… and, by the same token, it’s not really wise to pay attention to a person proclaiming on the activities of their spouse. In both situations, they may be inclined to stretch the truth – and they’re also likely a second-hand source. So what to make of Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos, whose husband plead guilty and is to be sentenced for lying to FBI Agents concerning his work on the Trump Campaign? Lawfare’s Quinta Jurecic, and Benjamin Wittes are on the case:
Anyone who has been paying attention to the Russia investigation has probably seen Papadopoulos’s wife appearing on television over the past couple of months to declare her husband blameless and request a presidential pardon. It seems that Mueller’s team has as well. In a lengthy footnote, the sentencing memo documents and rebuts Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos’s protestations. The repudiation of her claims—specifically, that her husband “voluntarily reported” his interactions with Mifsud to the FBI and was subsequently entrapped by the bureau—is fairly damning. [Mueller’s footnote rebutting her claims omitted for brevity – HAW] …
These lies are the sort of thing the FBI prosecutes routinely. In fact, they are the sort of lies the FBI doesn’t tend to overlook.
The bottom line is that the George Papadopoulos story should be neither blithely dismissed nor inflated into more than it likely is. It appears to have been the trigger for the Russia investigation. It does not appear to hold the key to what we don’t yet know about L’Affaire Russe.
Papadopoulos’ stubbornness on the matter, evident in the footnote I omitted, is most curious, because he must know that digging in your heals will make prosecutors less likely to suggest to the judge that leniency might be appropriate. Is he so certain that, having plead guilty, he’ll get the leniency regardless? Is he certain he’ll be receiving a Presidential pardon despite having plead guilty? Is he so far gone in the party-before-country rathole that he can’t envision coming clean? In a way, he may be emblematic of much of the conservative side of the political spectrum these days, grimly clinging to what the Leader says is right without regard to how much damage the country may be sustaining.
Perhaps the War of 1812 was too long ago, and we need reminding that the United States is not an invulnerable institution. Existential threats tend to shake people lose from comforting, yet damnable, delusions.
Or pound the nails home in their coffins.
