The NYT story on Papadopoulos is flat-out wrong about how, when, and why the investigation(s) of Trump campaign collusion began
(THREAD — 19 TWEETS) Okay, I’ve finally had it. The big story today is the NYT article on Papadopoulos; & the big takeaway from the article, according to pretty much EVERYBODY,
1/ is that the story shows that the FBI investigation didn’t begin with the Steele dossier.
2/ I fully agree that there are details in the NYT article that are important, but I really have to wonder: where have these people (many of them important commentators and experts) been for well over a year?
3/ From February of this year I labored mightily on a RussiaGate timeline. (I stopped updating it on 5 Nov once I started tweeting and threading much more heavily, and the work became so overwhelming that I couldn’t handle everything.)
4/ I knew from my daily work on the TL that the FBI and the USIC had MANY reasons to be concerned about possible Trump-Russia collusion well BEFORE May of 2016, including: intel (from many independent sources) about
5/ multiple and highly suspect contacts b/w Russian officials and the Trump campaign, and intel reaching John Brennan in APRIL of 2016 that Russian money was being funneled to the Trump campaign (this intel came from a “Baltic country,” since identified as Estonia).
6/ The NYT includes excellent reporting, and it is a must-read, but it is really extraordinary that it is being credited with the news that it was not the Steele dossier (which Steele didn’t start writing until June of 2016) that initiated the FBI and other investigations.
7/ Note especially that according to Paul Wood (whose BBC article appeared on 12 Jan 2017) it was the intel from the “Baltic country” that initiated a multi-agency investigation by then-CIA Director John Brennan.
8/ According to the NYT, Papadopoulos’ disclosure to the Australian ambassador to the UK about the hacked emails came in May 2016, although (also according to the NYT),
9/ the Australian ambassador didn’t inform US intel and law enforcement about what Papadopoulos had related until JULY of 2016.
10/ But Brennan had started a multi-agency probe of possible Trump-Russia collusion in APRIL of 2016. That probe included, on the domestic side, the DOJ *and the FBI.*
11/ The FBI’s awareness and concern specifically about Russian hacking of DNC emails also has a long history, antedating by almost a year Papadopoulos’ disclosure in May 2016. For example:
12/ 15 Sep 2015: the FBI notifies the DNC that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers; this is repeated on 15 Nov. On 14 Jun 2016 this becomes public knowledge when WaPo reports that hackers working for the Russian govt hacked the DNC computer system.
13/ On 26 July 2016, CNN reported that the FBI had opened an investigation into the DNC hacks, but note: the FBI did NOT tell CNN (or apparently anyone else) that it had JUST THEN opened the investigation (though CNN seems to imply this).
14/ It is clear from the timelines that these investigations had been going on for several months BEFORE July 0f 2016.
15/ In view of these facts, it is clear that today’s NYT article is guilty of misleading readers on a very important and fundamental point.
16/ It’s very headline is misleading — even erroneous: “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt.” In fact, the “Russia inquiry” did NOT begin this way.
17/ And when the article says: “Besides the information from the Australians, the investigation was also propelled by intelligence from other friendly governments,” it SHOULD have said: “the investigation was INITIATED by [other] intelligence from other friendly governments.”
18/ FOR ALMOST A FULL YEAR, all of this was, or should have been, COMMON KNOWLEDGE to anyone and everyone following RussiaGate.
19/ Sheez. END
