Mueller Sentencing Memorandum against Papadop is astonishingly sour and surly. It demonstrates gross incompetence by both FBI and Mueller for which they attempt to blame Papadop, rather than admitting. In doing so, they lied to court about timing, just as they accused Papadop.
2/ Mueller said that lies "caused damage" to investigation because they were "early" in investigation when "key decisions" were being made. In fact, Papadop interview was nearly six months after investigation started. Mueller lied about timing, just as he accused Papadop of doing 
3/ Mueller made a very testy response, purporting to deny claims by @simonamangiante that Papadop had "voluntarily reported" Mifsud's identity to FBI. FBI response contains new details on interview. I will parse remarkable possibility that FBI had NO prior knowledge of Mifsud.
4/ @LeeSmithDC @CJBdingo25 , I and others have exchanged tweets today on this issue - some arguing that it was inconceivable that FBI didn't know about Mifsud when they met Papadop on Jan 17. Let's look at rest of footnote and other docs.
5/ but first, a point on "voluntary". Memorandum says that FBI agents told Papadop that interview was "completely voluntary". Unlike everyone in Clinton emails, Papadop didnt lawyer up or obtain immunity. Yes he was questioned, but fair to say his report of Mifsud "voluntary"
6/ now watch the pea. Mueller asked "when the defendant first learned about Russia’s disclosure of information related to campaign and whether [Papadop had ever “received any information or anything like that from a [] Russian government official.”
7/ put yourself in Papadop's shoes. His objective regarding Russia had been his over-eager effort to arrange a summit between Putin and Trump, an effort which had been rebuffed by Russians, who merely proposed that Papadop meet with North American desk of Ministry of ForAffairs
8/ while Mifsud's comment that Russia had "dirt" on Clinton in form of "thousands" of emails was of huge concern to FBI, Papadop didn't pursue topic with Mifsud or Timofeev or report comment to Trump campaign. Only continuity was his mention while drinking with Downer.
9/ it may not have been front and center in Papadop's mind when he was confronted by FBI agents in Jan 2017.
10/ FBI framing of question revealing. They asked "when [Pap] first learned about Russia’s disclosure of information related to the campaign and whether
[Pap] had ever “received any information or anything like that from a [] Russian government official”?
[Pap] had ever “received any information or anything like that from a [] Russian government official”?
11/ considering question as it was asked, Mifsud didn't tell Papadop anything about "Russia's disclosure of information related to campaign", only that (and not necessarily true) that Russia had "dirt", "thousands of emails". But Pap had no inside knowledge on DISCLOSURE.
12/ in context of whether Pap received info related to campaign "from a Russian government official”, correct answer is NO. He didnt receive information on "Russia's DISCLOSURE of information" period. In particular, not from Timofeev who in any case, wasn't GOVERNMENT official
13/ Mueller then says that after "denying he received any information from a Russian government official", Pap "identified [Mifsud] by name – while also falsely claiming he interacted with the Professor “before I was with Trump though.” This appears to be first mention of Mifsud.
14/ over and over, Mueller accuses Pap of lying about timing of Mifsud meetings relative to joining Trump campaign, but, in my opinion, Mueller over-eggs the pudding.
Pap got some sort of oral notice ~Mar 6, named in WaPo on Mar 21, introductory meet with Trump campaign Mar 31,
Pap got some sort of oral notice ~Mar 6, named in WaPo on Mar 21, introductory meet with Trump campaign Mar 31,
15/ as an analogy, when did Trump become president: when he was elected or when he was inaugurated? Obviously, when he was inaugurated.
When was Pap "inaugurated" into Trump campaign? On oral notice? On WaPo announcement? At March 31 meeting?
When was Pap "inaugurated" into Trump campaign? On oral notice? On WaPo announcement? At March 31 meeting?
16/ Pap met Mifsud in Italy on March 14, before appointment had been formally announced and before inaugural meeting of advisory committee. Not entirely wrong to say Pap "interacted with [Mifsud] before [he] was with Trump" (as well as after).
17/ back to interrogation. Mueller whines tht, after first mentioning Mifsud, Papadop took "several minutes" before mentioning discussion about "dirt". Pause here: SEVERAL MINUTES. Has there ever been a more serious case of obstruction? The nerve. Making FBI wait SEVERAL MINUTES
18/ after enduring "several minutes" of Papadop talking about something else, the intrepid FBI agents returned to question of Wikileaks and whether Pap was "made aware" ahead of time that Russians had "intent to disclose information" or "tell Trump team ahead of time"?
19/ the framing of question demonstrates the ignorance of FBI agents. The DNC emails were not exfiltrated until May 19-25 - well AFTER the Apr 26 meeting with Mifsud. Nearly all hacked emails hadn't even been SENT as of Apr 26. Whatever Mifsud was talking about wasn't DNC emails.
20/ if Pap were answering question as literally asked, the correct answer would be NO. He was not "made aware" ahead of time that Russians had "intent to disclose information" or "tell Trump team ahead of time".
And indeed that was Pap's answer. The exchange reminded Pap of Mifsud's comment on April 26 while Pap was still "working in London" at LCILP with Mifsud about "thousands of emails" and "dirt", which he then recounted to agents.
22/ watch Mueller's next deceit. Agents did not themselves "bring up" the specifics of the Mifsud conversation and ask Pap to comment. (In contrast to Hillary interview where they showed her documents and asked her to comment and were unperturbed when she remembered nothing
23/ Agent questioning probably resulted in Papadop digging deeper into his recollections. But it was Papadop who "brought up" Mifsud's comment about "thousands of emails" and "dirt", NOT the agents as falsely claimed by Mueller.
24/ also consider Pap's statement: "I was working in London . . . with that guy [the Professor". Mifsud statement was made on April 26. In April 2016, Papadop was in fact still working in London at LCILP with Mifsud (see Linked In). Mueller over-egging in labeling this as lie.
25/ overall, on this issue, it appears that Papadop "voluntarily" identified Mifsud. Nothing indicates that agents brought Mifsud's name up first and that, only then, did Papadop grudgingly concede. The opposite.
26/ also, FBI questions to Papadop all appear to be premised on a belief that Papadop had been interacting with a /Russian national/ agent. They didn't seem to have had the slightest idea that Mifsud (who also had strong connections with UK and Italian intelligence) was source.
27/ Mueller's worst whinging was claim that Pap's interview paralyzed FBI questions to Mifsud. They said that Pap prevented them from asking "how and where [Mifsud] obtained information, why [Mifsud] provided information to [Papadop]" and asking what Papadop did with information.
28/ FBI interviewed Mifsud on Feb 11. The first questions that anyone would have asked Mifsud were: how and where did he obtain information; why did he provide information to Papadop. Ace Ventura, Pet Detective would have figured that out. But not the aces of CrossfireHurricane
29/ we don't know what FBI asked Mifsud? Did they ask him about his associations with Italian intelligence or UK intelligence? About Claire Smith or Pitella or Frattini? Did he know Halper or Steele? Of course not.
30/ did it concern FBI when Mifsud attended annual meeting of European Council on Foreign Relations (of which he was council member) with George, Tamiko and Alexander Soros and dozens of European foreign ministry officials? I guess not.
31/ or when he showed up convening a panel at the Riyadh conference on terrorism on May 21, 2017. The same day as Trump was pledging fealty to Saudi Arabia over a glowing orb? I guess not.
32/ the Mueller Memorandum is both malicious and pathetic. It is pathetic that a clique of unethical prosecutors have the temerity to blame Papadopoulos for their own lack of due diligence and skill. Their naked malice reveals the ugliness of their motives.
