"According to the tipster [Downer] himself,
Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails."
5/3/18, "The Curious Case of Mr. Downer," Wall St. Journal, Kimberley A. Strassel
"His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question."
"To hear the Federal Bureau of Investigation tell it, its decision to
launch a counterintelligence probe into a major-party presidential
campaign comes down to a foreign tip about a 28-year-old fourth-tier
Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The FBI’s media scribes have dutifully reported the bare facts
of that “intel.” We are told the infamous tip came from Alexander
Downer, at the time the Australian ambassador to the U.K. Mr. Downer
invited Mr. Papadopoulos for a drink in early May 2016, where the aide
told the ambassador the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Word of
this encounter at some point reached the FBI, inspiring it to launch its
counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31.
Notably (nay, suspiciously) absent or
muddled are the details of how and when that information made its way to
the FBI, and what exactly was transmitted. A December 2017 New York
Times story vaguely explains that the Australians passed the info to
“American counterparts” about “two months later,” and that once it
“reached the FBI,” the bureau acted. Even the Times admits it’s “not
clear” why it took the Aussies so long to flip such a supposedly smoking
tip. The story meanwhile slyly leads readers to believe that Mr.
Papadopoulos told Mr. Downer that Moscow had “thousands of emails,” but
read it closely and the Times in fact never specifies what the Trump
aide said, beyond “dirt.”
When Mr. Downer ended his service in the U.K. this April [2018], he
sat for an interview with the Australian, a national newspaper, and
“spoke for the first time” about the Papadopoulos event. Mr. Downer said
he officially reported the Papadopoulos meeting back to Australia “the
following day or a day or two after,” as it “seemed quite interesting.”
The story nonchalantly notes that “after a period of time, Australia’s
ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, passed the information on to
Washington.”
My reporting indicates otherwise. A diplomatic source tells me Mr.
Hockey neither transmitted any information to the FBI nor was approached
by the U.S. about the tip. Rather, it was Mr. Downer who at some point
decided to convey his information—to the U.S. Embassy in London
.
That matters because it is not how things are normally done.
The U.S. is part of Five Eyes, an intelligence network that includes the
U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Five Eyes agreement
provides that any intelligence goes through the intelligence system of
the country that gathered it. This helps guarantee information is
securely handled, subjected to quality control, and not made prey to
political manipulation. Mr. Downer’s job was to report his meeting back
to Canberra, and leave it to Australian intelligence. We also know that
it wasn’t Australian intelligence that alerted the FBI. The document
that launched the FBI probe contains no foreign intelligence whatsoever.
So if Australian intelligence did receive the Downer info, it didn’t
feel compelled to act on it.
But the Obama State Department did—and its involvement is
news. The Downer details landed with the [US] embassy’s then-chargĂ©
d’affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal
deputy assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.
When did all this happen, and what came next? Did the info go
straight to U.S. intelligence? Or did it instead filter to the wider
State Department team, who we already know were helping foment
Russia-Trump conspiracy theories? Jonathan Winer, a former deputy
assistant secretary of state, has publicly admitted to communicating in
the summer of 2016 with his friend Christopher Steele, author of the
infamous dossier.
I was unable to reach Mr. Downer for comment and do not know
why he chose to go to the embassy. A conservative politician, he was
Australia’s longest-serving foreign minister (1996-2007). Sources
speculate that he might have felt his many contacts justified reaching
out himself.
Meanwhile, something doesn’t gel between Mr. Downer’s account
of the conversation and the FBI’s. In his Australian interview, Mr.
Downer said Mr. Papadopolous didn’t give specifics. “He didn’t say dirt,
he said material that could be damaging to her,” said Mr. Downer. “He
didn’t say what it was.” Also: “Nothing he said in that conversation
indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect
information on Hillary Clinton.”
For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that
Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May,
before they became public in June.
But according to the tipster himself,
Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails. The FBI instead received a
report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the
Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary. Did this
vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential
campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?
Unlikely. Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when? The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner."
...................
..................
No comments:
Post a Comment