George Papadopoulos, who was a foreign policy advisor on President Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, just tweeted this:

I just have a responsibility to inform America of the truth. Western intelligence had elaborate sting operations and or fake disinformation campaigns to make it seem like Trump and his associates were “working with Russia.” Exhibit A: Joseph Mifsud was always western intel.

I’m interested in the part in bold. For those who don’t know, as detailed in Papadopoulos’ guilty plea, Joseph Mifsud was a Kremlin-connected professor working in London who told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had dirt on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. In response, Padadopoulos tried to use Mifsud’s connections to set up a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which ultimately fell through. Papadopoulos ultimately pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI in an attempt to cover up the nature of these interactions.

But my question is, is Papapadopoulos right that Joseph Mifsud was actually working for Western intelligence agencies rather than the Russians?

EDIT: The tweet I linked to was deleted, but this tweet is still up:

In January 2017 it was unbeknownst to every American, especially me that:

1) Joseph Mifsud is no Russian agent. He was western intelligence sent to entrap and make up lies.

2) “Putin’s niece” is a fake

3) Alexander Downer was not repping Australia

America deserves the truth

EDIT 2: George Papadopoulos’ wife just tweeted this:

George was sincere at the time of his sentencing[,] he thought that misremembering the date of the meeting with Mifsud had an impact. Mifsud lawyer, later on, admitted his client was western intelligence asset. Wouldn’t you feel framed?

This is a reference to Joseph Mifsud’s lawyer Stephan Roh, who has written a book called “The Faking of Russia-Gate: The Papadopoulos Case”. I don’t have the book so I don’t know what evidence Roh presents in it.

  • There is a change of what "western" means when you cross Greenwich. – SZCZERZO KŁY Nov 23 '18 at 15:09
  • 4
    At the risk of asking the obvious, what evidence is Papadopoulos citing to back up his assertions? – DJClayworth Nov 23 '18 at 16:09
  • 5
    It's interesting that even if Papadopoulos claims were true, it doesn't in any way change the illegality of what he did. He thought he was conspiring with Russian intelligence to influence the election. Just like if you try to buy heroin, you are still guilty of trying to buy heroin even if the person you are buying from turns out to be a police informer. – DJClayworth Nov 23 '18 at 16:15
  • 2
    @JAB Entrapment applies to the police encouraging illegal behavior. Simply offering an illegal product for sale doesn't make you buy it, no entrapment. – Loren Pechtel Nov 26 '18 at 5:48
  • 1
    If it would have been entrapment, it would be pretty stupid to only reveal it after the election instead of before. – Christian Nov 28 '18 at 12:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .