Interesting thing about Papadopolous taking a plea is that the FBI is only interested if they think you have creditable information on people up the ladder. If he didn't know anything, the FBI wouldn't have struck a deal.
Or they don't have anything on anyone, and this was the best they could get.
No, Papadopolous flipped and took a plea bargain in return for getting additional evidence on other people.
You know this, how?
If he didn't have any information on anyone (and couldn't get any) then he wouldn't have been able to strike a bargain.
Plea bargain deals are only rarely related to flipping on other people. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems just as likely that they had some questionable stuff on him, which may or may not have resulted in any sort of conviction, and he entered a plea for the reason most people do: To avoid a trial. It's entirely possible he could have fought the charges, and possibly even won, but given the past track record of the need to find "someone" to convict in such things (remember Scooter Libby?), he probably read the writing on the wall and coped to a plea. FBI gets a "conviction", and he gets to stay out of jail.
This is some pretty basic stuff: you get caught, you say you can provide other (better) info on (better) people, you come through and THEN the FBI recommends to the judge that you get a wrist slap since you've been cooperating with the investigation. If you can't come through, you get nothing. Papadopolous was recommended for a wrist slap -- he came through.
Again. Or there wasn't strong enough evidence to guarantee conviction, so they let him plea it down. Both sides win in that case.
You do know how our legal system works, right?
Come on now, I know you're speaking out your partisan ass and the GOP is in full panic damage control mode now but use your brain for half a second: If this was the only thing they had, why would they water down the charges for their only result from the investigation?
Um... Because it's the only thing they have
, and they want to get "something" on "someone".
He entered that plea a month ago. If he had turned over on someone, and provided juicy info that would lead to conviction, then why is the big announcement about him and not the person they got the info on? It's clear that the Manafort and Gates stuff is ancient, and unrelated to the Trump campaign itself (and therefore unlikely to have been the result of anything George knew), so where is the result of his flip?
Unlike you, I'm not making any assumptions here. It's entirely possible there is more to come. But I'm not going to assume there is, based on what we've seen. Again, usually when the informant flips to provide evidence against other people, you don't announce the charges against the informant *first*. You keep him in your back pocket until you have your case built against the big fish, and then you go after that person.
The fact that they announced his guilty plea, but no apparent other person that could have been someone he informed on, suggests the opposite of what you're assuming. Again, I have no way to know for sure, but it seems odd that you're so absolutely certain. One of us is engaging in wishful thinking, and I don't think it's me. I'm not stating an absolute here. Just a counter possibility. As I've said, it could just as easily be that he was the only person they could shake out of the entire Trump campaign, who actually did anything during the campaign that could result in charges.
And yeah, I'll take this moment to point out the suspicious similarity to Libby. He's not being charged with (or accused of as far as I know) of "colluding" with Russia in any way. Just making a false statement while being investigated. As I mentioned back in the Plame fishing expedition: When you search hard enough, and question enough people, some of them will make statements that don't match up. And usually it's not because they did anything related to the initial investigation, but they did something that they knew in a given media environment would "look bad" (like you know, even having a conversation with a Russian), so they conceal it. Dumb thing to do, but it happens all the time.
Of course, this trick is helped along by a frenzied media calling out anyone in the group who had any conversation with or related to anything which could be made to look bad. It makes people hide actions which are not themselves illegal or even wrong. My guess is that's exactly what happened with this guy. He was so afraid that if he admitted to meeting with a Russian that it would make him and the campaign and transition team look bad, that he lied about it. And then he got caught.
I'm still waiting for some sort of quid pro quo here though. Haven't seen it yet. I'll make another prediction that we'll never see it. This whole thing is about speculation and innuendo. Nothing more.