1/ In addition to the only evidence for Mifsud being Pap's Jan 2017 "recollection", the ONLY evidence for !April 26! (as opposed to, say, Mar 14 or 24) is Pap AFTER arrest. If, after arrest, Pap was trying to explain his statement that Mifsud told him BEFORE he joined Trump
2/ campaign, he had a very plausible argument (IMO) that he didn't know for sure that Trump had accepted Clovis' recommendation until Trump actually made the official announcement in late March. He could plausibly claim another couple of weeks as he transitioned from LCILP job.
3/ the April 26 date was by far the worst for him relative to his claim to have got info from Mifsud BEFORE joining Trump campaign. There is NO other evidence for !April 26! than Papadop himself. So why did he pick !April 26! ? As Hans said, Pap composed to please Mueller.
4/ why did Papadop compose to please Mueller? This is important question. Mueller team clearly intimidated Pap into composing. (And Pap was willing composer.) People have speculated on intimidation having something to do with Israeli spy. But it could be something else.
5/ What if Mueller team were the ones who, after arrest, planted the idea with Pap that they had evidence that Mifsud gave him information at !April 26! meeting. Once Pap confessed to !April 26!, the fact that Mueller didn't have such evidence got washed away. Pap, a serial liar
6/ and fantasist, was perfect mark for Mueller thugs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
here is a thread from 2023 in which Eric Ciaramella's "yikes" is placed in a more detailed context.
In this thread, I suggested that the linkage was connected to Jan 21, 2016 meeting of Ukrainian prosecutors with State Dept officials, noting that Jamie Gusack (reporting to Bridget Brink) had distributing the first demand for Shokin's head (Nov 22 TPs)
as pointed out in that thread, Gusack (State Dept) had been coordinating with Ciaramella (NSC) prior to arrival of Ukr prosecutors in Jan 2016, referring to Shokin replacement.
State Dept cited "diamond prosecutors case" as big deal. But what happened to it next? A long story.
Bridget Brink, Jamie Gusack's boss, reported to Victoria Nuland. Brink was appointed Ambassador to Ukraine in April 2022. Unanimous approval by Senate in early days of war at the exact time that US and UK were sabotaging the peace deal negotiated in Istanbul
as observed yesterday, , after 2014 US coup, the tsunami of billion dollar US/IMF loans was associated with unprecedented embezzlement by Ukr oligarchs thru corrupt Ukr banking system. Rescues of failed banks (mostly unnoticed in west) were markers
in today's thread, I'll provide a short bibliography of articles (mostly Ukrainian language via google translate) on the Ukr banking corruption crisis that began and exploded after the 2014 US coup, while Biden, Blinken, Nuland et al were running Ukraine
once one searches specifically for the topic, there are interesting references, but the topic has received essentially next to zero coverage in the west. I'll take myself as an example. Despite following Ukr affairs quite closely, my prior knowledge was three vignettes.
May 25, 2021: US DOJ announced indictment & arrest of Austrian banker Peter Weinzierl
Mar 13, 2024: we learn that Alexander Smirnov was an FBI informant against Weinzierl and had lured Weinzierl to UK on behalf of FBI for arrest justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/t… archive.is/zO1rt
the DOJ charges against Austrian banker Weinzierl, filed during first six months of Biden admin, pertained to allegations that payments made via Meinl Bank in Austria by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht were connected to evasion of taxes in Brazil.
if the concern of US DOJ and FBI with administration of Brazilian tax collection seems somewhat quirky, there may be an ulterior motive: Meinl Bank had a central role in the looting of Ukrainian banks during the 2014-2016 Biden administration of Ukraine.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, named by NYT as architect of 2014 post-Maidan takeover of Ukrainian intelligence by CIA, is former head of Ukrainian SBU. His comments on Biden corruption deserve attention, but have been ignored.archive.is/zXXQV
on October 10, 2019, early in the Trump impeachment saga, Nalyvaichenko published an op ed in Wall St Journal saying "alliance with US depends on answering questions about Bidens and election interference" [by Ukraine] archive.is/wsrjP
in that editorial, Naluvaichenko, the former SBU hear, stated that Ukraine had responsibility to investigate allegations that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election (a separate issue from Russian interference) and whether Burisma hired Hunter Biden for "cynical purposes".
as Svetlana @RealSLokhova explained to us, intelligence fabricators (like Halper) begin by juxtaposing two targets in the same room and using that juxtaposition for their smear.
Smirnov had multiple Burisma contacts in 2017-Jan 2018, that are provable by email and travel records. See diagram below.
But, according to Weiss, instead of attaching narrative to provable meetings, Smirnov attached his narrative to non-existent contacts in 2015-16 and 2019.
Obvious question: why would Smirnov attach his narrative to fabricated meetings/telecons, when he had multiple real meetings/telecons to which he could have attached the narrative just as easily?
NYT () has major article on how CIA constructed "a network of spy bases [in Ukraine that] includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border", which @aaronjmate has drawn attention to. A couple of interesting chronology points in today's thread.archive.is/zXXQV
first NYT "hero" is Valentyn Nalyvaichenko who, despite Ukraine's constitutional neutrality, on Feb 24, 2014, on first evening of Maidan coup that had overthrown the democratically elected president of Ukraine, as incoming "spy chief", colluded with CIA and MI6 station chiefs
later in the article, NYT laconically stated that, in summer 2015, Ukr president Poroshenko "shook up the domestic service" and "installed an ally to replace Nalyvaichenko, the CIA's trusted partner".