Posted on 04/24/2018 2:45:46 PM PDT by struggle
ELLEN FANNING: I want to start by asking you: did you meet with George Papadopoulos in the Kensington Wine Bar in May of 2016? And if so, what did he say to you?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, let me be blunt about this. Of course it has been widely reported that I did.
The original transcript has a comma after "Of course" but there's no verbal pause indicating such. It sounds like Downer may be walking the encounter back. He demurs about everything he's asked regarding Papadopolous.
I just can't fathom why someone like Downer would even give a nobody like Popadopolous the time of day.
Was Downer a heavy drinker when you knew him?
I honestly would be very surprised indeed if that actually happened.
I can readily believe Downer spoke to Papadopolous. I could even believe they might have had a drink together as they were in a pub.
I would be really very, very surprised if Downer was as indiscreet as the stories suggest. And would be astonished if he bothered to pass this on to anybody.
I would be somewhat less surprised if a junior staffer from the Australian High Commission behaved this way, and would not be surprised if Downer decided to protect that person on the principle that the buck stops with the Boss, and so isn't willing to discuss the issue and throw somebody more junior to the wolves.
That would be a failure of leadership on Downer's part to some extent - if one of his staff did this, that raises questions about his leadership - but I can see him deciding that he's going to protect them publically as much as possible, and let any issues be addressed internally.
Most of DFAT are pretty left wing, I'm afraid. As I say I'd be surprised if Downer did this - but would not be surprised at all if somebody on his staff had.
Almost exactly the opposite. Certainly not a teetotaller - he well understood the idea of drinking for social purposes but always in strict moderation partly to ensure you didn't do anything indiscreet.
At one point during my Naval service, I found myself doing a lot of protocol work, which was also somewhat tied up with diplomacy - I wasn't quite a diplomat, but I was doing work just outside that circle. There were some pretty clear guidelines on this type of thing and they are even stricter now, and I'd be really surprised to see anything credible suggesting Downer doesn't follow them.
Letting somebody else get drunk and indiscreet in his presence... I could see that though. It's one of the oldest tricks in the diplomat's handbook.
I didn't write it in my post, but I was thinking about why someone of the stature of an Australian diplomat would be sitting in a London pub with a low-level Trump campaign staffer.
He wouldn't, diplomats being the insufferable effete bunch that they are.
But a low-level Australian diplomatic aide wouldn't think twice about knocking down a beer or two after hours with a low-level Trump campaign staffer in London pub on a business trip for some boring this-or-that.
-PJ
Simplistically, that's not a bad description of Downer. He's old money, establishment. His father was a knight (Sir Alick Downer), also a government Minister, and a High Commissioner to the UK himself (and Downer was partly educated in a top English boarding school because of that - to be fair, in saying that, I should also admit I attended the same 'elite' Australian boarding school as Downer, although a few years later) and so was his grandfather (Sir John Downer) who was Premier (roughly equivalent to a state governor in the US) of South Australia, as well as one of Australia's first Senators - he also helped write Australia's constitution.
Alexander Downer has all the arrogance and graces that often go with that type of background - born to rule.
His saving grace is that he actually is intelligent and competent, and does use the excellent education he received, and I would say for the most part has served Australia well as a member of government and as a diplomat. But, yes, it does to me make this story about him seem even more fishy in many ways.
We will find out Downer’s story regarding Trump in the near future.
Be it good, bad or ugly.
I hope so. And I am not saying with certainty that things didn't happen the way the New York Times said they did. I've no way of knowing.
Just that I don't think the fact that they printed it makes it necessarily true, especially on all the details.
And I'd be surprised if all that much of it is.
I always tell family members not to rush to judge based on initial MSM reporting. They often accuse me of always "having an answer" to whatever crisis is being reported that day, and I tell them that, no, it's just that it takes a few days for the truth to break out from the media hysteria (the secret being that we here in FR are often privy to the on-the-ground facts).
In this case, the truth has had to wait its turn.
-PJ
I agree, there’s some obvious dissembling going on. He states “Of course the media reported I was there.” Chance to affirm one, not taken.
She then asks him directly, “Did you meet him.” To which he says, “I don’t want to get into details” without saying yes. Chance two to affirm not taken.
Either he is very scared of being subpoenaed under oath, or he’s dissembling public statements because the FBI used him as the touchstone to indict Papadopolous.
There’s something very strange about his dismissiveness.
Sounds fishy to me. No doubt sounds legit to Sessions.
******************************************
If Rosenstein tells Sessions that “something is legit”, Sessions will automatically accept that it is legit and will NEVER QUESTION what Rosestein said.
Exactly. Sessions is a figurehead and Rosenstein is the AG, no way around it.
-PJ
This is still all very murky, but I’m honestly not clear what anybody actually thinks Alexander Downer did wrong even if all these allegations are true.
I’ve worked as an Australian diplomat (I was a Naval officer on attachment) in London - if I had been given information that Russians were trying to influence an American political campaign, I absolutely would have reported it to my superiors and I would have expected them to pass on that information to US counter intelligence (the FBI in other words).
That’s what you would do if you were told senior political figures in an allied country were being subjected to dirty tricks from less friendly countries.
That’s all that it seems Alexander Downer is accused of doing.
If that’s it, he did exactly what he should have done.
Would people seriously expect Australian diplomats not to pass on such information to head office, and for that information not to be passed on to counterintelligence of that allied nation?
I thought George P was invited to go to the bar with Downer.
To me, that is the puzzle.
Why would the highest ranking Australian diplomat in London ask a small fry Trump campaign person to meet him at all? George P was so low on the pole he never even met Trump nor did Trump know him.
That’s where the set up was, not what George P later confided in him.
In my opinion, that meeting was one of the most curious and suspect incidents in the whole debacle.
To me, that is still unclear. The information I have got is that Papadopoulous asked for the meeting, but that is private information and I can't find anything in the public record to say so.
But even if it was the other way around, it wouldn't seem that surprising to me.
Why would the highest ranking Australian diplomat in London ask a small fry Trump campaign person to meet him at all? George P was so low on the pole he never even met Trump nor did Trump know him.
Because I don't see how Downer had any idea that Papadopolous was small fry.
This is the information I have. As I say, I cannot confirm it, but I'll come back to that in a moment.
Papadopoulous was friends with somebody working at the Israeli embassy in London (Cantor). That man was the boyfriend of a relatively junior staffer (Erika Thompson) at the Australian High Commission (the two are now engaged). Cantor introduced Papadopolous to his Thompson and when Papadopoulous found out where she worked, he asked if she could arrange a meeting between himself and the High Commissioner Alexander Downer. He said he worked for Donald Trump, who was that stage likely to be the Republican nominee and therefore was potentially a US President. On that basis, Downer agreed to meet with Papadopoulous on the grounds he might be a useful person to know.
Let's say my information is incorrect - and it was Downer who asked for the meeting. That doesn't change much in my view.
In that situation (hypothetically) Downer is told by Thompson that she knows somebody who worked for or works for Donald Trump, who had just become the presumptive Republican nominee for President and who is in London. In that situation, I don't think it would be that surprising if Downer did ask her, could she introduce the two of them.
Downer had no way of knowing just how unimportant Papadopoulos was - all he knew was the man had worked on the Trump campaign.
The High Commissioner doesn't actually have all that much to do - Australia's diplomatic relationship with the UK is routine, friendly, and generally pretty non-controversial - that's why it's often given out as a sinecure to retiring politicians. A major part of his job is to make connections with other people.
A 30 minute drink in a wine bar is not much of a commitment for somebody who might have the ear of the next President of the United States - even if it turns out he doesn't.
(I may have spelled Papadopolous both wrongly and inconsistently in this message, but don't current have time to check so am posting unedited).
I’m honestly not clear what anybody actually thinks Alexander Downer did wrong even if all these allegations are true.
The question is whether he was a part of the setup, or if he was also a mark being played by American intelligence. If it's the former, he did something wrong; if it's the latter, I hope he's angry at being used by his supposed allies.
If that’s it, he did exactly what he should have done.
It that's it, he did exactly what the American intelligence agents knew and planned that he would do.
Because I don't see how Downer had any idea that Papadopolous was small fry.
Let me pose as sort of hypothetical:
The Obama administration was known for hiring people who were young, 20-somethings out of university with PhD in international policy or some such but lacking real-world experience to augment the textbook knowledge. I'd have to research the names if challenged on this point, but suffice it to say that aside from a few true believers, he was staffed with university wonks. Over here, the talk of Obama's search for a VP was big news. The story was how a newcomer would find an administration without knowing anybody or having cultivated a team over decades in preparation for running for President. The selection of Biden was seen as an opportunistic choice to surround himself with some inside-the-beltway gravitas.
Trump, on the other hand, was looking to hire seasoned leaders in their fields (such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile, for what it's worth). Rare exceptions, like Omarosa Maginault, were targeted hires for specific purposes that were quickly slowly corrected.
Why would a seasoned high diplomat like Mr. Downer NOT assume that someone like Papadopolous was small fry in a Trump administration given all the public knowledge of how Trump operates (who holds the C-level offices in his businesses)? Was he that gullible? Was he that uninformed? Was he willing to look the other way? Did he outlast his competency?
On that basis, Downer agreed to meet with Papadopolous on the grounds he might be a useful person to know.
That story makes sense to me. Regardless of the friend of a friend chain, a good diplomat should always be on the lookout to make new, fresh connections with incoming governments when the opportunity arises.
The High Commissioner doesn't actually have all that much to do - Australia's diplomatic relationship with the UK is routine, friendly, and generally pretty non-controversial - that's why it's often given out as a sinecure to retiring politicians.
The question is this: given all that ensued since that first drink and subsequent report-out up the chain of command, were there any second-thoughts with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? What would be the protocol if, years later, one finds out that they were used by agents whose sincerity have, by events, proven to be suspect?
That's where we are today with Attorney General Barr investigating what happened back then. The same people who organized this are now crying that investigating them is influencing the 2020 election. It's the classic joke about the child who killed his parents claiming mercy for being an orphan.
They are trying to impeach the President because he's getting close to discovering the true actions that took place back then. Unfortunately, Mr. Downer seems to be at Ground Zero of the plot to concoct the grounds to spy on Trump, willing or not, aware or not.
The same thing is going on in the Ukraine, where the alleged "hacking" into Democrat servers was said to have occurred (the "CrowdStrike" reference). Some believe that the Ukraine angle was a false flag to cover up an insider theft of emails based on the report by CrowdStrike that included metadata that unintentionally provided clues to the true nature of the hack. The alleged conspirators are using the President's call to the Ukraine President as the basis to impeach him before he gets too close, and they are using his overtures to the Australian government to establish a pattern of self-serving abuse of office, when it appears he's just trying to get to the bottom of what really happened in 2016.
That's why I revived this second-look at our conversation about Mr. Downer. What would he do now? What should he do now? Why didn't he come forward a year ago when the Mueller team was really heating up? I'm glad that Australia has agreed to cooperate.
I hope they can outrace the Democrats in our Congress.
-PJ
I find the suggestion he'd be part of such a setup odd - Alexander Downer was John Howard's Foreign Minister for eleven years, the longest serving Foreign Minister in Australian history. Before that he was himself leader of the Australian Liberal Party, Australia's major conservative party, for a while. His conservative credentials are pretty clear and strong - and the suggestion here seems to be that the setup he'd have to have been part of came from the left... that would make no sense to me.
The chance he was played - that would be more plausible to me, except I'm not clear why there would be any reason to 'play' him. Unless Papadopoulos was part of some conspiracy to do so - and I can't see any reason for it.
If Downer meeting with Papadopoulos was inherently unexplainable by reasonable means, I might look for some sort of setup - but it doesn't seem to me to be. As I've said, it does not seem odd to me that the High Commissioner for Australia would have agreed to, or even sought, a meeting with somebody who worked on the Trump Campaign, at the point in time when it became clear Donald Trump was very likely to be the Republican nominee for President and therefore had a significant chance of being the next President of the United States. That seems like a completely natural contact to want to make. No need for any conspiracy or set up.
If Papadopoulos fed Downer particular information with nefarious intent - that would be a set up on his part (or those behind him) - that I cannot really speculate on, but even if it's the case, I don't see blame attaching to Downer.
Why would a seasoned high diplomat like Mr. Downer NOT assume that someone like Papadopolous was small fry in a Trump administration given all the public knowledge of how Trump operates (who holds the C-level offices in his businesses)? Was he that gullible? Was he that uninformed? Was he willing to look the other way? Did he outlast his competency?
Because honestly, I doubt Alexander Downer had any huge interest in the intricacies of the Trump campaign or its operations. It would not be part of his remit as Australian High Commisssioner to the United Kingdom to be paying all that much attention to those types of details especially while there were multiple candidates involved. The dates are significant here - this meeting occurred on May 10 2016 (note - that is the date in Downer's diary - Papadopoulos claims it was May 6, but I believe the more official record in this case) - Ted Cruz suspended his campaign on May 3rd - in other words, this is the week Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, the only real candidate left on the Republican side. At that point, his campaign started to be more significant than it had been before.
Secondly, it's easy to say with the knowledge we have now that it might be obvious that Papadopoulos was small fry - but would Downer know that? There's no reason I can see to think he knew more than the guy's name and the fact that he said he had worked on the Trump campaign - maybe that he had worked as a Foreign Affairs adviser, which definitely would have interested Downer.
I think it's also worth saying that around the world a lot of people saw Donald Trump as a very unlikely Presidential candidate - almost as a joke - with no chance of actually becoming the Republican nominee or becoming President. They were wrong, but that perception increases the chance that when it suddenly became a very real possibility, a lot of people may have been scrambling to adapt to that new reality. And Alexander Downer... I know him slightly and what I know of him... he's not a bad bloke, but he is a terrible snob. He's a descendant of one of Australia's founding fathers (his grandfather Sir John Downer helped write Australia's constitution and was a Senator in Australia's first Parliament, his father Sir Alick Downer, was a Minister in the Menzies government, and was himself High Commissioner to the United Kingdom), he's old money, and patrician - I might be biased, but it would not surprise me if the successful candidacy of Donald Trump came as even more of a surprise to him than it might to most people.
That's why I revived this second-look at our conversation about Mr. Downer. What would he do now? What should he do now? Why didn't he come forward a year ago when the Mueller team was really heating up? I'm glad that Australia has agreed to cooperate.
He was still High Commissioner until April last year, and as such, it would have been inappropriate for him to do anything without clearance from Canberra.
Since that time, I can't see any evidence Downer has not been forthcoming when asked about this case in the media - he's given a number of interviews where he's discussed it, and I assume he's ready and willing to provide assistance to any official inquiry the United States wishes to make.
So far I haven't seen any evidence he's actually been asked to do so, yet.
I find the suggestion he'd be part of such a setup odd - Alexander Downer was John Howard's Foreign Minister for eleven years, the longest serving Foreign Minister in Australian history.
I make it only to be complete. Barack Obama has shown no interest in respecting tradition, legacy, or heritage positions if they were barriers to his agenda.
The chance he was played - that would be more plausible to me, except I'm not clear why there would be any reason to 'play' him.
The theory isn't that Mr. Downer was "played," so to speak, but that Papadopoulis was. Joseph Mifsud met with Papadopolous and fed him the information that "Russians helped Trump win the election," expecting him to repeat it at some point. Papadopoulis did repeat it, to Mr. Downer, who dutifully reported it up the chain and across back to American intelligence. That tip from Australia was the basis for FISA requests to spy on the Trump campaign.
Whether Mr. Downer was set up to drink with Papadopolous, or it was just a chance encounter, who can say except Mr. Downer? The fact is that he was the one who had the official pipeline back to DC, and he's the one who drank with Papadopoulis when the rumor was shared.
If Papadopoulos fed Downer particular information with nefarious intent - that would be a set up on his part (or those behind him) - that I cannot really speculate on, but even if it's the case, I don't see blame attaching to Downer.
I'm not saying that Papadopoulus had nefarious intent, he was the dupe. He innocently repeated what was nefariously told to him. It's just serendipitous that he happened to drink with someone with an official channel back to DC in the short time he was in London with a "hot" rumor on his lips.
I think it's also worth saying that around the world a lot of people saw Donald Trump as a very unlikely Presidential candidate - almost as a joke - with no chance of actually becoming the Republican nominee or becoming President. They were wrong, but that perception increases the chance that when it suddenly became a very real possibility, a lot of people may have been scrambling to adapt to that new reality.
That was the conventional wisdom here, too. Again, the working theory is that Obama/Clinton were sloppy in covering their tracks because they expected to win. When they lost, they began an operation to cover their tracks before the incoming Trump administration had access to the intel.
Papadopoulis goes on to tell of another story in 2017, when he was met in Greece by a man named Charles Tawil who offered Papadopoulis the opportunity to work on retainer for an oil and gas company in Israel. The two traveled to Israel, where Tawil gave Papadopoulis $10,000 in cash to cover initial expenses. Suspecting a setup, Papadopoulis gave the money to a lawyer in Greece before returning to the United States. At the airport upon his return, he was arrested by the FBI, detained and searched, and ultimately set free.
Papadopoulis believes that he was again being set up by the Mueller/FBI investigation. He believes that the $10,000 was a plant to get him to carry back to the United States, where the FBI would get him for undeclared transport of currency. He doesn't understand why the FBI would otherwise be waiting for him at the airport when he returned from a vacation with his girlfriend (now wife).
The theory, again, is that if they could charge Papadopoulis with transporting undeclared currency and money laundering, they could get him to flip on Trump or at least have the justification to get warrants to investigate the Trump campaign further.
To me, it seems like there was just a bit too much unexplained coincidental investigations of low-level Trump associates that were possibly probes by US intelligence to gain control of Trump staffers for their own purposes. I believe that Mr. Downer was collateral damage in the cover-up by the Obama intelligence apparatus after the unexpected win by Trump.
-PJ
naturalman1975, also, George P said that Stephan Halper was the person who set up the meeting with Downer.
To me that seems more logical. Halper was a somebody, and the very reason George P was in the UK. Halper offered him a commission to come to the UK and write/deliver a foreign policy paper for him. Being young and inexperienced, George P. jumped at the chance and flew on over.
According to George P, soon after arriving in the UK, Halper told him that the Russians had Hiilary’s missing emails and “dirt” on her. George P was shocked that he'd be told such information, given the position he had (while Downer might have thought he was important to Trump, George P knew where he was positioned in the campaign).
Here's the Wikipedia page brief on Halper. You decide whether he was straight up or working on an assignment from Washington:
*********Stefan A. Halper (born June 4, 1944) is an American foreign policy scholar and Senior Fellow at the University of Cambridge where he is a Life Fellow at Magdalene College. He served as a White House official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, and was reportedly in charge of the CIA spying operation by the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign that became known as “Debategate”. Through his decades of work for the CIA, Halper has had extensive ties to the Bush family. Through his work with Sir Richard Billing Dearlove he had ties to the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6. *********
It was Halper who set them up.
Also, one other thing, having lived in Australia during Bob Hawk's campaign against Fraser (1983), I know a little about Aussie politics. But here in the states, the “Republican establishment” hates Trump, and sees him as a real danger. Many have been won over by his actions as president, but during the campaign, he was thought to be a real danger to conservatism—a wolf in sheep's clothing. Some even thought he was really a Left-wing stalking horse. We had huge fights right here on this forum over this. It would therefore not surprise me at all for established Anglosphere conservatives to be very wary of Trump in 2015/6.
Knowing this, you can then use Occam's Razor to figure out why what happened next actually did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.