George Papadopoulos - Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum

Defendant George Papadopoulos, by his attorneys, Breen & Pugh, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, respectfully submits this sentencing memorandum...

I. George Papadopoulos’s Personal History and Characteristics and the Events Preceding the Offense

As a young man, George demonstrated a keen interest in politics, international relations, and diplomacy. He attended DePaul University, where he studied government and national security. After earning his bachelor’s degree in political science, he enrolled at Kings College in London, England, where he studied public policy, international law, and national security. In 2010, George received a Master of Science in Security Studies.

The following year, George interned at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., where he researched nuclear non-proliferation, national defense, and U.S. relations with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. The Hudson Institute later hired George to work on two energy security projects. George devoted his early career to energy policies particular to Cyprus, Israel, Egypt, and Greece. He became somewhat of an aficionado in this field, authoring papers and lecturing on the topic.

In the summer of 2015, George attempted to step into United States presidential politics when he applied to work for Donald Trump’s campaign. George supported candidate Trump’s policy positions and believed that Mr. Trump was the only Republican candidate that had a chance of beating likely Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton. When George failed to secure a position with the Trump campaign, he took up with candidate Dr. Ben Carson as a foreign policy advisor. George continued in this position until January 2016 when Dr. Carson began winding down his campaign.

Still a stalwart supporter of Trump’s bid for the presidency, George doubled down on his efforts to join that campaign and, in early March 2016, he received an interview for the position of foreign policy advisor. During his meeting with a senior Trump campaign official, George learned that the campaign’s foreign policy focus would be improving relations with Russia. George landed the job despite having no experience with U.S. and Russian diplomacy.

On March 14, 2016, George met London-based college Professor Joseph Mifsud while traveling in Italy. When Mifsud, then director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, claimed connections to the Russian Government, George thought he could utilize him and his connections to help the Trump campaign promote its policy objectives. Professor Mifsud paid young George little attention until learning of his position as one of Trump’s foreign policy advisors.

Donald Trump publicly named George as one of his campaign’s foreign policy advisors on March 21, 2016, boasting to reporters: “He’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy.” Three days later, on March 24, 2016, George met again with Professor Mifsud in London where he introduced George to a young woman named Olga, who Professor Mifsud claimed was a relative of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Professor Mifsud and Olga led George to believe that they had the wherewithal to set up a meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

Returning to Washington D.C., twenty-eight-year-old George witnessed his career skyrocketing to unimaginable heights. On March 31, 2016, he joined Mr. Trump, Senator Jeff Sessions, and other campaign officials for a “National Security Meeting” at the Trump Hotel. George’s photograph at this meeting flashed around the world via Twitter. Eager to show his value to the campaign, George announced at the meeting that he had connections that could facilitate a foreign policy meeting between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. While some in the room rebuffed George’s offer, Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr. Sessions who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.

George’s giddiness over Mr. Trump’s recognition was prominent during the days that followed the March 31, 2016 meeting. He had a sense of unbridled loyalty to the candidate and his campaign and set about trying to organize the meeting with President Putin. George continued his discussions with Professor Mifsud and Olga – who he believed to be President Putin’s niece – about arranging a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. George kept the campaign in the loop and, in mid-April 2016, Professor Mifsud introduced George to Ivan Timofeev who claimed to have connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Seemingly on a roll, George again seized this opportunity to try and organize a meeting between the campaign and Russian officials. Mr. Timofeev claimed to be in Moscow and for several weeks, George pressed him through emails and Skype calls about setting up a potential meeting.

To say George was out of his depth would be a gross understatement. Despite being a young energy policy guru, he had no experience in dealing with Russian policy or its officials. Nonetheless, George strived to organize a meeting with the Russian government and help the Trump campaign promote its foreign policy objective: improve U.S. and Russian relations. He believed that such a meeting would be a boon for the campaign as Mr. Trump had not yet hosted any major foreign policy events with officials from other countries.

George joined Professor Mifsud for breakfast in London on April 26, 2016, with the intention of finalizing plans for the foreign policy meeting. It was during this breakfast meeting, however, that Professor Mifsud told George that individuals in Moscow possessed “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Not knowing what to make of this comment, George continued his efforts to make the Trump – Russia meeting a reality. As he expressed in an email to Professor Mifsud, George believed that the meeting would be “history making.” While the meeting never occurred, George sincerely thought that he could be at the center of a globally significant event.

On the morning of January 27, 2017, as George stepped out of the shower at his mother’s home in Chicago, two FBI agents knocked on the door seeking to interview him. The agents asked George to accompany them to their office to answer a “couple questions” regarding “a guy in New York that you might know[,] [t]hat has recently been in the news.” George thought the agents wanted to ask him about Russian businessman Sergei Millian. Wanting clarification, he asked the agents, “…just so I understand, I’m going there to answer questions about this person who I think you’re talking about.” The agents assured George that the topic of discussion was Mr. Millian who had been trending in the national media.

En route to the FBI office, George voiced concern about the repercussions of his cooperation ever becoming public because the Wall Street Journal had just reported that Sergei Millian was a key source in the “Trump Dossier” controversy. George explained that he was in discussions with senior Trump administration officials about a position and the last thing he wanted was “something like this” casting the administration in a bad light. The agents assured him that his cooperation would remain confidential. George let the agents know that he wanted to help so that he could move on and serve his country.

Seemingly as promised, the agents began their questioning about George’s relationship with Sergei Millian. George knew Mr. Millian only as a businessman pitching an opportunity to George in his personal capacity. The agents asked how they first met, what they discussed, how often they talked or met in person, if George knew whether Mr. Millian was connected to Russia or a foreign intelligence service, and who else on Mr. Trump’s campaign may have been in contact with Mr. Millian. George answered their questions honestly.

A. George Papadopoulos Lied to the FBI for Personal Reasons; Not to Impede the Investigation

Less than twenty minutes into the interview, the agents dropped the Millian inquiry and turned to recent news about Russian influence in the presidential election. George told the agents he had no knowledge of anyone on the campaign colluding with the Russians and it would not have been in anyone’s interest to undermine the democratic process. George was surprised to be answering questions about Russian interference in the election and told the agents the topic caught him off guard.

The FBI agent confirmed that the Sergei Millian inquiry was just a ruse to get him in a room when he told George that:

… the reason we wanted to pull you in today and have that conversation because we wanted to know to the extent of your knowledge being an insider inside that small group of people that were policy advisors who, if anybody, has that connection with Russia and what, what sort of connections there were.

For the next two hours, George answered questions about Professor Mifsud, Olga, Carter Page, Sergei Millian and the “Trump Dossier,” and George’s interactions with other people working on the campaign. The agents asked George if he would be willing to actively cooperate and contact various people they had discussed. While George did not think he would be able to get information from those individuals, he stated his willingness to try. He told the agents he was unaware of anyone in the campaign knowing of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails prior to the emails being publicly released. Further, George told the agents he had no knowledge of meetings between Russian government officials and people working on the campaign.

George found himself personally conflicted during the interrogation as he felt obligated to assist the FBI but also wanted to distance himself and his work on the Trump campaign from that investigation. Attempting to reconcile these competing interests, George provided information he thought was important to the investigation while, at the same time, misleading the agents about the timing, nature, and extentof his contacts with Professor Mifsud, Olga, and Ivan Timofeev. In his answers, George falsely distanced his interactions with these players from his campaign work. At one point, George told the agents that he did not want to “get too in-depth” because he did not know what it would mean for his professional future. He told the agents he was “trying to help the country and you guys, but I don’t want to jeopardize my career.”

George lied about material facts central to the investigation. To generalize, the FBI was looking into Russian contacts with members of the Trump campaign as part of its larger investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. This issue had dominated the news for several months with stories concerning Carter Page and Paul Manafort. The agents placed this issue squarely on the table before George and he balked. In his hesitation, George lied, minimized, and omitted material facts. Out of loyalty to the new president and his desire to be part of the administration, he hoisted himself upon his own petard.

B. Mr. Papadapoulos’s False Statements Never Actually Hindered the Government’s Investigation

In its sentencing memorandum, the Government claims that Mr. Papadopoulos impeded the FBI’s investigation because his false statements hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question Professor Mifsud or arrest him while he was still in the United States. Additionally, the Government argues that Mr. Papadopoulos’s false statements hampered other investigative steps to help determine how Professor Mifsud obtained the information about the Clinton emails,why he provided the information to George, and what George did with the information after he received it.

The Government’s argument is speculative at best as it has not shown counsel nor the Court any evidence tending to show its investigation was actually hindered in the manner described. Mr. Papadopoulos admits that his false statements on January 27, 2017 were material, in that his statements had the ability to influence the actions of the agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He does not, however, believe his false statements actually harmed the investigation as alleged.

Indeed, while George misled investigators regarding when Professor Mifsud told him the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, it was still apparent, despite George’s lie, that Professor Mifsud communicated this information to George prior to the stolen emails being made public.

Moreover, at the time investigators interviewed Professor Mifsud they were unaware of George’s false statements, and George was still a cooperating source in their investigation. It seems improbable that the investigators would have challenged Professor Mifsud with George’s statements for fear of revealing their source. Additionally, if Professor Mifsud denied telling George about the stolen emails, it is unlikely he would have said something different if the agents confronted him with additional information.

If investigators wished to know what George did with the information from Professor Mifsud, they could have asked George during his interview. Indeed, they did ask if George provided the information to the campaign and George denied ever doing so. In his later proffer sessions, George reiterated that he does not recall ever passing the information along to the campaign.

After his arrest on July 27, 2017, George cooperated fully with federal investigators. George participated in four proffer sessions and was willing to answer any questions posed. George consented to searches of his electronic devices and allowed investigators to review a journal with notes from when he worked on the Trump campaign. He also identified emails and explained his interactions and communications with Sergei Millian, Professor Mifsud, Olga, Ivan Timofeev, and others.

Additionally, George provided investigators with critical information. George told investigators about his interactions and meetings with other members of the campaign. He detailed a meeting in late May 2016 where he revealed to the Greek Foreign Minister that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. He explained that this meeting took place days before President Vladimir Putin traveled to Greece to meet with Greek officials.

Most significantly, George told investigators about the March 31, 2016 “National Security Meeting” in Washington D.C. where he told Mr. Trump, Mr. Sessions, and everyone else present that he had connections willing to help organize a meeting between Mr. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. George recounted why he made the statement in a meeting that was little more than a meet-and-greet, and the reactions of the people in the room.

Lastly, even after the Government stopped meeting with George for proffer sessions in December 2017, George agreed to three Government-requested extensions of his eventual sentencing. While this case has weighed heavily on George, he agreed to the extensions as a courtesy to the Government and their investigation.

I'm posting the meat of the sentencing pleading by Papadopoulos' lawyers.

Some interesting quotes:

George joined Professor Mifsud for breakfast in London on April 26, 2016, with the intention of finalizing plans for the foreign policy meeting. It was during this breakfast meeting, however, that Professor Mifsud told George that individuals in Moscow possessed “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

He told the agents he was unaware of anyone in the campaign knowing of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails prior to the emails being publicly released.

Indeed, while George misled investigators regarding when Professor Mifsud told him the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, it was still apparent, despite George’s lie, that Professor Mifsud communicated this information to George prior to the stolen emails being made public.

One of the key misleading narratives pushed by the mainstream media and the coup plotters is to conflate Hillary's missing and bleach-bitted 30,000 emails with the emails of John Podesta and the DNC which were released by Wikileaks.

The missing Hillary emails is what Trump was joking about during the debate with Hillary, that if Russia has them, they should release them. But I am not aware that Hillary's emails have ever been admitted by the FBI or CIA to actually be stolen by anyone or that they have ever been released.

Since the "thousands" of "stolen" Hillary emails have never been publicly released, why is Papadopoulos' own lawyer falsely repeating this phony narrative?

From recent reporting, the Chinese have Hillary's emails. Hillary's emails are on Weiner's laptop and any copy of the disk made by the FBI or the NYPD. Huma apparently had copies in her gmail account.

Some of Hillary's emails have been released by the State Department in response to FOIA and congressional requests, after heavy redaction.

But there have not been thousands of stolen Hillary emails publicly released, notwithstanding the gaslighting by the Special Counsel, the FBI and even Papadopoulos' lawyer.

Thanks for posting that. It's fascinating that little George is still in over his head, to some extent, to suggest something nonfactual about Hillary's emails. One wonders if Mueller intends to conflate the way George did and then accuse Trump of knowledge of stolen emails from sources other than public sources?

Obviously the FOIA emails from the State Dept are damning enough. There are numerous security violations in the forwarding of unclassified but sensitive particularly some stamped NOFORN. The idea that those were forwarded to China (still not confirmed) is extremely concerning considering the roll-up of CIA assets there. Perhaps that's all part of the Mueller distraction.

‘It was during this breakfast meeting, however, that Professor Mifsud told George that individuals in Moscow possessed “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” ‘

WRONG!!!! See John Solomon’s piece...

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/404275-what-professor-really-told-fbi-about-trump-russia-and-papadopoulos

“Documents I obtained from sources show Mifsud told the FBI in February 2017 that his contacts with Papadopoulos a year earlier, during the 2016 presidential campaign, were mostly innocuous. He made that point both in an FBI interview and a follow-up email to agents. He described the contacts as an academic exercise in pursuit of peace, not a global plot to hijack the election. And he went out of his way to say there was no talk of sinister cybersecurity intentions such as a plot to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.”

GP missed some opportunities by:
1) Repeating the government’s false narrative whereby they conflate “dirt on Hillary” into “Hillary’s emails”.

2) Failing to point out that the FBI knew the dates he supposedly lied about before they asked him. (Asserting that forces the government to refute the claim, which I do not think they can do). So exactly how were they “obstructed” if they already had the timeline? Had the FBI never interviewed him, they would have had the same information they did afterwards.

3) Failing to ask the court to ascertain whether Mifsud had been an agent, informant, or operative of the US or UK, or any contractor thereof, ever, and particularly in this matter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.