Downer told The Australian in an April 28 interview:
There was no indication in the short exchange with Papadopoulos that Trump was aware of the damaging information, Downer also said.
“By the way, nothing [Papadopoulos] said in that conversation indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect information on Hillary Clinton. It was just that this guy, [Papadopoulos], clearly knew that the Russians did have material on Hillary Clinton — but whether Trump knew or not?” Downer explained.
“He didn’t say Trump knew or that Trump was in any way involved in this. He said it was about Russians and Hillary Clinton; it wasn’t about Trump,” Downer told The Australian.
Papadopoulos’s reference to Clinton material was vague, Downer suggested. “He didn’t say dirt; he said material that could be damaging to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn’t say what it was.”
Downer also suggested the meeting was brief and Papadopoulos was not drunk, as has been widely reported. According to the profile, Downer and Papadopoulos spoke over a “single short drink.”
This is aside from the fact that, to-date, there has been not a single bit of data - leaked or otherwise - pertaining to said "dirt". This includes the alleged Weiner laptop emails.
The entire basis for the "investigation" was rooted in Papadopoulos and Page. As the scrutiny increases, it's patently-obvious there was no "there there"...
...and a good Sherlock Holmes sees all the pieces magically align to a rather haphazard, but intentional series of actions more befitting an adapting intelligence operation than an investigation outlined in any criminal justice treatise...
Another piece of good analysis by McCarthy that illustrates how flimsy the whole house of cards is..... think about this next time you hear some leftist pundit or congress critter gleefully pointing out that this young man pled guilty (to a process crime).
Congress needs to look at making changes to 1001. The intent of 1001 was clearly to be a material omission of fact or an outright lie regarding an underlying crime. If no crime occurred and a person is questioned on the basis of a reasonable suspicion this law should not apply. I don’t want people lying to law enforcement, but what we are witnessing now (for clearly political reasons) is the accusation, followed by questioning, followed by charging for lying WITH NO UNDERLYING CRIME!
This is antithetical to justice and our constitution and it was not the intent of the statute. Meanwhile, we have the OBVIOUS violations that did involve real crimes. Clinton’s IT specialist, Clinton’s testimony and that of her aides regarding the email investigations (which even Comey admitted violated the law although “she did not have intent”), the destruction of evidence by the Clinton machine, and the list goes on and on and YET not one person was even charged with 1001-lying. The differences in how these two “investigations” have been handled could not be more stark.
Flynn did not commit a crime. The Logan Act has not been applied to incoming administrations and the transition any more than it is being non-applied to the recent actions of John Kerry now. Same story with him with a good measure of “plead to this now or we will go after your son for something else.”
This is not how our Dept of Justice is supposed to work and it speaks volumes on how partisan they became under the prior administration. It is past time for some organizations and good attorneys (like McCarthy) to jump into this with both feet and fight it tooth and nail. These cases represent an injustice for the sake of talking points by the left about how successful the SC investigation has been. It would be a joke if real people were not being crushed for partisanship and a Presidency was not being eroded for political differences.
“The Sting”