Why did Papadopoulos hold out on the special counsel investigations?

By Josh Marshall

August 19

I’ve mentioned several times the inscrutable story of George Papadopoulos, particularly his and his wife’s turning against the plea agreement he made last fall and her going on a media tour associating herself with all the “Deep State” conspiracy theories now ubiquitous on Fox News. Last night we got the Special Counsel’s sentencing recommendation. It just deepens the mystery. But it also sheds some light on what might be behind Mangiante’s recent claims and public statements.

Let’s start with the basics of what are contained in the document.

According to the Special Counsel, Papadopoulos never really cooperated in good faith. Even after the deceptions that he was charged with, he only provided additional information when pressed with things the Special Counsel’s office already knew. The sentencing recommendation reads: “The defendant did not provide “substantial assistance,” and much of the information provided by the defendant came only after the government confronted him with his own emails, text messages, internet search history, and other information it had obtained via search warrants and subpoenas well after the defendant’s FBI interview as the government continued its investigation.” He also held back a cell phone until confronted about it.

One key point we didn’t know is that Joseph Mifsud, the Professor and alleged Russian cut-out, was in the United States in early 2017, seemingly not long after President Trump’s inauguration. The lies Papadopoulos told the FBI when they questioned him on January 27th, 2017 prevented the them from effectively questioning and challenging Mifsud when they located and questioned him in the Washington area in early- mid-February. They further suggest that had Papadopoulos not lied to the FBI, they might have detained or arrested Mifsud then. According to the document, Mifsud more or less immediately fled the country after being questioned by the FBI.

The document also specifically calls out what they claim are falsehoods Simona Mangiante made in her press tour.

The gist of the account is this. They arrested Papadopoulos on July 27th, 2017. He admitted he’d lied and became a cooperating witness. This led to follow up meetings. But over time it became clear he wasn’t cooperating in good faith. After his plea agreement became public, there was another scheduled meeting. But the Special Counsel’s office learned that Papadopoulos and Mangiante were giving press interviews. The Special Counsel’s office then canceled that meeting and cut off further contact.

Following the proffer sessions in August and September 2017, the government arranged to meet again with the defendant to ask further questions in late December 2017. However, upon learning that the defendant had participated in a media interview with a national publication concerning his case, the government canceled that meeting. (PSR ¶ 50). The government is aware that the defendant and his spouse have participated in several additional media interviews concerning his case.

There are a number of basic questions here. The government points out that the deal they made with Papadopoulos was not actually a standard cooperation agreement. But it did agree to speak on his behalf if he continued to cooperate and provide meaningful assistance. It seems from the document that even before this, he wasn’t cooperating in good faith. So why suggest even the non-standard agreement?

Also curious, if the government believed Papadopoulos had critical information why simply cut off contact because he and his wife were doing press interviews? I’ve seen one of Mangiante’s journalist defenders say Papadopoulos’s fairly to provide “substantial assistance” means he didn’t really know anything. It’s pretty clear that’s not what it means. But the Special Counsel’s decision to cut him off does suggest that they believed either that he did not know that much or that they were able to get the information in other ways. Otherwise, I don’t know why they wouldn’t seek to apply greater pressure. (On this point, my lack of knowledge of prosecutorial strategy may be leading me astray.)

The biggest question is why, when presented with an offer of leniency, Papadopoulos continued to conceal information from the government? Is he just a fool? I have heard from people who’ve spoken with him that at just the most basic level he does not seem like a terribly bright guy. But that doesn’t seem like an adequate explanation.

I come back to the role of Simona Mangiante, who married Papadopoulos this spring. As we’ve discussed, there have long been suspicions in the press and US law enforcement that she is herself in some way connected to Russian intelligence, even that she may not even be Italian.

Let’s consider the timeline.

The key interactions between Mifsud and Papadopoulos happen in the Spring of 2016. Mangiante worked for Mifsud from September through November of 2016. Papadopoulos apparently first messaged Mangiante in October 2016 over Linked-in. According to their story, he reached out unprompted because he saw they were both LinkedIn connected to Mifsud and she worked for him. This lead to a friendly and then romantic connection. But they didn’t meet in person until many months later in April 2017. That’s more than two months after Papadopoulos was first questioned by the FBI in Janaury and February and a couple months after Mifsud left the country. After they met in the US they vacationed together in Europe through the spring and summer, hitting various vacation hot spots in Greece and Italy. It was quite a whirlwind.

It was on his return from Europe that he was arrested at Dulles airport by FBI agents working for the Special Counsel’s office. By the time he was released from FBI custody on July 28th he had become a cooperating witness. He and Mangiante weren’t in contact again until August 1st. She promptly flew to Chicago to be with him. Papadopoulos then had a series of proffer sessions with the Special Counsel’s office in August and September 2017 (the ones where he allegedly was not forthcoming) before finalizing a plea agreement on October 5th, 2017. They got engaged in September 2017. They married in early March 2018.

As even Mangiante concedes, the FBI was suspicious about the relationship from the start. But at least in this period Mangiante was saying Papadopoulos’s decision to cooperate put him on “the right side of history.” In other words, she seemed behind what seemed like his decision to help the investigation. At some point in the late Spring she (and he?) shifted gears and started adopting the “spygate”/”Deep State” talking points of the right. On June 5th she went on Fox News asking the President for a pardon.

Perhaps Papadopoulos is simply a fool who screwed himself out of a good deal. Possibly the most mundane (possibly the best) explanation is that the couple became dissatisfied that he wasn’t being treated as well as they expected and they got bamboozled by the host of Trumpist DC journalists claiming Papadopoulos was set up by the “Deep State”. But it’s hard not to suspect what investigators made clear to both of them they suspected from the outset: that something wasn’t right about their relationship, that Magiante wasn’t who she claimed to be. The fantastical version of the story is this: She worked for Mifsud before she and Papadopoulos ever met. She struck up an online relationship with him to monitor him or exert influence over him in some way, met him in person after his initial interviews with the FBI and Mifsud’s flight from the US, and then came to the US to become engaged to him after he was arrested and compelled to cooperate.

I strongly suspect some version of what I’m calling the fantastical version of the story is true, even though contains all sorts of logical problems itself. But there are too many parts of the story that rely on suppositions and guesswork, the sheer improbability of their supposed story. For now, we simply have suspicions and a notional story that does not add up.