NYT Bombsell: Papadopoulos not Dossier Behind FBI Launching Investigation

An article published by the New York Times this morning casts doubt on a popular "pro-Trump" narrative regarding the opening of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia's meddling in the US presidential election. What's reported suggests that the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was a serious question from the beginning.

It also details potential evidence linking the Russian government to the DNC hack and provides an explanation for how George Papadopoulos became a significant figure in the FBI counterintelligence investigation and later that of the Mueller team.

How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt

WASHINGTON — 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.

Some other puzzle pieces possibly revealed:

More important, Mr. Mifsud connected Mr. Papadopoulos to Ivan Timofeev, a program director for the prestigious Valdai Discussion Club, a gathering of academics that meets annually with Mr. Putin. The two men corresponded for months about how to connect the Russian government and the campaign. Records suggest that Mr. Timofeev, who has been described by Mr. Mueller’s team as an intermediary for the Russian Foreign Ministry, discussed the matter with the ministry’s former leader, Igor S. Ivanov, who is widely viewed in the United States as one of Russia’s elder statesmen.

In late April, at a London hotel, Mr. Mifsud told Mr. Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” according to court documents.

The picture painted is that in the late April meeting, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had thousands of emails that would be harmful to Clinton and that weeks later, a drunken Papadopoulos bragged about this to Australia's top diplomat to the UK, Alexander Downer.

Following the revelation of the DNC hack, according to the NYT sources, the Australian government reached out to the US, relaying information about the encounter between Papadopoulos and Downer, importantly a Trump campaign advisor's apparent knowledge of the hack before it had been revealed to the public.

The article is quite long (the excerpts here are significantly less than 20%) and full of other interesting bits but this one is of particular significance:

That included questioning Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was compiling the dossier alleging a far-ranging Russian conspiracy to elect Mr. Trump. A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016. Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier, but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.

Assuming that what was reported is borne out, it throws water all over the narrative that the "dirty dossier" was the impetus for launching the FBI counterintelligence investigation — a narrative built principally on a few lines in a single CNN story (remember kids, CNN is fake news... except when they're providing the cornerstone on which your CT is based!) and over-the-top speculation owing to a dearth of information.

Another critical detail from the reporting is that it doesn't appear from the Papadopoulos emails obtained by the NYT, that Papadopoulos shared with other members of the campaign, the information about the stolen emails which he'd blabbed to Downer — at least not via email — which could be taken as bolstering the claims that no collusion actually took place (involving Papadopoulos at any rate).

LOL. Dossier turns out to be fake.....

Well what else can we come up with?

NYT. The fallen empire.

Still promoting the Pappy Dappy Doo Saturday morning cartoon show I see. Mueller tossing the butthurt lefties a few Scooby snacks, how cute.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Lol, the guy making a deal with the feds conveniently remembers blabbing. But don't worry, there are no witnesses. How convenient

originally posted by: 3daysgone
LOL. Dossier turns out to be fake.....

Well what else can we come up with?

NYT. The fallen empire.

The "dossier turns out to be fake?" The dossier has never been presented as anything more than raw human intel. The focus on the veracity of everything in the dossier within the pro-Trump echo chamber is part and parcel to the notion that the dossier was instrumental in launching the Russian investigation.

A dubious belief stemming from this CNN article that has gained credence through repetition. But I'm sure you don't question the reporting (or specifically, the parts of it that support the narrative you favor) from "the fallen empire" CNN.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: theantediluvian

Lol, the guy making a deal with the feds conveniently remembers blabbing. But don't worry, there are no witnesses. How convenient

Actually no, that's not what was reported. What was reported is that the Australian government provided that information to the US government several months before Papadopoulos was ever questioned by investigators.

Jesus atlantean....

Y’all are all in on the Russia scandal....

So again, please explain how the Russians caused my wife, parents and I to vote trump...

Newsflash:
Hillary sucks

-Chris

a reply to: theantediluvian

Your last paragraph- the guy was so excited by the info that he ran staight to a bar and shared the info with whoever he could, but he didn't share with his confidants

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well musnt you be happier than a baby in a barrel full of boobies?

Funny, because Lindsey Graham, not exactly a Trump supporter, seems quite concerned about the dossier and how it was used.

I will take that over

according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

WTF does that even mean??

Maybe one former American official, one current foreign official and two former foreign officials?

Come on NYT, your desperation is showing.

So Hillary had things to hide.
I am not surprised to hear that.

I won't be surprised to hear that multiple foreign countries accessed her home brew server when that word finally comes out.

What I would like to know...
Why did the FBI initially agree to pay Steele for information...then back out when he was outed publicly as the source?
Why couldn't the FBI deny that the dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to investigate Trump?

Thought this was a bombshell? smh.

Nothing but he said, she said, anons galore.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The NYT appears to be that disappearing corrupted left government's mouthpiece since 9/11 at least... I wouldn't expect them to do anything but scramble against whatever they think they can get their claws into at this point, hoping for some traction in their investigation.

We will have to see who those sealed indictments name before we know how the chips truly fall.

The democrats sure would love some solid evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC but they wouldn't turn over their servers for investigation. I wonder why? Maybe it's because they know that the Russians didn't hack the DNC.

a reply to: butcherguy

Does seem a bit convenient that after weeks of stonewalling over how the dossier was used they have this brilliant explanation as to how this all got started...one that has no way to substantiate. Well if that's the case why did it take them weeks to come out with it and why are they still stonewalling over the dossier?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: theantediluvian

Your last paragraph- the guy was so excited by the info that he ran staight to a bar and shared the info with whoever he could, but he didn't share with his confidants

"So excited by the info that he ran straight to a bar" according to whom? That's a rather inventive characterization. Perhaps he took it as nothing more than a dubious rumor or he was waiting to see what developed before he brought it to Clovis/whoever. Maybe he communicated it some other way.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: 3daysgone
LOL. Dossier turns out to be fake.....

Well what else can we come up with?

NYT. The fallen empire.

The "dossier turns out to be fake?" The dossier has never been presented as anything more than raw human intel. The focus on the veracity of everything in the dossier within the pro-Trump echo chamber is part and parcel to the notion that the dossier was instrumental in launching the Russian investigation.

A dubious belief stemming from this CNN article that has gained credence through repetition. But I'm sure you don't question the reporting (or specifically, the parts of it that support the narrative you favor) from "the fallen empire" CNN.

Ante you are probably one of my favorite posters believe it or not. Your posts are hard to argue against, and you seem to have very good insight. With that said how much do you really believe about this, if any?

a reply to: Christosterone

So again, please explain how the Russians caused my wife, parents and I to vote trump...

Why? There's no way of knowing what actual impact the Russian operations had on the outcome of the election. The widespread conspiracy theory on the Right is some unholy amalgamate of crap thrown against the wall which is essentially what?

That there was no Russian interference (well there was but it didn't matter because the mainstream media) and they didn't hack anyone (well maybe they did but it doesn't matter because you can't prove it changed anything) but if they did, well there was no collusion (well maybe just "coffee boys") and the real story here is how the DNC+Clinton+Obama+DOJ+FBI+IllumanitiAgenda21NWODeepStateAntiChristGlobalists used the "dirty dossier" as an justification to investigate — LONG LIVE #UNMASKINGGATE! VIVA LA FISA!

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.

We really don't know much of anything of substance, but trust us...this is the smoking gun!

Trump supporters want to push the idea that the dossier is the only thing that prompted the investigation because then they can say it was politically motivated and based on faulty data. But the reality is probably different. A lot of the intelligence is under wraps at the moment.

Of course, Republicans want to shut down or sabotage the investigation before it becomes apparent that the dossier is not the only "proof" of collusion and not the only reason the investigation started.