While Russia collusion is missing from statements from George Papadopoulos’ wife, possible spying is not!
I recently wrote about what George Papadopoulos’ wife is saying about her husband. Now, Margot Cleveland has written more about what the testimony of Simona Mangiate Papadopoulos means to the Russia story and Donald Trump’s “spygate” accusation, under the headline, “Here’s What We Can Glean From What George Papadopoulos’s Wife Is Telling Media.”
First, she points out that Mangiante is likely to be telling the truth.
Mangiante’s statements last week and over the last year prove enlightening — and reliable — for two reasons: First, from pillow talk, she has knowledge of the events purportedly leading to the launching of Crossfire Hurricane, as well as evidence of attempts by spies, such as Stefan Halper, to target Papadopoulos. Mangiante is unlikely to lie about these events, because doing so would jeopardize her husband’s case: Should Mangiante contradict the information Papadopoulos provided to the Special Counsel’s office, he could face additional criminal charges. Second, while Mangiante has not been charged with a crime, should she reveal information that contradicts her sworn testimony before the grand jury, she could face criminal liability as well.
So, what can be gleaned from Mangiante’s comments in the last year? Two main points: Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia, but there is evidence of concerted efforts by individuals connected with foreign intelligence agencies, Obama administration officials, and career employees of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to spy on the Trump presidential campaign.
Cleveland reviews Mangiante’s claims about her and her husband’s interactions with the suspicious Joseph Mifsud. Cleveland says her statements suggest that the London Centre, which hired both of them, appears to be a basis of operations to “set up the Trump campaign.”
When Mangiante first started making statements to the media, the mainstream press interpreted her words to mean that Papadopoulos was helping the Mueller investigation prove collusion with Russia. Not true. She was saying that Papadopoulos was more important to the campaign than Team Trump was admitting at the time (which would help explain why he was set up), not that he had anything to do with an alleged Russian collusion.
Notice how MSNBC only asks Mangiante questions about his importance to the campaign, not about his supposed connections to Russia:
Since that MSNBC reports, virtually everything Wolf Blitzer alleges about Russia has been shown to be doubtful.
Her statements to other media outlets were treated similarly.
In her earlier interviews, Mangiante had also told The Washington Post “there was a lot to come” and “history will remember [Papadopoulos] like John Dean” — the White House counsel who exposed Watergrate. The Russia-obsessed media assumed Mangiante meant evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign. Not so. “[I] was referring precisely to the situation with Halper,” Mangiante told The Daily Caller, adding that “operation is more evidence of George being a target to infiltrate the campaign.”
Stefan Halper, of course, was the FBI informant who had contacted Papadopoulos and two other Trump campaign workers in the spring and summer of 2016, and then met with Papadopoulos in mid-September 2016, asking the Trump aide what he knew about the Russians having the Democrats’ emails. Papadopoulos told Halper he did not know what he was talking about, and at that, as Mangiante relayed, Halper began “acting aggressively” and “showing disappointment” at Papadopoulos’ denials.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com