Finally, a Glimmer of Justice for the Russiagate Hoax

Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky has been called in for questioning by U.S. Attorney Ed Martin in what could be the first real move toward justice in the Russiagate hoax

For those of us who had nearly given up hope that there would ever be accountability—no matter how small—for the countless abuses and crimes associated with the Russiagate scandal, there is now a faint glimmer of hope. That glimmer comes in the form of a letter from U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, to Aaron Zelinsky, a former member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, instructing Zelinsky to submit to questioning about his role and that of the Mueller team in advancing the Russia collusion hoax.

Zelinsky was one of the lawyers on Mueller’s team who harassed, intimidated, pressured, and coerced individuals within President Donald Trump’s orbit in an effort to extract fabricated stories that could be used to falsely suggest Russia collusion and ultimately justify removing Trump from office during his first term. The specifics of the letter demanding Zelinsky’s interview pertain to his role in the prosecution of an ostensibly innocent man, George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign in 2016 who was imprisoned as a result of the investigation.

What makes the Papadopoulos case especially significant—and likely the reason it’s being revisited now—is that it serves as a kind of Rosetta Stone for the entire Russiagate hoax. It’s the thread that, if pulled, could unravel the fabric of deceit spun by the Mueller team. The abuses in Papadopoulos’s case are unusually clear and well-documented, making it a strong entry point for exposing broader misconduct. To understand why revisiting his case matters so much—and why it could be a gateway to uncovering the full extent of wrongdoing in the Mueller operation—we need to examine how this one man’s actions, foolish though they may have been, were twisted and inflated into the cornerstone of a fake predicate for one of the most damaging political investigations in American history.

The Papadopoulos case is complex, with many layers of stories and counter-stories, but at its core, it is the story of a naïve and foolish—but ultimately totally innocent—28-year-old who stumbled into a presidential campaign and sought to impress others beyond his capabilities. This is not speculation, as Papadopoulos himself has admitted that as a total rookie among a team of seasoned DC, military, and diplomatic insiders, he saw his only chance at shining by doing something big. The big thing he aimed to do was arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign. So naïve was Papadopoulos that he failed to realize, first, that such a meeting would have been politically toxic during the campaign, and second, that the campaign— even if it had desired such a meeting—would not have needed Papadopoulos to arrange it. Completely oblivious to these elementary realities, Papadopoulos nonetheless pursued connections with individuals who might connect him to people in Moscow, who, in turn, might connect him to individuals in the Kremlin capable of arranging such a meeting. To anyone with a modicum of common sense, this was a madcap scheme, but Papadopoulos pursued it anyway.