Thread by @ClimateAudit

Durham reported on, but did NOT DISCUSS, Downer's amazing statement in Oct 2019 interview that Papadopoulos “made no mention of ... any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance”.

supposed report by Papadopoulos to Australians of a "Russian offer to assist" was essential to Crossfire predicate. Term mentioned over dozen times in Strzok memoir Compromised. Napolitano and others speculated Russia had Hillary emails, but "offer to assist" needed for Crossfire

In Compromised, Strzok specifically attributed the information about Papadopoulos' statements to Alexander Downer.
But, when interviewed by Durham, Downer denied that Papadopoulos had said anything about a Russian "offer to assist".
But Durham segued away, without comment.

Downer told Durham that "he would have characterized the statements made by Papadopoulos //differently// than [Thompson] did in Paragraph 5". (Paragraph 5 was notorious Australian cable excerpt used in Crossfire Opening EC) referring to "suggestion" of a "suggestion" from Russia

Strzok/Pientka interviewed Downer/Thompson on Aug 2, 2016. Obvious question: Did Downer say that Papadopoulos "made no mention of ... any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance"?

In August 2, 2016 interview, did Downer say "that he would have characterized the statements made by Papadopoulos differently than [Thompson] did in Paragraph 5"?

In his memoir, Strzok claimed that interview "confirm[ed] that the report [Paragraph 5] had conveyed the allegation accurately. We had eliminated the possibility that someone had misheard something and satisfied ourselves about the accuracy of the initial reporting."

and yet Downer's evidence to Durham does the exact opposite: Downer directly questioned the Paragraph 5 reporting and denied that Papadopoulos had ever referred to a "Russian offer to assist".

Durham reported that FBI 302 for Aug 2, 2016 stated that Thompson said that Paragraph 5 was "purposely vague" and that Papadop "did not say he had direct contact with the Russians".
This is not what Strzok claimed in Compromised.

the possibility that Papadopoulos did NOT use the phrase "Russian offer to assist" (and that phrase was an embellishment in reporting) has long been discussed in this corner e.g. right after Horowitz here https://t.co/6abNvCnmwz

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1211771566444417025

subsequently Walkafyre pinned the embellishment to Erika Thompson's cable in May 2016.
Durham explained that there were two cables: one by Downer on May 11 and one by Thompson. The embellishment was in the Thompson cable on May 16.

https://twitter.com/walkafyre/status/1376373723603861509

Downer gave a copy of Erika's cable to the US Embassy on July 26, 2016. The FBI seems to have incorrectly assumed that this was Downer's cable, treating it as though it were a document from a senior and experienced diplomat and not from a Ciaramella-generation anti-Trump partisan

there's another large puzzle about Australians in Durham report, that Durham didn't comment on. In their Oct 2019 (separate) interviews, Downer and Thompson both stated that Papadopoulos' statements were made on May 10, 2016 at the wine bar when both were present.

Strzok had praised both interviewees as "clearheaded, intelligent and precise".

the account of the incident date and location given by Australians to Durham is also consistent with original reporting e.g. New York Times in December 2017 citing "four current and former officials"

but Mueller report had placed incident on May 6, 2016, their date for introductory meeting between Papadopoulos and Thomson plus her boyfriend, Israeli diplomat Christian Cantor. Mueller cited "FBI case-opening document and related materials". Case opening EC DIDNT mention May 6

Durham stated that Pientka's FBI 302 for Aug 2, 2016 interview also gave a date of May 6, 2016 introductory meeting for incident, noting that Downer wasn't at that meeting.

if Papadopoulos statements were made on May 6 (when Downer not present), then Downer didn't have first hand knowledge of key Papadopoulos statements and both Thompson and Downer were lying or implausibly not remembering when interviewed by Durhm.

wherever the truth may lie, it is beyond bizarre that there should be any uncertainty - let alone major contradictions - in date and location of statements upon which entire Crossfire predicate rested. Yet Durham let pass without comment.

Durham noted the contradiction between the Downer and Thompson statements in Oct 2019 interviews and the Pientka 302 on apparently inconsistent Thompson statement on Aug 2, 2016, but apparently didn't ask Thompson about inconsistency in Oct 2019 or follow-up. Why?

also, FWIW Mueller investigation did NOT interview either Downer or Thompson despite their importance to Crossfire opening. Why? My guess is that Weissmann et al realized that story was wonky and was more valuable to them uninvestigated than refuted.

my conclusions:
(1) Papaopoulos never mentioned any "Russian offer to assist" on either date;
(2) the claim that "Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process [campaign]" was an embellishment by Erika Thompson;

(3) Downer later realized (too late) that Erika's embellishment had launched a crisis and (gallantly) did what he could to keep Erika out of the limelight;(4) Mueller avoided Downer; but Downer, at first official opportunity (Durham - Oct 2019), walked back Erika's embellishment

if Durham had released Downer (and Thompson) interviews in October 2019, subsequent events would probably have unfolded differently. Why didn't he?

Durham's prosecutions of Sussmann and Danchenko (as I observed in real time) were ill-conceived and waste of time.

the points above are necessarily fine-grained.

In Durham appearance before Congress, Democrats consistently cited number of indictments and convictions obtained by Mueller as vindication of the Crossfire predicate
also contrasting to Durham flop.

Rs failed to ask the obvious retort questions:
1) how many indictments or convictions were obtained by Mueller in regard to the ostensible Crossfire predicate - collusion of Trump campaign officials with Russia? Answer, of course, is zero.

2) which tax case was pursued more diligently: Paul Manafort or Hunter Biden?
3) which FARA case pursued more diligently: Paul Manafort or Hunter Biden?

4) why was Mueller about to require every (or almost all) Trump official to testify, but nearly all senior FBI or DOJ officials refused to be interviewed.
5) why did Trump officials have detailed recollection when asked by Mueller, while Comey and Dems "do not recall"

@threadreaderapp unroll