PAPANDOPOULOUS STORY A RED HERRING

NYT STORY AN ATTEMPT TO REWRITE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN DOSSIER

On December 29, 2017 when everyone was still recovering from the Christmas rush, the NYT put out a piece that smells (and reads) like a red herring.  Yes it seems suspiciously well designed to draw the reading public away from the actua facts—- that the FBI used the Russian Dossier (the Steele dodgy document rife wth fake dirt on Trump) to initiate the now infamous “investigation” into possible “collusion” into the Trump campaign and its relationship with Russia.

The leadership of the FBI has been reluctant (recalcitrant)  in its response to Congessional inquiry concerning the  Russian Dossier and how it was used to initiate an investigation into the campaign of the Republican candidate.  All evidence seems to point to the fact that indeed it.was dressed up to be presented to the FISA court as “evidence” to support domestic spying on the legitimate presidential campaign of an American citizen.  If proved true, many top FBI. heads would roll in front of 935 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC.  Trump would be vindicated and the “Holy Grail” of the left  of “Russian COLUSION” would be dead and buried. The editors of the Times, who have become a partner in the political club known as the Democrat Party, prefer to protect the perfidious elites in the top floors of the FBI offices.  The “Russian Dossier” shorty does fit into the scenario they would like to advance.  This paper is nn longer the great “gray lady” of the past, interested only in presenting the well documented facts. They have clearly left legitimate journalism to become political propagandists.

So to the Times’  Papandopoulous story.  According to the NYT George Papandopoulous, an American citizen, a novice  (age 28) in every sense of the word, had been working in the oil industry in London when he was tapped to serve in the Ben Carson campaign as a “foreign policy” expert.  (Perhaps his fragmentaryknowledge of geography and his ethnic ties to Greek family or friends of Reince Priebus had a hand in his acceptance as an “expert”  with the Carson campaign)   Papandopoulous appears from all accounts  eager to please his superiors and hopeful of a position in a Republican administration.  And why not?  But his eagerness, lack of expertise and brashness may have been his undoing.

When the Carson campaign collapsed he apparently continued to press his erstwhile political contacts for a position in the surging Trump campaign.  Desperate for manpower, the Trumpistas took him on.  He seems by accounts of this activities very eager to please his superiors.  Too eager.   He advanced some ideas for contacts with the Russians which were flatly turned down by more sober, practical and wiser campaign officials.   Left on his own recognizance, he returned to Europe where he seems to have made himserlf the target for every spy, huckster and lobbyist on the Continet.  During a liquor-laced conversation with the Austrailian Ambassador to the UK at an upscale London pub, he brashly claimed to know of a trove of emails held by the Russians which would expose the chicanery of the Clinton campaign.  This drunken braggadocio is the basis of the NYT story.  The piece states that Papandopoulous’ claim was “according to anonymous sources” of the NYT (it is always “anonymous sources”) was believed and then duly transmitted by the Australian official to the FBI.

Thus according to this big revelation of the NYT,  instead of the Steele dossier which the FBI had at a much earlier date (as well as the fact that they had knowledge and confidence in Steels as a spy) this Papandopoulous blather was the primary source for the FISA court approval to initiate domestic spying on Trump.  It was not the Dossier!

If this latter story seems believable to you please see my adverticement for the sale of a lovely stone and brick antique bridge which crosses the East River connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan.