manafort's Sticky Fingers - and Trump's Huge Deficits

 

8/15/18: With the jury set to deliberate in the trial of Paul Manafort, the president is in a sour mood. 

____________________ 

Paul never saw a dollar he wasn’t ready to steal.

____________________ 

 

Manafort’s defense presented zero witnesses on his behalf, in large part because he’s a total fraud. 

In cross-examination his team did its best to make the case that Rick Gates, the prosecution’s star witness, was an even bigger fraud. In other words, the jury shouldn’t believe Gates. That position was undercut by a parade of witnesses, including Manafort’s tax preparers, accountants, and even his banker friends. All agreed that Paul never saw a dollar he wasn’t ready to steal and then park, tax free, in one of his 31 foreign bank accounts. 

If Manafort can get a hung jury (his only hope), the president is sure to insist that such an outcome proves the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”  The obvious flaw in that argument is this: Both Manafort and Gates worked on the Trump campaign. Both have been charged with serious crimes. Gates has admitted that they were in contact with at least one individual they knew to be a former Russian intelligence agent at the same time they were working to put Trump in the White House.

 

* 

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE releases revised predictions for the remainder of this year and for the decade to come. The U.S. economy is expected to grow by a healthy 3.1 percent in 2018. Unfortunately, once the “sugar high” of the big GOP tax cuts begins to fade, the CBO predicts growth will slow to 2.4 percent in 2019 and then flatline during the decade to follow. 

As for the federal deficit, which Trump promised to erase in eight years if elected twice, it will only grow. The CBO predicts the following deficits (see page four of the linked report) for Fiscal Years: 

2018: $ 804 billion

2019:  $ 981billion

2020:  $1.008 trillion

2021:  $1.123 trillion

2022:  $1.276 trillion

2023:  $1.273 trillion

2024:  $1.244 trillion

2025:  $1.352 trillion

2026:  $1.320 trillion

2027:  $1.316 trillion

2028:  $1.526 trillion

 

Good luck young Americans! Trump and the Tea Party Republicans, who once swore they cared about deficits, are going to stick you with the tab.



Good luck, kid, you are going to get stuck with the bills.


August 16, 2018: Boston Globe, 350 Newspapers, Warn Us about President Trump

 

8/16/18: In the face of the president’s unrelenting attacks and claims that the media are “the enemy of the people,” the editors of the Boston Globe make the decision to fight back. The Globe coordinates a nationwide response. More than 350 newspapers agree to publish editorials critical of Trump’s stance. 

Those papers include some of the greatest in the nation, others with as few as 4,000 subscribers. 




The Globe, for example, exposed the scandal of Catholic priests and their abuse.

____________________ 

“We are not the enemy. We are the people.” 

Editors of the Valencia County News-Bulletin

____________________ 

 

Marjorie Pritchard of the Globe explains why this all matters. “Our words will differ,” she says. “But at least we can agree that such attacks are alarming.” 

“I hope it would educate readers to realize that an attack on the First Amendment is unacceptable. We are a free and independent press…one of the most sacred principles enshrined in the Constitution [emphasis added throughout].” 

Among organizations that come to the support of the Globe are the American Society of News Editors (ASNE), the Press Association, the New England Newspaper and Press Association and the Radio Television Digital News Association. The ASNE says it has no choice but to join the protest: “Publications, whatever their politics, could make a powerful statement by standing together in the common defense of their profession and the vital role it plays in government for and by the people.” 

A list of those supporting the call includes several papers the president routinely attacks as “Fake News.” The New York Times, alone, has caught Trump and his aides in a series of blatant lies.

 

The Houston Chronicle, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Miami Herald and Denver Post pen editorials. So do smaller papers, including The Oakridger (Tennessee) and the Griggs County Courier and the Steele County Press (North Dakota). The Philadelphia Inquirer joins the fray. The Kansas City Capital-Journal, one of the few papers to endorse Trump in 2016, takes the side of a free press. 

The supposed purveyors of “Fake News” are everywhere. The Martha’s Vineyard Times and Dallas Morning News join the fight. The Bangor Daily News in Maine, the Duluth News Tribune in Minnesota, the Yankton County Observer in South Dakota, and the Bennington Banner in Vermont throw their weight behind the protest. So does the Valencia County News-Bulletin in New Mexico. Editors at that paper are clear. “We are not the enemy,” they insist. “We are the people.” 

The honor roll proves long. It includes the Chicago Sun-Times and the Hartford Courant, the Boise Weekly, the Wilbur Republican (Nebraska) and the Star News (North Carolina). The Tucson Sentinel and Arizona Daily Sun represent that state. The Akron Beacon Journal, Athens News and Columbus Dispatch, Ohio publications, Oregon’s Portland Press Herald and Louisiana’s Slidell Independent take a stand. 

 

“Those who try to suffocate the truth.” 

A sampling of editorials should make the danger clear to all but the most obtuse Trump fans. The Des Moines Register explains:

 

The true enemies of the people – and democracy – are those who try to suffocate truth by vilifying and demonizing the messenger. 

 

…Lesley Stahl, the Emmy award-winning “60 Minutes” correspondent, recently talked about her November 2016 interview with the current president – his first after winning the election. She asked him if he planned to stop attacking the press, something he did repeatedly during his campaign.

 

“He said, ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you,’” Stahl said. 

 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch offers warning: “Trump is inflicting massive, and perhaps irreparable, damage to democracy with these attacks.” 

The Swift County Monitor News (Minnesota) insists that Trump’s words will lead to attacks on journalists, what you might see in Russia, Myanmar, or Venezuela, where the free press is only a dream. 

The Forward, a preeminent Jewish paper, writes: 

More than 300 news organizations around the country, large and small and in-between, are publishing simultaneous editorials in support of a free press – a pillar of our Constitution enshrined in its very First Amendment, persistently under attack by the most potent symbol of our democracy, the president of the United States.

 

… Jews, like other Americans, depend on the press to hold the powerful accountable and, as a religious minority, to stand up for our rights in this raucous, pluralistic society….

 

When journalists are harassed for what they publish and demeaned for what they ask; when they are ridiculed, beaten up, even murdered for simply doing their jobs, then all America suffers. We are not here only to say nice things about this or any other president. We are here to report the truth as best we can, so that an informed public can make its wisest decisions.

 

The Hays Free Press (Texas) offers this caution: 

A dangerous drift began with a few catchy words tossed out, catchy, but thoughtless, and dangerous. Talk of “fake news” and calling journalists “enemies of the people” were terms once used only by dictators. A free and independent press has guarded democracy since its beginning, sometimes at a high cost. It’s not perfect, but it’s far superior to controlled or censored news.

 

…What would happen if all news outlets just stopped suddenly? What would happen if newspapers ONLY printed one side of the story – the side being promoted by the government? 

 

“Phony news manufactured by a paid agent of the state.”

 

E.B. White probably described it best in his volume published in 1944.

 

The United States, almost alone today, offers the liberties and the privileges and the tools of freedom. In this land the citizens are still invited to write their plays and books, to paint their pictures, to meet for discussion, to dissent as well as to agree, to mount soapboxes in the public square, to enjoy education in all subjects without censorship, to hold court and judge one another, to compose music, to talk politics with their neighbors without wondering whether the secret police are listening, to exchange ideas as well as goods, to kid the government when it needs kidding, and to read real news of real events instead of phony news manufactured by a paid agent of the state. This is a fact and should give every person pause.

 

Government spokespersons from all entities try to give their side of the story; that’s what they are paid to do. That is only one side of the story, and giving them free rein without questioning is not good for our country – or our freedom.

 

The final word goes to the Kansas City Star: 

Not even President Richard Nixon, who’s original “enemies list” of the 20 private citizens he hoped to use his public office to “screw” included three journalists, tried to incite violence against reporters. While stewing privately about Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as “enemies…trying to stick the knife right in our groin,” not even Nixon tagged the lot of us, Soviet-style, as “enemies of the people.” Nor did even he dare to take on the idea that our free press is worth protecting.

 

Perhaps most chilling of all, the Star notes that Trump’s rants are having a toxic effect.

Citing a recent poll, they worry that 44 percent of Republicans “said Trump should have the autocrat’s power to shut down news outlets” if he liked.

 

 

POSTSCRIPT: This blogger was so horrified by that number that he decided to go straight to the poll, hoping it had been misunderstood. 

Among other findings, IPSOS reported: “Some of the limits of public support for freedom of the press are made stark with a quarter of Americans (26%) saying they agree ‘the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,’ including a plurality of Republicans (43%).” 

Even though the Star was off by a point (likely a typo and not “Fake News”), it should be clear to all, and clearly for many Trump supporters it is not. If our current president can curtail a free press today, the door will be thrown open for every future president to goose step down the same path.

August 17, 2018: C.I.A. Directors Who Served Every President from Ronald Reagan until Trump, Lodge Protest

 

8/17/18: The president revokes the security clearance of John Brennan, former head of the C.I.A. According to White House Press Secretary Pinocchio Sanders, all is right in the world. Brennan, she tells reporters, has been making “wild accusations” against the Trump administration. 




 

“An attempt to stifle free speech.” 

Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican, calls it the kind of move you see in a “banana republic.” But most GOP leaders are silent or mildly supportive. Sen. John Kennedy says Brennan was being a “butthead.” 

The president is clear about why he does it – and why he plans to revoke the security clearances of others. 

Brennan is a critic.

 

Sean Hannity and the usual sycophants support the move. Lou Dobbs, clearly in need of anger management therapy, shouts, 

John Brennan…has lost his security clearance. And the Swamp hates that. President Trump took away Brennan’s clearance because of Brennan’s “erratic conduct and behavior.” Brennan has been publically attacking Mr. Trump even while he was still director of the C.I.A. Viciously so. And Brennan has broken with tradition and civility: He is the first former intelligence agency head to absolutely politicize his public service, trying to monetize that service, to inject himself into Presidential politics, and to recruit the heads of other intelligence agencies to attack the President of the United States.

Trump’s attempt to punish critics may not bother Dobbs. It bothers quite a few former C.I.A. officials and leaders in U.S. intelligence. First, a dozen former top officials at the C.I.A. sign a letter criticizing the move. 

They warn: 

We feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House…We know John to be an enormously talented, capable and patriotic individual who devoted his entire adult life to the service of this nation.

 

The president’s decision, 

…has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances—and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, [emphasis added], subject to his obligation to protect classified information.

 

The signers include C.I.A. Directors who served Ronald Reagan and every other president since, save Trump. (You can read their letter here.)

August 18, 2018: White House Counsel Don McGahn Cooperating with Mueller Investigation

 

8/18/18: The New York Times reports that White House Counsel Don McGahn has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation. Sources say McGahn has met with investigators on three occasions and answered questions for 30 hours. 

The Times writes that McGahn and his lawyer, William A. Burck, grew concerned when Trump and his lawyers at the time, John Dowd and Ty Cobb (there are a lot of lawyers in this story, so pay attention), allowed McGahn to speak to investigators without claiming executive privilege. Burck and his client “feared Mr. Trump was setting Mr. McGahn up to take the blame” for trying to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller “…so [they] devised their own strategy to do as much as possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller and to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn did nothing wrong.” 

 

“A couple documents locked in a safe.” 

To understand McGahn’s concern we need to go back nearly a year. On a crisp autumn day last September, Dowd and Cobb were overheard conversing over lunch at a fine outdoor dining facility in the nation’s capital. That establishment happened to be located next door to the D.C. offices of The New York Times. Ken Vogel, a new reporter, was seated close enough to hear. 

Cobb was warning about a White House lawyer he considered “a McGahn spy.” McGahn, he told Dowd, had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he’d really like to get his mitts on. 

When that story leaked, McGahn is said to have decided it was time to go talk to Robert Mueller. 

McGahn has told people close to him he’s anxious to “avoid the fate of the White House counsel for President Richard M. Nixon, John Dean, who was imprisoned in the Watergate scandal.”



John Dean testified before Congress during the Watergate hearings in 1973.

President Trump is trying to make sure Don McGahn never has the same kind of chance.


August 19, 2018: Admiral Who Led Raid to Kill bin Laden Protests Trump Decision

 

8/19/18: In protest against the president’s decision to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance (see: 8/17/18), Admiral William H. McRaven speaks out. The former commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, McRaven has requested that Trump revoke his security clearance too. 



In a Washington Post editorial, McRaven writes: 

Dear Mr. President:

 

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

 

Therefore, I would consider it an honor [emphasis added] if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

August 20, 2018: Two Hundred Intelligence Officials, Military Leaders and Others Lodge Protest

 

8/20/18: Nearly 200 former intelligence officials, F.B.I agents, U.S. district attorneys, ambassadors and military officers sign a letter condemning President Trump’s decision to strip former C.I.A. head John Brennan of his security clearances. (See: 8/17/18 and 8/19/18.) 

All of us believe it is critical to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. But we believe equally strongly that former government officials have the right to express their unclassified views [emphasis added, unless otherwise noted] on what they see as critical national security issues without fear of being punished for doing so.

 

Our signatures below do not necessarily mean that we concur with the opinions expressed by former CIA Director Brennan or the way in which he expressed them. What they do represent, however, is our firm belief that the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views.

 

Trump doesn’t care about “the country.” He’s a thin-skinned little man and can’t stand criticism.



Brennan, center, is the former Director of the C.I.A.


August 21, 2018: If Donald J. Trump Weren't President He'd Already Face Felony Charges

 

8/21/18: If Donald J. Trump seems rattled lately, it’s no surprise. Friday, Special Counsel Mueller filed an eye-popping sentencing document related to former Trump 2016 campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, regarding the ongoing Russian investigation. 

_______________________ 

“The defendant’s false statements were intended to harm the investigation, and did so.” 

Sentencing document for George Papadopoulos

_______________________ 

 


Papadopoulos, center, with dark glasses. 


Fresh news breaks this afternoon. Michael Cohen has pled guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws. Two of eight felonies were, according to Cohen, carried out at the behest of “a candidate for federal office.” 

That would be Donald J. Trump! 

The president suffers a second stinging defeat when former campaign manager Paul Manafort is convicted on eight felonies.

 

Even ignoring the felonious pair, this has been a bad week for Trump. Consider the case of George Papadopoulos, which came to an end (we think) recently. (His sentencing document is now available.)

 

Papadopoulos, billed as a Trump foreign policy adviser during the 2016 campaign, was interviewed by the F.B.I. in January 2017, just seven days after Trump took office. He was arrested in July and pled guilty to a felony count of perjury in October 2017. At the time of his plea we were told he had been a cooperating witness for months. There were even hints he might have been wearing a wire. 

Team Trump began dissembling at once. “George Who?” everyone from Trump down to Kellyanne Conway wondered. 

The president responded via Twitter at the time – because of course he did. He called any idea that members of his campaign had been colluding with Russians “Fake News.” He rolled out his “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue” Defense and blamed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Grinch Who Stole Christmas for all the problems in his campaign. “Few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George,” he claimed, “who has already proven to be a liar [emphasis added here and below]. Check the DEMS!” 

Michael Caputo, another campaign adviser, was even more forceful in his response to the Papadopoulos deal. “The leaders of the Washington office of the campaign didn’t even know who he was until his name appeared in the press,” Caputo insisted. “The guy was – he was the coffee boy. I mean, you might’ve called him a foreign policy analyst [no, Trump called him that], but, in fact, you know, if he was going to wear a wire, all we’d know now is whether he prefers a caramel macchiato over a regular American coffee in conversations with his barista. He had nothing to do with the campaign.” 

The veracity of these denials was undercut when a picture of Papadopoulos sitting in a high-level meeting with Trump and his campaign team was posted and no signs of an order from Starbucks were seen in his hands.


Papadopoulos seated to the left of the man in the blue tie. 


 

* 

The president hires a LOT of liars. 

SO: LET’S SEE how such denials hold up now that the sentencing document has been issued. It begins: 

The government submits this memorandum in connection with the sentencing of George Papadopoulos scheduled for September 7, 2018. On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

 

Of course, if Trump fans read that first sentence, we can expect them to start slobbering about some “perjury trap” that snapped closed on poor George’s left toes. 

One lie! He told one lie! Does a poor “coffee boy” deserve to go to jail for that? No! Jail Hillary! And do we really want the president going into the same lion’s den, where “17 angry Democrats” await, ready to chew off both legs and maybe other favorite presidential appendages? 

What “trap” did Papadopoulos step into? The sentencing document is clear: 

The defendant’s crime was serious and caused damage to the government’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The defendant lied in order to conceal his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries during the campaign and made his false statements to investigators on January 27, 2017, early in the investigation, when key investigative decisions, including who to interview and when, were being made.

 

…the defendant repeatedly lied throughout the [January] interview in order to conceal the timing and significance of information the defendant had received regarding the Russians possessing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, as well as his own outreach to Russia on behalf of the campaign. The defendant’s false statements were intended to harm the investigation, and did so.

 

In other words, Papadopoulos lied about contacts with Russians. He lied in January 2017, at the start of the investigation. 

Why? Why would a humble “coffee boy” perjure himself if all he did was ask other members of Team Trump, “Would you like cream and sugar with your coffee? 

Papadopoulos didn’t want investigators to know he had been riding a broom during the campaign. He didn’t want them to know who told him to mount that broom and fly off to meet suspicious characters – who “happened” to be Russians – who “happened” to have dirt on Hillary. 

You know: Exactly the kind of people and information that would help throw the election to Trump.

 

The sentencing document also makes it clear F.B.I. agents warned the Coffee Boy not to lie. “The defendant said he wanted to help the agents with their investigation” and “proceeded to answer questions, and to lie, for more than two hours.” 

[Papadopoulos] lied about his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries during the course of the campaign to minimize both his own role as a witness and the extent of the campaign’s knowledge of his contacts…while serving as a policy advisor to the Trump campaign, the defendant met a professor of diplomacy in London (the “Professor”) who introduced the defendant to a Russian woman (the “Female Russian National”) and to a Russian national connected to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the “Russia MFA Connection”). The Professor told the defendant that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” and the defendant had a series of communications over a period of months with the Professor, the Female Russian National, and the Russia MFA Connection in which they discussed arranging a meeting between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.

 

Here, any semi-literate citizen would be forced to pause and ponder. Caputo (he of the “coffee boy” comment), helped set up a secret meeting with a representative of the Russian government and Roger Stone, in May 2016. 

In June, three of the top Trump campaign people –and more Russians offering more dirt on Clinton –met at Trump Tower in New York City. 

A sensible person must wonder: What else was the campaign up to and why was the “coffee boy” trying so hard to lead investigators astray? 

Papadopoulos lied with abandon: 

With respect to timing, the defendant acknowledged that the Professor had told him about the Russians possessing “dirt” on Clinton, but he stated multiple times that this occurred before he joined the Trump campaign and that it was a “very strange coincidence” to be told of the “dirt” before he started working for the campaign. [That was a lie.]

 

…the defendant met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after the defendant had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign; the Professor showed interest in the defendant only after learning of his role on the campaign; and the Professor told the defendant about the Russians possessing “dirt” on Clinton in late April 2016, more than a month after the defendant had joined the campaign.

 

The “coffee boy” was clearly lying to cover up for the campaign. 

The defendant also falsely told the FBI that he met the Female Russian National before he joined the campaign, that he had “no” relationship at all with her, and that the extent of their communications was her sending emails – “Just, ‘Hi, how are you?’ . . . That’s it.” In truth, however, the defendant first met the Female Russian National on or about March 24, 2016, after he had joined the campaign; he believed that she had connections to high-level Russian government officials and could help him arrange a potential foreign policy trip to Russia; he informed the campaign of his beliefs regarding her connections; and during the campaign he emailed and spoke over Skype on numerous occasions with her about the potential trip to Russia.

 

The defendant also did not reveal his extensive interactions with the Russia MFA Connection, including over Skype, even though he was asked if he had met during the campaign with any Russian nationals or “[a]nyone with a Russian accent.”

 

Papadopoulos knew he was making connections with Russian government agents. He knew they were going to give the campaign dirt on Clinton. He informed the campaign about his connections. 

He kept lying: 

On at least a dozen occasions during the interview, the defendant falsely insisted that his interactions with the Professor took place before the defendant joined the Trump campaign. At various points during the interview, the defendant said the interactions took place “prior to even talking to anybody on Trump”; they had “nothing to do with Trump”; “this was before I even got with-with Trump”; “I wasn’t even on the Trump team”; “that wasn’t even on the radar”; “I wasn’t even on the orbit of Trump at the time”; and “This isn’t like [the Professor’s] messaging me while I’m in April with Trump or something.” 

 

Papadopoulos expected to be rewarded for lying. 

Eventually, Papadopoulos hired a lawyer. In February 2017, he spoke with the F.B.I. a second time. He was offered a chance to “correct his false statements” but chose not to. Meanwhile, he “deactivated his Facebook account that contained communications with the Professor and the Russian MFA Connection and obtained a new phone.” 

Prosecutors note that in the hours following his first F.B.I. interview, Papadopoulos was unfazed. As far as he could tell his lies had worked. Papadopoulos expected to be repaid for any risks he had taken. 

The sentencing document notes that on that same day he began talking to other members of the campaign about a future high-level position, 

…with the National Security Council, the State Department, or the Energy Department. On January 27, 2017, in the hours after being interviewed by the FBI, the defendant submitted his biography and a description of work he did on the campaign in an effort to obtain a position as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Energy Department.

 

Instead, he found himself headed for jail.


BLOGGER’S NOTE (12/22/20): It can be interesting to note how these stories play out later. The “Coffee Boy,” a person Trump has already labeled a “liar,” will later get a full pardon from…President Trump.