Popehat

A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure

  • About
  • Free Speech Resources
  • Blogroll
  • Free Speech
  • Criminal Justice
  • Law
  • Politics & Current Events
  • Fun
  • Art
  • Geekery
  • Gaming
  • MAKE NO LAW Podcast

Lawsplainer: The George Papadopoulos Guilty Plea

October 30, 2017 by Ken White

This morning the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a criminal proceeding against George Papadopoulos, who acted as a foreign policy adviser to the President's 2016 campaign. We can tell some interesting things from these documents. You have questions, I have answers.

Wait! The case was sealed? How does that happen?

Federal courts can seal proceedings — that is, arrange so they are not public and do not appear on the public document. It is not uncommon to seal a proceeding against a defendant who is cooperating against other defendants or targets of the investigation. Here the record suggests that Papadopoulos cooperated immediately and the Special Counsel was anticipating his cooperation.

The now-unsealed docket shows that the Special Counsel filed a complaint and obtained an arrest warrant on July 28, 2017, and asked that the complaint be sealed from the beginning. The affidavit in support of the complaint describes the investigation. The FBI arrested Papadopoulos in Virginia on August 1, 2017. Under normal circumstances this would start the clock for multiple proceedings – a proceeding to send Papadopoulos from Virginia where he was arrested to DC where he was charged and a timeline to either hold a preliminary hearing (which almost never happens in federal court) or more likely indict him. None of that happened, because Papadopoulos immediately agreed to waive all his rights under the applicable rules and agreed that the proceedings would remain sealed. All of that shows that he cooperated immediately.

So what did he plead to?

Papadopoulos pled to an information charging him with lying to the FBI in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. In federal court, you have a right to a grand jury indictment in a felony case, but Papadopoulos waived that right, allowing the more informal information as a charging instrument. Papadopoulos entered into a fairly straightforward and standard plea agreement, agreed to and accepted a statement of facts about what he did, and entered his plea before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on October 5, 2017. By stipulation of the parties the court maintained the proceedings under seal until today.

What can we glean from the fact that the Court kept the case under seal?

Papadopoulos' cooperation is central to his plea. The plea agreement provides that the government will bring his cooperation to the Court's attention at sentencing and that sentencing will be delayed until his cooperation is complete. It is possible, though not certain, that the Special Counsel used Papadopoulos for "active" cooperation — for instance, by making recorded calls to targets of the investigation, engaging in monitored email exchanges with targets, or even wearing a wire during meetings with targets. Keeping the entire proceeding under seal for a month after his plea is consistent with such cooperation. However, that level of cooperation isn't certain: it could be that they considered using him for such activities but didn't, or that they wanted to keep the nature and direction of the investigation secret until now. But it's clear that they contemplate using him against other targets of the investigation one way or another.

So what did he do, anyway?

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and the factual statement he accepted, Papadopoulos lied to FBI agents during a January 27, 2017 meeting (note that's before the appointment of the special prosecutor) about his interactions with Russian nationals in connection with his role in the Trump campaign. Specifically, he lied about the nature and extent of his contacts with Russians during the campaign. He told the FBI that Russians offered "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails" before he joined the Trump campaign, when it was actually after, and characterized conversations with Russians as minor in consequential when they were actually extensive. In addition, after a second interview with the FBI in February 2017, Papadopoulos deleted a Facebook account which contained some of his communications with the Russian nationals, and created a new one. The FBI was nonplussed.

So did he actually obstruct justice or interfere with the investigation through his lies?

Almost certainly not. The complaint shows that the FBI used a search warrant to get emails that contradicted Papadopoulos. The timeline isn't explicit, but it's possible — in fact, probable — that they had the emails or other evidence before they even interviewed him, and knew he was lying at the time. To convict on a Section 1001 charge for lying to the government, the government doesn't have to prove that you successfully lied or that the lie delayed or impeded them. They only have to prove that the lie was on a subject of the sort that could be relevant to the investigation. That's why interviewing subjects and targets hoping they will lie to you and thus make a case for you is a common tactic in federal investigations.

If Papadopoulos had shut up and refused to talk to the FBI — the smart thing to do — he almost certainly would not be charged with anything yet, and could have escaped any charges ever. He had to plead to a federal felony because he talked to the FBI and lied, and then foolishly tried to destroy evidence. That is a feature, not a bug, of federal investigations.

What happens to him from here?

He'll hang out in limbo — having entered a guilty plea but with no sentencing hearing yet — until the Special Counsel is finished with his cooperation. So long as his sentencing isn't scheduled you'll know that the Special Counsel thinks that they still might need his cooperation, probably in the form of testimony.

Is he going to jail?

I doubt it. Though the maximum statutory penalty for the crime he pled to is five years, the recommended sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is a few months, or probation — the government admits that in the plea agreement. This is, once again, why you should not pay attention to the maximum possible sentence on federal crimes when the media reports them. The very highly probable result is probation, even if he hadn't cooperated. That calls into question, a bit, what his motivation is to cooperate further. It suggests — but does not prove — that the government had other charges that it could have brought, and agreed not to bring them in exchange for his ongoing cooperation. Or he's so terrified of a few months in jail that he wants to buy nearer-to-certainty that he'll get probation.

What does this show about the nature and status of the Special Counsel's investigation into whether the Trump Campaign improperly communicated with Russians?

It shows that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's contact with the Russians not later than January 2017, that the Special Counsel continued that investigation, that they've obtained emails showing communications by at least some people with Russians, that Russians told campaign representatives that the Russians had "dirt" in the form of emails about Clinton, and that the Special Counsel is (for now) continuing the investigation.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

  • Now Posting At Substack - August 27th, 2020
  • The Fourth of July [rerun] - July 4th, 2020
  • All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
  • Over At Crime Story, A Post About the College Bribery Scandal - September 13th, 2019
  • All The President's Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Effluvia

Comments

  1. Hi. No. says

    October 30, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Thanks. Helped clear some things up for me.

  2. Craig says

    October 30, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Yes, indeed, thanks. There are some good articles at Lawfare as well, but you cut to the chase admirably without getting too much into technicalities.

  3. Andrew says

    October 30, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    characterized conversations with Russians as minor in consequential when they were actually extensive

    Is this a typo? I think it should be "minor and inconsequential".

  4. Scott Jacobs says

    October 30, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    So how likely is it that someone involved will face RICO charges?

  5. SocraticGadfly says

    October 30, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Sidebar note: Here in Texas, and I believe in several other states, the "information" route can be used with certain felonies. The number of felonies for which a DA can do an indictment via an information is expanding, and, even with allowance for the old "indict a ham sandwich" over a grand jury, the expansion of the information system is troubling.

  6. SocraticGadfly says

    October 30, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Oh, and Ken, this one is JUST for you!

    Ted Rall's doing a new one of his graphics comics books. No, not about any politician in the conventional sense, but about Papa Francisco! http://rall.com/2017/10/30/francis-the-peoples-pope

  7. SocraticGadfly says

    October 30, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Oh, Ken, are you already readying your Tony Podesta lawsplainer?

  8. TGuerrant says

    October 30, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    Flynn Junior pulled down his Twitter account last night. All for naught or an uncharacteristic stroke of forethought? I will watch this space for more papal millinery blessings.

  9. KatAnon says

    October 30, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    Been reading about Papadopoulos. So far I've gotten the impression of a little dog desperate to impress or at least make his mark with the big dogs.

  10. rsteinmetz70112 says

    October 30, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Except for lying to the FBI was anything else he admitted illegal?

    Doesn't sound like it to me. I can't imagine receiving emails from a Russian is illegal whether he was with the Trump campaign or not.

    It also has occurred to me that a number of the "Russians" mentioned in various contexts are also US Citizens.

  11. Claire says

    October 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Quick additional question – how rare or common are sealed proceedings overall? You say it's not uncommon in the case of co-operating defendants but I'd like to get a feel for how common that is in general.

    I read somewhere (and can't find it now, sorry) that there are 4 other cases that have case numbers between Papadopoulos's case and the charges against Manafort and Gates that are also sealed in the same court. If this happens all the time, then it probably means nothing. But if it's uncommon enough that 4 in 4 months raises eyebrows, then it would be interesting to know that.

  12. Glenn says

    October 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Ken, quick: does “active cooperator” likely mean he was wearing a wire, as has been suggested elsewhere?

  13. AlphaCentauri says

    October 30, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    In the heat of a campaign, people can get caught up in the competitive aspects and not think about the real-world implications of their actions. There is a remote chance he's a decent enough fellow to want to try to undo some of the damage he's done, even if he isn't facing a long sentence.

  14. shipwreckedcrew says

    October 30, 2017 at 8:47 pm

    The cooperation language in the plea agreement is boilerplate. It doesn't mean actual cooperation has occurred. Its always possible, but I suspect that once the FBI realized this guy was located quite a ways from the brain trust of the campaign, and no one seemed to take much interest in the contacts he was having, his utility as a cooperator in getting people recorded was likely minimal.

    Until January 2016 he was a "foreign policy advisor" for Ben Carson. Once Carson's campaign imploded he jumped to Trump — during a period when the GOP foreign policy establishment was refusing to be part of the Trump campaign.

    He's a 2005 high school grad. I strongly suggest that no one in the Trump campaign took him or his ideas seriously. He's floated out there in the press to try to make people nervous, but I suspect he's got nothing useful to offer.

    Sealed cases are quite common. You ask for a sealing order if there is any fear that the defendant might flea the jurisdiction, or if the defendant is potentially dangerous and you want the agents to be able to surprise him at the time of the arrest.

  15. Dreyfus says

    October 31, 2017 at 7:47 am

    So, sealed indictments can indicate cooperating witnesses? Because there appear to be 4 sealed indictments between the Manafort case number and the Papadopoulos case number.

  16. BadRoad says

    October 31, 2017 at 8:27 am

    @rsteinmetz70112

    I can't imagine receiving emails from a Russian is illegal whether he was with the Trump campaign or not.

    That probably depends on what the e-mails say and how he responded to them. I also imagine that the acceptable scope of discourse with foreign nationals narrows somewhat when you start work on a federal election campaign.

  17. Richard says

    October 31, 2017 at 9:27 am

    I strongly suggest that no one in the Trump campaign took him or his ideas seriously.

    They took him seriously enough for Trump to mention him to the press, by name, as part of his foreign policy team.

  18. Mercury says

    October 31, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Clearly both the GOP and the Dems were soliciting dirt on the opposition from Russian sources.

    It should be clear by now that the Russians realized that A) The Dems were more desperate and B) they had deeper pockets.

    Once demand outstripped supply, the Russians just started making shit up and selling it (by the way – what's more American or capitalist than that?).

    But in terms of quid-pro-quo or "collusion" with the Russians it looks like the Clintons (and Obama and the Dems) have been WAY more sleazy than Team Trump.

    10 mos. into term 1, in the eyes of most Americans, the Trump administration is, at worst, still somewhat less awful than the professional, political class establishment. Unfortunately the chosen sport for this contest is the dirty laundry decathlon .

    Still, I think Trump is winning.

    Don't be fooled by all this "Russians meddling with Our Democracy" BS (somehow it's fine if George Soros meddles). Absent evidence of actual vote tabulation hacking it's insulting to your intelligence. Assume that every interested party works whatever angle they can. The US certainly does elsewhere.

  19. lagaya says

    October 31, 2017 at 10:35 am

    Mercury

    That's some delicious koolade, Dude.

  20. SocraticGadfly says

    October 31, 2017 at 10:36 am

    Re Mercury, per Consortium News and other sources, it's very likely the DNC emails were stolen in-house not hacked online. Agree on don't be fooled.

  21. Bo says

    October 31, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Mercury, on what exactly do you base your "10 mos. into term 1, in the eyes of most Americans, the Trump administration is, at worst, still somewhat less awful than the professional, political class establishment"? Or that "Trump is winning"?

    By any measurable account I've seen, most Americans view this as a train wreck: favorability in the toilet, people seemingly turned off generally by the incessant bombast, and effectively zero major policy changes.

    My personal opinion is that this'll eventually tie back to important enough folks in the campaign (if Manafort isn't important enough…). It may not go to Trump himself, but I don't see how this isn't a huge blemish on the history of President Trump even if it doesn't get to him personally.

  22. En Passant says

    October 31, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    SocraticGadfly says October 30, 2017 at 1:03 pm:

    The number of felonies for which a DA can do an indictment via an information is expanding, and, even with allowance for the old "indict a ham sandwich" over a grand jury, the expansion of the information system is troubling.

    In CA and other western states, charging by an information is the most common method. Grand jury indictments tend to be used for cases where DA wants some secrecy before filing charges publicly, often because the case will be very high public profile (say a well known or famous defendant) once it has started.

    It's been that way since Hector was a pup.

    Steps for charging with an information:

    1. DA files an information charging defendant with a felony.

    2. Defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing to challenge probable cause to bind over for trial. Defendant either waives prelim, or:

    3. After prelim, judge rubberstamps the information and defendant is bound for trial.

    Very few cases are dismissed at preliminary hearing, although it has happened.

  23. Trent says

    October 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Re Mercury, per Consortium News and other sources, it's very likely the DNC emails were stolen in-house not hacked online. Agree on don't be fooled.

    There is absolutely no doubt by American intelligence and law enforcement that the spear phishing campaign which was used to get the DNC passwords and emails was executed by the group the NSA calls "Fancy Bear" which is one of two operational cyber warfare groups within Russia. They've operated publicly under the Guicifer 2.0 identity for several years, the same identity that is believed to have delivered the data to Wikileaks.

    Now let that sink in for a minute, a group of trained cyber warfare operatives executed a campaign against an American election that included spear phising, attempted hacking, significant illegal advertising and propaganda targeted to stir up dispute between Americans and generally cause chaos. IMO this constituted an act of war by Russia against the US using the definition of cyber warfare developed by the Bush administration when they made public the new American policy that cyber war attacks were acts of war could result in physical retaliation.

    On the other hand, there is not a single shred of evidence that anyone within the DNC stole those emails. This is an absurd allegation and is contrary to all available evidence.

  24. Aggie says

    October 31, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    That's a pretty impressive array of technology being brought to bear against someone whose computer savvy extends all the way to using 'pass1234' as their password protecting classified information buried within emails in their account. Not to mention homegrown server farms in bathroom closets. You agree there's something wrong with that kind of appalling ineptitude at those levels, I'm sure.

    Just curious, is your assertion that foreign governments don't usually try any variety of means to gain access to the power structures of other foreign governments, e.g. they don't try hacking warfare, industrial and military espionage, etc etc etc as a matter of policy and budget? So Russia is the only one doing this? So somebody is surprised? Just trying to understand what your point might be. It's sunk in, but so what? We play the same games day in, day out.

  25. Steely Eyes says

    October 31, 2017 at 7:22 pm

    People are pushing that the Steele dossier poop was received from the Putin gang? I thought it was dastardly leaks from American National sources.

  26. Ann says

    October 31, 2017 at 8:25 pm

    @Mercury

    Still, I think Trump is winning.

    According to a poll out today from PPP, 49% of Americans favor impeachment (vs. 41% who oppose it). October marks the sixth month in a row that that poll has found a plurality in support of impeachment, but 49% is a new high.

    His approval rating is also somewhere between 18 and 20 points underwater, atm, and has been net negative since approximately a month and a half into his term.

    This is not most people's idea of victory.

    Don't be fooled by all this "Russians meddling with Our Democracy" BS (somehow it's fine if George Soros meddles). Absent evidence of actual vote tabulation hacking it's insulting to your intelligence.

    True. But that's not a truth that means it's BS, sadly. On the contrary, being sure you're too smart to get played means that you easily can be, generally speaking.

  27. Seth says

    October 31, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    @Mercury

    George Soros is a US citizen, not a foreign government. There's a difference, and it matters.

  28. William J Evans says

    November 1, 2017 at 6:16 am

    Why did he plead guilty? To avoid bankruptcy. The cost of a defense against government prosecution would easily wipe out any normal American.

  29. tim maguire says

    November 1, 2017 at 6:23 am

    IMO, either the indictment left out serious charges as part of the plea agreement, or he got himself in hot water over nothing as none of the things he lied about are actually illegal.

    For the record, I also question calling these things lies–a discrepancy over dates and a subjective judgment the FBI disagrees with. There's something rotten in the state of law enforcement when that is enough to carry a charge.

  30. Tom Maguire says

    November 1, 2017 at 6:41 am

    As to Papadopoulos, let's see – a 29 year old whose political experience was Model UN and a few months doing nothing for Ben Carson, based in London and not an associate of anyone on the Trump campaign. This is the resume of a major player in a potentially shady dirt-digging Russian outreach?
    Speaking of which, his "Russian contact" was a Maltese professor he met at a cocktail party a week after joining Team Trump. Trump, OTOH, hosted Miss Universe in Moscow in 2013, entertained development ideas in Moscow, and sold real estate to Russian oligarchs all over the world. And that's not even mentioning Manafort and his Russian connections. Does anyone seriously think Team Trump tapped Papadopoulos as 'their guy in Moscow'? Please.

    Pedantic point per "that Russians told campaign representatives that the Russians had "dirt" – Papadopoulos was told this by the Maltese Professor, who claimed to have Russian sources. Even the NY Times phrased that using the word intermediary.

  31. Mercury says

    November 1, 2017 at 7:04 am

    @Seth So: 2+2=5 is more wrong if a Russian writes it vs. Soros? Good Lord. Please show me a piece of internet "fake news" that could have tricked a dumb guy like me into not voting for Hillary Clinton. Are you people only capable of intelligent, rational thought in an media/information environment pre-sterilized by the government?

    @Ann Polls huh? How has that worked out so far as a gauge for assessing Trump?

    @Trent The DNC server "hack" was the equivalent of Hillary leaving her purse on the roof of her car in the middle of Washington DC. Besides, the American electorate is better, not worse off for having learned about (from the emails) all the crooked shit she and the DNC were up to. Imagine if Mitt Romney were running for president and a Russian-led hack on an RNC server revealed that Romney had been running a massive, international child pornography ring for seven years. Do you think the NYT headline the next day would be: "RUSSIANS HACK US ELECTION!" ??

    @Bo Most Trump voters are unhappy with Trump not being Trumpier. He's not reversing course on the endless/pointless wars thing fast enough, immigration enforcement and The Wall isn't happening fast enough either. On the other hand, we didn't get another Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, the drunk-with-power EPA has been kicked in the balls and the Sec. of the Interior is fantastic – a big deal if you live out west. Still better than least-worst case with Hillary.

  32. Daniel5555 says

    November 1, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Ken, sorry for the noise, but every time I go to the Popehat main page by typing the address, the last entry in blog is still "Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera". Then if I click on any link and go back, it comes to normal and displays the latest entries. But it's extremely annoying still.

    I don't know whether this is something my browser does, or it is some sort of caching issue on server's side.

  33. Total says

    November 1, 2017 at 10:19 am

    As to Papadopoulos, let's see – a 29 year old whose political experience was Model UN and a few months doing nothing for Ben Carson, based in London and not an associate of anyone on the Trump campaign. This is the resume of a major player in a potentially shady dirt-digging Russian outreach?

    Papadopoulos isn't aimed at Trump, Papadopoulos is aimed at the next one up the chain, who will be aimed at the next one up the chain. And each step, you'll be announcing how "this guy isn't a major player!"

  34. Ann says

    November 1, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    @Mercury —

    @Ann Polls huh? How has that worked out so far as a gauge for assessing Trump?

    That response was so predictable that I almost replied to it in advance to save you the trouble.

    Most polls predicting the outcome of the election were off by a few points but within the margin of error. Moreover, ten that were conducted in the last two months of the race predicted a Trump win. Additionally, Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote by .03 points.

    So they were essentially accurate. In fact, Fivethirtyeight gave Trump a one in three chance of winning, which — in view of HRC's popular vote victory and DJT's very narrow win in three swing states — was extremely reasonable, even in retrospect.

    Most pundits were wrong, but that's another story. This one is that the polls were accurate within the margin of error, as they usually are.

    The numbers I cited aren't close, nor have they fluctuated as much as the election polling numbers did over time. A plurality of Americans has favored impeachment for six months. This now borders on a majority. Trump's approval rating has been unambiguously underwater since approximately the departure of Michael Flynn. The only president whose numbers have been as low on a sustained basis in modern history is Gerald Ford, and even he beat Trump for c. the first 120 days of his term.

    Trump has also failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Mexico is not paying for the wall, nor has it been funded, nor does it seem likely to be. His attempts to institute a Muslim ban have been blocked by the courts three times. He's done nothing to save or create the jobs he promised. There are three senators from his own party (McCain, Corker, Flake) who won't be running again, all of whom he's antagonized so badly that it wouldn't be surprising if he's effectively thrown away the GOP's senate majority for the purposes of much future legislation, as none now has any reason to hold the partisan line if they don't feel like it.

    Unless I'm forgetting something, the only significant things that he's accomplished during his ten months in office so far are the appointment of Neil Gorsuch and withdrawing from the Paris Accord; only the former is likely to be a lasting achievement, and the person primarily responsible for it is actually Mitch McConnell, not Trump. (That's not including the advances he's made in terms of making open racism and xenophobia acceptable again; but I concede that he has accomplished it, fwiw.)

    He's presently intentionally sabotaging the only affordable health insurance option that's available to millions of people, as a result of which their premiums will go up. He has no plan to mitigate that or to offer other options, as a result of which some of them will die. Children no longer have guaranteed access to health insurance.

    Despite his campaign promises to drain the swamp, oppose Wall Street, and surround himself with only the best people, his administration is a clown car full of big-corporate/big-banking self-dealers and a record number of top advisors and aides have quit or been fired.

    His former campaign manager has just been indicted for massive fraud against the United States going back many years and continuing throughout the campaign. There's significant circumstantial evidence that his campaign colluded with a foreign power. And at best, even if that proves illusory, nobody who's already been shown to have been demonstrably aware of the attempts to do so — eg, DJT Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort — thought to mention it to the FBI. (#MAGA!)

    His vaunted deal-making skills have proven to be as non-existent as his track record as a businessman suggested they were.

    So what, exactly, is your basis in fact and/or reason for thinking he's winning? Where are the wins?

  35. CJColucci says

    November 1, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Very few cases are dismissed at preliminary hearing, although it has happened.

    As I remember, it happened on Perry Mason all the time. He hardly ever went to trial.

  36. Ann says

    November 1, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    @Total —

    The thing that I find the most interesting about the Papadop/Manafort/Gates indictments is the absence of Michael Flynn, whom they could have indicted on the same grounds as Manafort/Gates — ie, failure to register as a foreign agent and (in his case) to disclose the income derived from those activities on his background-check forms. FTM, he also apparently lied to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak, so he could have been charged on the same basis as GP, as well.

    I suppose there could be many strategic reasons for that. But one potential explanation for it is that he's cooperating (or open to it), I can't help noticing.

    @Mercury —

    I missed this:

    He's not reversing course on the endless/pointless wars thing fast enough,

    No, he's ramping them up and threatening new ones.

    Also, your continued recursion to the ostensible fake-news-spreading of George Soros is not exactly making you look like someone who's too smart to fall for Russian propaganda. Please provide some proof that he and/or entities controlled by him were doing that.

  37. Hans says

    November 1, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    It's interesting how many are trying to downplay Papadopoulos' role in the campaign. Trump's own words on Papadopoulos from his attempt to boost his foreign policy credentials:

    Trump began the hour-long meeting by pulling out a list of some of his foreign policy advisers.

    "[…] George Papadopoulos. He’s an oil and energy consultant. Excellent guy. […] We have many other people in different aspects of what we do. But that’s a pretty representative group."

    So, a wet-behind-the-ears 29 year old with supposedly weak credentials, or so we're now being told, called out by Trump for special mention during his foreign policy roll out…

    Why did he lie to the FBI when he apparently knew the risk? Perhaps because he thought the truth would be more damaging to those he wanted to protect or impress. Certainly the lie and now admission gives fodder for distraction to brand him as a "liar".

  38. Xmas says

    November 1, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    Papadopoulos is friends with Sergei Millian, who is the sources for "campaign insider" claims in the Steele Dossier.

    I'm betting Millian is the goddamn 4chan troll that is claiming he created the urinating prostitutes claim.

  39. Trent says

    November 1, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    The DNC server "hack" was the equivalent of Hillary leaving her purse on the roof of her car in the middle of Washington DC. Besides, the American electorate is better, not worse off for having learned about (from the emails) all the crooked shit she and the DNC were up to. Imagine if Mitt Romney were running for president and a Russian-led hack on an RNC server revealed that Romney had been running a massive, international child pornography ring for seven years. Do you think the NYT headline the next day would be: "RUSSIANS HACK US ELECTION!" ??

    If you think spear phishing is so easy why don't you demonstrate how easy it is that it's just like someone leaving their valuables on the roof of their car.

    Unlike apparently you I don't care that Hillary was the victim anymore than I would if it was Trump. A foreign power interfering in our election this way IS a direct threat to our democracy. We CANNOT allow it and we must retaliate when it happens or it will happen constantly.

    Finally, I have no doubt in my mind that if when Russians had flipped the coin and decided to use their weapons in favor of Trump the coin had come up Hillary you would be outraged, and that means your a hypocrite. Just remember, because we have not effectively retaliated for this interference the Russians will do it again and next time Trump will be the one that's attacked because their goal is to sow Chaos and disrupt our democracy. Exactly as you would expect them to do in any war, and you'd prefer we remain a bullet target.

    The thing that I find the most interesting about the Papadop/Manafort/Gates indictments is the absence of Michael Flynn,

    I noted this as well, he violated at least a couple federal laws they had him dead to rights for and I wouldn't be surprised if he thought he was smart enough to lie to them. That he's not present means he's probably working for them. This is the problem for people under investigation by the FBI, they come in make deals then get the person that made the deal to make phone calls, emails and have conversations with other people while being recorded. You have to wonder how many people in the WH had a conversation with Flynn since July when Mueller started moving against people.

    An article I read today that I think was in the post that talked about how people in the white house walk out of the room if Russia is even mentioned at this point because of the risk.

  40. Mercury says

    November 1, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    @Trent Here ya go:
    "I can’t say for certain if the Russian government was involved in directing or at least supporting attacks on U.S. political parties. But it seems to me they would be foolish not to have at least tried to get their least-hated candidate elected given how apparently easy it was to break in to the headquarters of both parties" https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/the-download-on-the-dnc-hack/

    Also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4087092/Assange-says-14-year-old-hacked-Democratic-emails-reveals-John-Podesta-s-password-password.html

    I'm sure Jullian Assange is no dear friend of the USA but he's a bit of an expert in the stolen information business and I don't know that anything he's ever stood behind has been proved false or faked.

    Take a dose of your own hypocrisy medicine. Hillary is up to her eyeballs in Russians. Even CNN is saying: yes, Russian oligarchs donated $150mm to the Clinton Foundation following the Uranium One deal BUT they weren't technically directly involved in the uranium biz at the time the donations were made. I'm sure that passes the smell test in middle America.

    And, this is how fantastic Russia was for the Dems just two years before the election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.a9e2c542579f

  41. mass says

    November 1, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    Fake president Trump fires Mueller tomorrow, pardons the GOP and this thread is moot. The really important thing is that Putin is a murderous, taint-snorting pony fancier who needs to be fed to the woodchipper, feet first. Isn't that right, @Mercury? It's your personal opinion that Vladimir Putin is a miserable c*nt, isn't it? Certainly we can all agree on that?

  42. Cromulent Bloviator says

    November 2, 2017 at 3:22 am

    @mass

    I'm suspicious of anybody who poses topless in public riding a pony!

  43. Nimas says

    November 2, 2017 at 4:19 am

    @Hans: To be fair, I could absolutely see a reality where Papadopoulos wasn't taken seriously, even with Trump making that statement. Because Trump says things ALL THE TIME which are either demonstrably false, contradicted by things he says later, or obviously just made up off the top of his head.

    Note that I'm not an American, and thus have no horse in this race (beyond hoping nothing implodes and America stops being a two party system..which will never happen I know) so this is simply someone observing from the outside.

  44. Mercury says

    November 2, 2017 at 6:35 am

    @mass

    Yes, I'm sure that Putin is a ruthless bastard and any Russian affiliated "cyber attacks" aimed at sabotaging US infrastructure etc. should be fought and resisted with everything we have.

    However, pretty much every state, commercial entity and individual on Earth has an interest in US policy in one way or another and would influence it if they could (as the US and American entities do all around the world, all the time). Everyone should assume that this is the case.

    Expecting or demanding that the government filter what information gets put in front of you is absurd and begs for abuse. You have a super computer in your pocket that can access a goodly chunk of the sum-total of the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of mankind. The fact that you get most of your information through Facebook or don't have the skills, aptitude or interest to educate yourself properly about anything – is no one's fault but your own.

    And every time someone like Bill de Blasio opens his mouth it should be obvious that zero Russian propaganda is necessary to drive sharp divisions or increase animosity between different groups of Americans.

  45. Mike S says

    November 2, 2017 at 7:56 am

    Daniel5555,
    Connecting to popehat.com gets you the opera post as the latest one. http://www.popehat.com gets you everything. I'm not sure what the difference is on the server. Recently, popehat.com's been redirecting to http://www.popehat.com for me, which seems to fix the problem.

  46. mass says

    November 2, 2017 at 9:45 am

    Yes, I'm sure that Putin is a ruthless bastard and any Russian affiliated "cyber attacks" aimed at sabotaging US infrastructure etc. should be fought and resisted with everything we have.

    Stop twisting my words around. This is an easy one. Vladimir Putin snorts fruity-smelling pony taints, and we're saving him for the woodchipper. He goes in feet first. As a jumping off point, you agree 100%, yes or no?

  47. Sol says

    November 2, 2017 at 10:59 am

    @Mercury

    I'm sure Jullian Assange is no dear friend of the USA but he's a bit of an expert in the stolen information business and I don't know that anything he's ever stood behind has been proved false or faked.

    Citing Julian Assange as a general expert in data stealing may be reasonable, but citing him to prove that Julian Assange's Wikileaks, which makes a very loud point of its independence and its dedication to exposing government secrets, definitely didn't get tricked by the Russian government into doing their dirty work (which would be extremely personally embarrassing for Julian Assange) seems like an incredibly obvious case of Mandy Rice-Davies' point applying.

  48. Daniel5555 says

    November 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    @Mike S,
    Thank you! Accessing http://www.popehat.com indeed fixes it. I wonder if this prevents someone from realizing there is new content though… The redirect is not working for me at this moment.

    Hope it'll be fixed for good.

  49. Ann says

    November 2, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    @Mercury —

    Take a dose of your own hypocrisy medicine. Hillary is up to her eyeballs in Russians. Even CNN is saying: yes, Russian oligarchs donated $150mm to the Clinton Foundation following the Uranium One deal BUT they weren't technically directly involved in the uranium biz at the time the donations were made. I'm sure that passes the smell test in middle America.

    Please walk me through how a deal that was approved by a nine-member committee that Hillary Clinton didn't control with a company some of whose former investors later gave money to the Clinton Foundation (a non-profit, from which Hillary Clinton does not derive personal benefit) is related to a lawyer for the DNC later paying for oppo research on the Trump campaign's interactions with Russian state actors, none of which was released during the campaign.

    Where's the bad act in there? How doesn't it pass the smell test, and for what? There's not only no quid, there's also no quo.

  50. James says

    November 2, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    "Please walk me through how a deal that was approved by a nine-member committee that Hillary Clinton didn't control…"

    The fact that she was able to take total control of the DNC in 2015 points to a significant amount of power and influence with Democratic operatives.

  51. Seth says

    November 3, 2017 at 5:13 am

    @Mercury

    Americans _participate_ in US elections by expressing opinions, arguing, contributing money, etc. That isn't "meddling".

    It's illegal for a foreigner to do some of those things.

    I'm not all that surprised you can't see the difference.

  52. Mercury says

    November 3, 2017 at 6:59 am

    @Seth

    Good luck policing foreign opinion expressing, arguing and influence peddling.

    BTW – this is what major, big money, tit-for-tat foreign deal making in a US presidential election actually looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

    @Ann

    I'm going to try not to be insulting here and act as if your question has been asked in good faith, out of ignorance or naivete. I suppose you could be a teenager (or worse, a Millennial).

    The thing about big charitable foundations, particularly ones set up and directly/indirectly controlled by individuals who are still very much active in business and/or political life, is that it's very easy to use them as a piggy bank and laundry room for all kinds of capital (not just cash). You put lots of family and friends on the payroll with fat salaries and BS jobs, you run all kinds of unrelated travel, entertainment and other expenditures through the foundation and maybe you make distributions/contributions from your foundation to other charitable foundations run by your buddies, other family members or people you want to exchange favors with. The Clintons aren't the only people who do this kind of thing but they are particularly brazen and sleazy about it, especially considering their extensive past and ongoing careers as public servants. The Clinton Foundation also ranks very low in terms of what percentage of the fund's money actually gets deployed to real, charitable works with observable and meaningful results (i.e. not distribution to the Clinton Presidential Library) : https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-money-goes-to-real-and-actual-charities-that-are-not-controlled-by-the-Clintons

    So, surely you can recognize at least the appearance of impropriety when a big, business deal in a sensitive industry (nuclear material) is brokered by the Clintons for Russian oligarchs and then followed up by a massive contribution by those Russian oligarchs to the Clinton Foundation.

    But "ah-haa" you say, those Russian oligarchs were out of the Uranium biz by the time they they made those donations! Well, yeah, they probably were. I would be too. They get out of the business by selling their equity to someone else and that equity is suddenly worth a whole lot more than it was just a little while ago, before Hillary brokered this sweet, otherwise impossible deal for the company. The now, officially divested Russian oligarch may even have structured the sale so that he continues to get revenue payouts from the company's now, much bigger revenue stream for the next 5 or 10 years, even though he is no longer an owner/equity holder in the Russian uranium company or on the payroll.

    The chances that something very much like the above DIDN'T happen are more or less zero. OK? Thanks.

  53. Total says

    November 3, 2017 at 10:45 am

    https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-money-goes-to-real-and-actual-charities-that-are-not-controlled-by-the-Clintons

    Cute. Sliding an answer from the Federalist in using a quora link. Try again, with a more convincing link.

    The rest of your argument is that "hey, this looks really sleazy! There must be bad stuff going on" argument. If you have evidence of *actual* misbehavior rather than just "well, it had to have happened this way!" do let us know.

    Note: most of the money was given to the Clinton Foundation well before Clinton became secretary of state and well before the 2008 election. That's some massive gamble with the $140 million.

  54. Trent says

    November 3, 2017 at 11:07 am

    I'm sure Jullian Assange is no dear friend of the USA but he's a bit of an expert in the stolen information business and I don't know that anything he's ever stood behind has been proved false or faked.

    No one said it was fake, talk about moving the goal posts. Are you actually suggesting that Assange, from the embassy he's confined himself to that he's able to check and verify the identity of everyone that sends him information? Are you suggesting he even knows WHO sends him information?

    Yes, Assange claims it wasn't the Russians. There is no way possible that he knows that unless he personally knows in real life the person that sent him the data and knows with certainty that the person wasn't acting as a middle man. The probability of that is zero. He has an anonymous submission system for gods sake.

    The USA should not tolerate a nation-state interfering in our elections. I know with absolute certainty when the Russians do it again and it's directed against Trump you will be furious and in all likelyhood will probably blame the Democrats for the Russians interfering even though you've downplayed it this time.

    Take a dose of your own hypocrisy medicine. Hillary is up to her eyeballs in Russians. Even CNN is saying: yes, Russian oligarchs donated $150mm to the Clinton Foundation following the Uranium One deal BUT they weren't technically directly involved in the uranium biz at the time the donations were made. I'm sure that passes the smell test in middle America.

    Clinton is an irrelevant red-herring. She's not president and wont' every be president. If she did something illegal the FBI should look into it. (though this is the stupidest conspiracy theory about the Clintons I've ever seen). None of this has anything at all to do with the Russians interfering in our election.

    We can not allow foreign powers to interfere in our elections. This should not even be a point of discussion where anyone in this country is arguing it's not a big deal. If you think it's ok just because it helped your tribe you are a fool and a hypocrite.

  55. lagaya says

    November 3, 2017 at 11:10 am

    Let's give Mercury a break. He's probably having a very bad week.

  56. Mercury says

    November 3, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    @ lagaya

    Yes, please. There is a lot of spaghetti you guys are throwing on the wall here…

    @ Total

    Hillary/Bill brokered the Uranium One deal and some of the Russian Oligarchs involved gave a massive amount of money to the Clinton Foundation. No one disputes those two facts and that's really all you need to know. With a transaction of this magnitude the timeline of who was in office when or who had equity stake at what point, when checks 5 through 7 cleared etc. doesn't nullify anything. There is no way this isn't tit-for-tat…sort of like, if a 14yr old girl is pregnant with and delivers your baby, there is almost no way you can "go to the tape" and exonerate yourself. Draw circles and arrows all you want – my original point was that this doesn't pass the smell test for "Middle-America" and I stand by that.

    If Trump was caught buying two cheeseburgers for a Russian oligarch Anderson Cooper would be on CNN standing outside Trump Tower in a skin tight, long sleeve, Donna Karan, black T-shirt breathlessly narrating the end of American Democracy for 48hrs. straight.

    @Trent

    I thought the narrative now was that the Russians were sowing discord and animosity on BOTH sides to "Destroy our Democracy" or something?…or are they still considered pro-Trump even given their previous successes with Clinton Inc.?

    Please provide an example of an evil Russian internet ad that might have fooled a dumb guy like me into not voting for Hillary.

  57. Ann says

    November 3, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    @Mercury

    Hillary/Bill brokered the Uranium One deal and some of the Russian Oligarchs involved gave a massive amount of money to the Clinton Foundation. No one disputes those two facts

    Hillary/Bill didn't and couldn't have "brokered the Uranium One deal." That's not how it works.

    and that's really all you need to know.

    Yeah….

  58. Total says

    November 3, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    No one disputes those two facts and that's really all you need to know.

    Except for the part where there's lots more to know. But sure, if you've already decided on their guilt ahead of time, then go ahead and decide on their guilt again. You're not interested in what actually happened, you're just interested in saying "Aha! The Clintons!"

  59. Seth says

    November 4, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    @Mercury

    Goalpost moving much? Going from "it's the same thing" to "you can't stop it".

    The Clinton Foundation spent most of its money actually doing stuff, not shuffling it around to other non-profits. That's why only a very small percentage of its money went to other non-profits.

  60. Cromulent Bloviator says

    November 5, 2017 at 11:59 am

    The Clinton Foundation is a legit charity. Government officials are not "colluding" with anybody to promote charity.

    Charity is not self-dealing.

    Government officials making agreements with foreign actors in return for those foreign actors supporting charity is not corruption.

    Actually, supporting charity is the legitimate thing for a current or former government official to do with their influence! When people complain about these guys using their influence to make deals, the complaint is always that it was a deal to benefit themselves or those close to them; doing a deal to support the whole community through legit registered charities without personal benefit is what they were supposed to be doing instead.

    Apparently, politics has become so brain-dead that if you want to start a charity, it is very important not to include names in the name. Sure, it helps the charity to do more good in the world if it has a recognizable name, but Republicans hate doing good in the world through charity!

    I remember the old days when Republicans said, "Lets make government smaller and let charities do all that `doing good' stuff!" Now it is just, "Fuck you if you want to do good, let `em starve and die!"

  61. Tom says

    November 5, 2017 at 9:08 pm

    "The Clinton Foundation is a legit charity."

    Not sure if serious, or trolling.

  62. Mercury says

    November 6, 2017 at 4:26 am

    As we debate this, senior Dems are throwing Hillary under the bus for being a vile, self-serving super-crony: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

  63. Total says

    November 6, 2017 at 5:44 am

    As we debate this, senior Dems are throwing Hillary under the bus for being a vile, self-serving super-crony:

    Actually, they're throwing her under the bus for being a losing candidate, which is fair enough.

    By the way, for all the fuss about Brazile's comments ("the nomination was rigged!") guess what Brazile found when she went looking for *actual* rigging? Let's find out from her:

    I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none.

    See? That's the difference we're pointing out to you: if you have actual evidence of Clinton rigging something (rather than "it looks bad! There has to be something evil") by all means let us know.

  64. Mercury says

    November 6, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    @Total

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.7a4f8266a46d

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

  65. David Guild says

    November 6, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    @Tom

    "The Clinton Foundation is a legit charity."
    Not sure if serious, or trolling.

    Do you have any evidence for that blanket dismissal? I don't know anything about this foundation either way; in the absence of evidence I assume that a charity does in fact do charity work.

    To help you out, here's some examples of evidence that I've previously accepted as proof that a "charity" is really someone's personal slush fund:

    Using the charity's money to settle a lawsuit not involving the charity
    Using the charity's money to buy art for yourself (more)
    Publicly donating to other charities to build your image as a philanthropist, but using the charity's money instead of your own

  66. Ann says

    November 6, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    @Mercury

    That WaPo story is out-of-date. The current reporting is that those emails were altered by the Russian spies who stole them before they were posted.

    As I said, just because it's an insult to your intelligence not to recognize something is BS, doesn't mean it's not BS.

  67. Total says

    November 6, 2017 at 9:10 pm

    I'm sorry, your evidence is Senator Warren, basing her claims on Brazile's book? Senator Warren, who is planning her 2020 campaign and has all the incentive in the world to play up to Bernie supporters? That's what you're holding up as evidence?

    And the Washington Post article, grandiloquently entitled the "Most Damaging Things" in the wikileaksm includes as #8 on the list that someone in the DNC referred to a Sanders supporter as a "Berniebro"? THAT'S one of the most damaging thing they could come up with? That they called someone a name? Ohmigerd, how will the Republic survive?!? That's your evidence?

    Dude, let me more specific, so you don't come up with more asinine "evidence:" Do you have anything on the level of vote rigging? Cause calling someone a "bernie bro" isn't corruption, it's just everyday life.

  68. Mercury says

    November 7, 2017 at 7:44 am

    @Ann et al…

    "That WaPo story is out-of-date. The current reporting is that those emails were altered by the Russian spies who stole them before they were posted."
    ———————————————————–

    And we know that because Clinton turned over her server/records and some authority was then able to compare the "stolen" emails with the actual emails on the server whereupon discrepancies were discovered? I didn't think so. Those server records were actually subpoenaed you'll recall but they mysteriously vanished/destroyed – an act of obvious evidence tampering that would have landed you or I in jail in a heartbeat.

    "The current reporting is that…." – Hah! that's a good one.

    Look, it is not my intention nor would I ever hope to convince a few nuts on the internet that 2+2=4. Aside from self-amusement I've burned the calories I have on these comments for the benefit of other, reasonably intelligent and rational Popehat readers who aren't in the habit of mixing it up here. I am making my case to them, not you and at this point I'm pretty happy with the above record and what a reasonable person might conclude based on it.

    If you'd like to continue to rev your engines and burn donuts in the parking lot of the comments section. Go for it.

    If nothing else this episode should have proved to you that Americans don't need Russian coercion to develop animosity over the details of political/social/legal issues.

  69. Total says

    November 7, 2017 at 8:26 am

    So, no, you don't have anything that rises to the level of vote rigging. I guess we'll have to stay with "berniebro."

    And, then, the rhetorical jujitsu of "I'm not really talking to you…"

    I am making my case to them, not you and at this point I'm pretty happy with the above record and what a reasonable person might conclude based on it.

    Which roughly translates as "I'm losing the argument, and this is the only way I can think of to exit gracefully."

    c/f "The Lurkers Support Me In Email" https://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Lurkers_Support_Me_in_Email

  70. Ann says

    November 9, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    Look, it is not my intention nor would I ever hope to convince a few nuts on the internet that 2+2=4.

    Says the guy who thinks a president with a 35% approval rating less than a year into his first term is winning, because he just thinks so.

    Seriously. Make a 2+2=4 argument for that one. I'm all ears. I'd also like to see the hard, cold data showing that George Soros is poisoning our minds with fake news. So please feel free to get down with your empirical proof and mathematical logic. Thanks.

  71. Ann says

    November 9, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    @Mercury

    'm going to try not to be insulting here and act as if your question has been asked in good faith, out of ignorance or naivete. I suppose you could be a teenager (or worse, a Millennial).

    The thing about big charitable foundations, particularly ones set up and directly/indirectly controlled by individuals who are still very much active in business and/or political life, is that it's very easy to use them as a piggy bank and laundry room for all kinds of capital (not just cash).

    I know. I used to track the byzantine flow of funds being used for non-philanthropic purposes from one pass-through to another for work sometimes..

    My question is still how the scheme you're proposing worked. What was the quid? What was the quo? Where is the evidence that the money (or, ftm, any money) was used for the private benefit of the Clintons?

    So, surely you can recognize at least the appearance of impropriety when a big, business deal in a sensitive industry (nuclear material) is brokered by the Clintons for Russian oligarchs

    I repeat: The deal wasn't and couldn't have been "brokered by the Clintons." That's not how it works. The people who are selling you that crap are counting on your ignorance of such things.

    In reality, the deal was (and had to be) brokered by a nine-person panel of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is made up of sixteen US government agencies and departments, one of which is State, but others of which are Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security. It's chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, who was not Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton didn't control it. It makes recommendations to the president — in this case, Obama — who doesn't have to take them, but in this case did.

    and then followed up by a massive contribution by those Russian oligarchs to the Clinton Foundation.

    Which is a philanthropic organization that abides by the law in that it makes its Forms 990 available for public review. Either these show signs of private benefit to the Clintons, or your claim that the Clintons privately benefit from the Foundation is based on nothing apart from your liking to believe that it's crooked.

    Incidentally, as others have already pointed out, if you know what the 990s of a legitimate foundation look like, the Trump Foundation's 990s ares probably the most blatantly not-legitimate looking ones I've ever seen, with the possible exception of the Abramoff charities. But it's kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison. The Abramoff charities looked like money laundering. The Trump Foundation looks more like income-tax evasion.

    Regardless, either way, neither looked like their business was philanthropic.

    So let's go back to your original statement:

    Take a dose of your own hypocrisy medicine. Hillary is up to her eyeballs in Russians. Even CNN is saying: yes, Russian oligarchs donated $150mm to the Clinton Foundation following the Uranium One deal BUT they weren't technically directly involved in the uranium biz at the time the donations were made. I'm sure that passes the smell test in middle America.

    OK. The US government, in which Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, approved the Uranium One deal. Later, some Russian oligarchs who were no longer affiliated with the business gave a huge donation to the Clinton Foundation. Still later, Hillary Clinton ran for president and lost, not in small part because of a Russian influence campaign in support of her opponent, Donald Trump.

    Please connect the dots for me. I'm not quite seeing the part where she's up to her eyeballs in Russians.

Search Site

Make No Law 1A Podcast

Best LawBlogs Award Winner 2014Best LawBlogs Award Winner 2013

Quote of the Month

"I'm only an abstract imaginary foil written to sound like an idiot and even I know that's really stupid" ~ Kenfoilhat (previous)

Twitface

Follow Popehat (mostly Ken & Patrick), David, Grandy, Charles, Via Angus, Adam, and Marc on Twitter.

Become a fan on Facebook.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe

RSS
Comments RSS

Past Posts By Month

Posts By Category

All content is copyright 2004-2023 by its respective identified authors.
Google's Ad Policy

Website Design by CGD

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.