Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese Diplomat who reportedly told George Papadopoulos that Russia had Hillary’s emails, was a British intelligence asset (known as a “Joe” among British spies). But the Brits did not keep Mifsud for themselves. They offered him to the CIA and the FBI, and those two US agencies, in a coordinated effort, relied on Mifsud to entrap Papadopoulos and to manufacture a Russian collusion case against the Trump Campaign.
Mifsud’s job was simple–dangle the possibility of getting Hillary’s emails from the Russians, offer up meetings with Russian Government officials and introduce Papadopoulos to another Western intelligence operative who pretended to be the niece of Vladimir Putin (Putin does not have a niece). These communications were recorded and then used against Papadopoulos.
The FBI falsely claims that they learned of the Papadopoulos “meeting” with Mifsud two months after it happened from an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who also was tied closely to British intelligence and the Clintons. But this story does not hold water. Take a look at the criminal complaint filed against Papadopoulos (see here).
The complaint recounts meetings, emails and conversations that George Papadopoulos had with Professor Mifsud and people Mifsud introduced to Papadopoulos.Where the hell did the FBI get that information? Remember, they charged George with lying to the FBI because of discrepancies between what he told Agents and what Agents claimed was actually said and written.
The meaning of this leaves only two possibilities–the FBI secured a FISA warrant against Papadopoulos sometime in March or April of 2016 or the Brits and American intelligence intercepted the communications between Papadopoulos and the Mifsud crew.
We already know that there is a recording–an exculpatory recording–of Papadopoulos rebuffing the offer to collaborate with the Russians. There was no legal reason to get a FISA warrant against Papadopoulos. And anything collected by British intelligence and passed to the CIA or NSA could not be used as evidence. There is much more to this story to unravel.
What should shock all civil libertarians and Americans of good will is that the public has been bamboozled into believing that Joseph Mifsud was a Russian intelligence operative. But there is no evidence whatsoever for that claim. Please look at the Mueller Report (I have copied key sections and inserted below, at the end of this article). Mueller only claims that, “Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016.” If that is the standard, then Bill Clinton is a Russian intelligence asset–Clinton has connections to Russia (he got paid a lot of money by the Russians) and he traveled to Moscow.
If you want to get the full picture of Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence, the CIA and the FBI, I encourage you to read, The Death of Russiagate?, Mueller team tied to Mifsud network, a tangled web. This article provides actual evidence about the intelligence pedigree of Joseph Mifsud. Robert Mueller, by contrast, provides not one single piece of actual evidence. Mueller and his team of clown lawyers relied on innuendo and guilt by association.
If this had been a genuine counter-intelligence investigation, then the FBI should have asked one fundamental question–“Who is Joseph Mifsud working for?” They did not need to ask The FBI knew the answer. Joseph Mifsud was working for the CIA and the FBI with the permission of the British MI-6.
I hope the full dimensions of this hoax will be exposed. George Papadopoulos was nothing more than a naive, eager patsy. A young guy who wanted to be important to the Trump campaign got played.
Here are salient sections of the Mueller Report. Read them for yourself and you will see that Mifsud was never fingered as a Russian intelligence asset. You were just asked to believe this nonsense. Sadly, many seemingly smart people have bought into this lie.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign? through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place. . . .
George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period , pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton .in the form of thousands of emails. . . .
In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud ‘s return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. . . .Throughout the relevant period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting never came to pass. (p. 81)
The purpose of the trip was to meet officials affiliated with Link Campus University, a for-profit institution headed by a former Italian government official.412 During the visit , Papadopoulos was introduced to Joseph Mifsud. (p. 83)
Mifsud is a Maltese national who worked as a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy in London, England. 413 Although Mifsud worked out of London and was also affiliated with LCILP, the encounter in Rome was the first time that Papadopoulos met him.414 Mifsud maintained various Russian contacts while living in London, as described further below. Among his contacts was ,XXXX a one-time employee of the IRA,. . . In January and February 2016, Mifsud and – discussed possibly meeting in Russia. (p. 83)
According to Papadopoulos , Mifsud at first seemed uninterested in Papadopoulos when they met in Rome. After Papadopoulos informed Mifsud about his role in the Trump Campaign, however, Mifsud appeared to take greater interest in Papadopoulos. The two discussed Mifsud ‘s European and Russian contacts and had a general discussion about Russia; Mifsud also offered to introduce Papadopoulos to European leaders and others with contacts to the Russian government. Papadopoulos told the Office that Mifsud ‘s claim of substantial connections with Russian government officials interested Papadopoulos, who thought that such connections could increase his importance as a policy advisor to the Trump Campaign. (p. 83)
On March 24, 2016, Papadopoulos met with Mifsud in London. 422 Mifsud was accompanied by a Russian female named Olga Polonskaya. Mifsud introduced Polonskaya as a former student of his who had connections to Vladimir Putin. (p. 84)
During the meeting, Polonskaya offered to help Papadopoulos establish contacts in Russia and stated that the Russian ambassador in London was a friend of hers .425 Based on this interaction, Papadopoulos expected Mifsud and Polonskaya to introduce him to the Russian ambassador in London, but that did not occur. (p. 84)
Throughout April 2016, Papadopoulos continued to correspond with , meet with, and seek Russia contacts through Mifsud and , at times , Polonskaya. For example, within a week of her initial March 24 meeting with him, Polonskaya attempted to send Papadopoulos a text messagewhich email exchanges show to have been drafted or edited by Mifsud-addressing Papadopoulos ‘s “wish to engage with the Russian Federation.” When Papadopoulos learned from Mifsud that Polonskaya had tried to message him , he sent her an email seeking another meeting. (p. 87)
Mifsud , who had been copied on the email exchanges, replied on the morning of April 11, 2016. He wrote, “This is already been agreed. I am flying to Moscow on the 18th for a Valdai meeting, plus other meetings at the Duma. We will talk tomorrow.” 448 The two bodies referenced by Mifsud are part of or associated with the Russian government: the Duma is a Russian legislative assembly, 449 while “Valdai” refers to the Valdai Discussion Club, a Moscow-based group that “is close to Russia’s foreign-policy establishment.” 450 Papadopoulos thanked Mifsud and said that he would see him “tomorrow.” 451 (p. 87)
Following the meeting, Mifsud traveled as planned to Moscow.455 On April 18, 2016, while in Russia, Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos over email to Ivan Timofeev, a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).456 Mifsud had described Timofeev as having connections with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA),457 the executive entity in Russia responsible for Russian foreign relations. (p. 88)
After a stop in Rome, Mifsud returned to England on April 25, 2016.462 The next day, Papadopoulos met Mifsud for breakfast at the Andaz Hotel (the same location as their last meeting). 463 During that meeting, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had met with high-level Russian government officials during his recent trip to Moscow . Mifsud also said that, on the trip, he learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton. As Papadopoulos later stated to the FBI, Mifsud said that the “dirt” was in the form of ” emails of Clinton,” and that they “have thousands of emails.” (pp. 88-89)