Papadopoulos pled guilty on two counts where he told the truth

The false statement allegations in the Papadopoulos Statement of Offense were grouped into three sections:

• Papadopoulos met the Professor and learned about Russian "dirt " before he joined the Campaign
• Papadopoulos's contacts with the Professor were inconsequential
• Papadapoulos met the Female Russian National before he joined the Campaign and his contacts with the Female Russian National were inconsequential

The term "inconsequential" was not used by Papadopoulos himself, but is Mueller's paraphrase of Papadopoulos' assessment of Mifsud e.g. that he was "BS'ing to be completely honest with you." Within the second section is a separate allegation: that Papadopoulos failed to inform investigators that the Professor had introduced him to the Russian MF A Connection

In this article, I will consider the alleged falsity of Papadopoulos' assessment that Mifsud and Politskaya were unimportant. In considering this topic, I am influenced by my own personal experience of having been asked by Canadian counterintelligence to assess the relative potential of two Russians operating in Canada in 1980 of being spies (see here).

COUNT: Papadopoulos's contacts with the Professor were inconsequential

In the Statement of Offense, Mueller alleged that Papadopoulos made false statements in an effort to minimize the extent and importance of his communications with" Mifsud, listing three specific assertions:

PAPADOPOULOS also made false statements in an effort to minimize the extent and importance of his communications with the Professor. For example, defendant PAPADOPOULOS stated that "[the Professor]'s a nothing," that he thought the Professor was "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something," and that he believed the Professor was "BS'ing to be completely honest with you."

The FBI argued that Mifsud's statements were false for the following reason:

In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood the Professor to have substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials and that the Professor spoke with some of those officials in Moscow before telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "dirt.

But watch the pea for Mueller's deception.

Initially (March and April 2016), Papadopoulos believed that Mifsud had "substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials", which Papadopoulos could take advantage of in his quixotic scheme to arrange a sort of summit meeting between Trump and Putin.

However, Mifsud's connections were limited to a few academics, the only relevant one being Igor Timofeev, a reputable Russian academic with many and regular contacts with US academics and politicians. There is no evidence that Mifsud had direct connections to any "government officials". Timofeev told Papadopoulos that, to request the proposed summit meeting, Trump headquarters would have to officially contact the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which would then consider how to handle the unusual request. When Papadopoulos forwarded this information to Manafort, then campaign manager, he summarily deep-sixed it.

In any event, long before his FBI interview in January 2017, Papadopoulos had clearly soured on the extent and importance of Mifsud's connections in Russia. His statements on Mifsud in January 2017 - that Mifsud was "BS'ing to be completely honest with you", that Mifsud was "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something", and that Mifsud was "a nothing" - accurately reflected Papadopoulos' state of mind at the time. In addition, they were almost certainly true - an "exculpatory" fact which Mueller failed to disclose.

COUNT: Papadopoulos' contacts with the Female Russian National were inconsequential

The argument regarding Olga Politskaya, the "Female Russian National", are identical. The FBI said:

[Papadopoulos] falsely told the FBI that he had "no" relationship at all with the Female Russian National. He stated that the extent of their communications was her sending emails-"Just, 'Hi, how are you?'" "That's it."

31 . In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Female Russian National on or about March 24, 2016, after he had joined the Campaign; he believed that the Female Russian National had connections to high-level Russian government officials and could help him arrange a potential foreign policy trip to Russia; and during the Campaign he emailed and spoke over Skype on numerous occasions with the Female Russian National about the potential foreign policy trip to Russia.

As with Mifsud, Papadopoulos initially thought, based on false information from Mifsud, that Olga Politskaya (the "Female Russian National") had high-level connections with Russian government officials and could help with his quest for a summit meeting. However, Politskaya was nothing more than a former employee of a Russian wine distributor (or something like that) and a part-time student who was acquainted with Mifsud through London Academy of Diplomacy. She appears to have been brought to the lunch as decoration and not to have paid much attention.

Subsequently, Papadopoulos corresponded with an email account that he believed to belong to Politskaya (and which may have been Politskaya's.) Her replies were generic and uninformative and were soon terminated.

On April 10, after Haaretz oil and gas convention in Israel, nearly 3 weeks after their March 24 lunch with Mifsud, Papadopoulos emailed Politskaya, "re-introducing himself", "reminding" her that they had met in London and continuing:

The reason for my message is because [Mifsud] sent an email that you tried contacting me... It would be a pleasure to meet again. If not, we should have a call and discuss some things".
Papadopoulus gave her his mobile number and asked for her mobile number. (The Affidavit has more detail on this exchange than Statement of Offense).

Putinskaya responded on April 11 saying that she was "now back in St Petersburg" - a detail in Affidavit, but not Statement of Offense - and gave bland, but uninformative encouragement that she "would be very pleased to support your initiatives between our two countries."

Later on April 11, Papadopoulos replied, copy to Mifsud (Affidavit), seeking the meeting with Russian Ambassador in London (Papdopoulos had falsely told Trump campaign that he had already met ambassador):

I think that a good step would be for me to meet with the Russian Ambassador in London this month... [I would] like to discuss with him, or anyone else that you recommend, about a potential foreign policy trip to Russia.

Mifsud intervened in exchange, telling Papadopoulos that he would be going to Russia the following week for a Valdai Club seminar as well as "other meetings at the Duma".

This is already been agreed. I am flying to Moscow on the 18th for a Valdai meeting, plus other meetings at the Duma.

In my opinion, Mifsud's supposed meetings at the Douma were imaginary and this embellishment was another deception by Mifsud with the intent to inflate his importance to Papadopoulos (just as Papadopoulos was inflating his own importance to Mifsud.) To complete the circle of deception, the FBI Affidavit excised Mifsud's mention of the Valdai meeting which he actually went to, while only citing only Mifsud's (probably) fictitious "meetings at the Duma"

The next day (April 12), Politskaya sent Papadopoulos an over-enthusiastic and almost certainly untrue email, particularly in context of Timofeev's later protocol. Her claim that the "Embassy in London" had been notified is very dubious. (For some reason, Mueller excised this implausible claim in the Statement of Offense). Overall, this email seems far out of the character described by her brother. I can't help but wonder whether it was Mifsud, rather than Politskaya, who was operating this email account.

I have already alerted my personal links to our conversation and your request. The Embassy in London is very much aware of this. As mentioned we are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump. The Russian Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be officially announced. (Affidavit)

The tone of this email also reminds me somewhat of false statements in Rob Goldstone's misrepresentation of Natalia Veselnitskaya to Trump Jr.

The only other exchange from Politskaya documented in the Affidavit or Statement of Offense came on April 29 in response to a question from Papadopoulos who, apparently dissatisfied with reception from Timofeev, asked Politskaya where she "recommend[ed] I get in touch with a minister or embassy person in Washington to begin organizing the trip?" (Affidavit, 16e). Politskaya ended the charade by sending Papadopoulos back to Mifsud:

I think that it would be better to discuss this question with [Mifsud]" Affidavit 16e.
That is the end of Papaopoulos' exchange with Politskaya according to evidence in the Affidavit and Statement of Offense.

While it is true that Papadopoulos originally believed "that the Female Russian National had connections to high-level Russian government officials and could help him arrange a potential foreign policy trip to Russia" and also true that "during the Campaign he emailed and spoke over Skype on numerous occasions with the Female Russian National about the potential foreign policy trip to Russia", Papadopoulos had realized long ago that Politskaya did not actually have any useful connections to high-level Russian government officials.

Nor did Papadopoulos have any "relationship" with Politskaya in any usual understanding of the term "relationship". While Politskaya's emails were somewhat more elaborate than "Just, 'Hi, how are you?'", they were nonetheless entirely general and uninformative: they did not contain any information relevant to rooting out DNC hackers.

Conclusion

In 1980, when asked by Canadian counterintelligence to assess the possibility of two Russian trade representatives being spies, I gave them my opinion. In January 2017, Papadopoulos similarly gave the FBI his opinion that neither Mifsud nor Politskaya had high-level connections to Russian government officials and that Mifsud had been "BS'ing" him. On these issues, it seems to me that Papadopoulos' assessment to the FBI was not only an accurate representation of his state of mind in 2017, but was also correct. The FBI complained that they spent thousands of hours investigating Papadopoulos' contacts - and blamed Papadopoulos for this - but, at the end of the day, they appear to have arrived at the same conclusion or else they would have taken steps to arrest Mifsud and/or Politskaya.

Papadopoulos' recollection of the sequence of events was not entirely accurate but was not as inaccurate as Mueller dishonestly represented to the court. There was a sort of "transition period" between Papadopoulos' initial nomination to Trump's foreign policy team and his departure from London Center of International Law Practice to join the Trump campaign full-time at the end of April. If it had been important to the FBI to pin down exact dates of what happened when for counterintelligence, the logical step would have been to ask Papadopoulos to review his records and get back to them on dates. I'll discuss this in a separate article.

Papadopoulos did not mention anything about Timofeev in the original interview. It appears to me that the FBI failed to ask Papadopoulos the right question and that, intentionally or unintentionally, he didn;t volunteer anything about Timofeev. As it turns out, Timofeev is a reputable academic with many contacts with US and European academics, officials and politicians, so Papadopoulos' omission was not material to the issue of alleged Russian interference. While Papadopoulos pled to a "material omission", it puzzles me that he be found guilty of a "material omission" - a topic that is very relevant to securities offerings (where I'm familiar with the concept). In a separate article, I'll discuss this issue, referring to my own interview with UK counterintelligence on Climategate, where I did not feel obliged to answer questions that I wasn't asked.