Talk:Joseph Mifsud

Brexit, the ministers, the professor and the spy: how Russia pulls strings in UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/brexit-ministers-spy-russia-uk-brexit

"On 25 April 2016, the world had no clue about Papadopoulos, about Trump and Russia, or about the man quickly identified as the “London professor” – a 57-year-old Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud. Reached by journalists, Mifsud confirmed that the US indictment refers to him but denied any knowledge of its claims about links to the Kremlin, or of knowing about “dirt on Hillary” in “thousands of emails”.

But what the document does not spell out – and what the Observer has learned – is that both Mifsud and Papadopoulos also had links into the heart of the British government.

We publish evidence today of several confirmed meetings between Mifsud and Alok Sharma, the MP for Reading West and a Foreign Office minister until June this year. It was this relationship between Mifsud and Sharma that put the “London professor” directly into the orbit of the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, two weeks ago – at a fundraising dinner attended by both Johnson and Mifsud, with Mifsud telling a colleague he was returning to London from Rome to “have dinner with Boris Johnson … re Brexit”. And just to be clear, this entire wiki looks like it was drafted by Adam 'Shifty' Schiff's staff.23.242.33.20 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"

--Wikipietime (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

director of the London Academy of Diplomacy

I put "citation needed" after this claim because the "London Academy of Diplomacy" (which apparently was an outhoused teaching unit of the University of East Anglia from about 2010 to 2014, see this source, which may soon be deleted for all I know) doesn't seem to exist any longer. At least, its Facebook page doesn't contain current information. If he was briefly director of a no-longer-existing teaching unit, we might say that more clearly and not in the introductory sentences.

In the next couple of days, quite likely, all this will become clearer ... Andrew Dalby 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is now affiliated with the University of Stirling. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

All Russiagate Roads Lead To London As Evidence Emerges Of Joseph Mifsud’s Links To UK Intelligence

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/all-russiagate-roads-lead-to-london-as-evidence-emerges-of-joseph-mifsuds-links-to-uk-intelligence/

Mifsud has repeatedly worked with Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and former British diplomat Charles Crawford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.114.230 (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Big leap from there to "UK intelligence is responsible for manufacturing the Trump-Russia allegations". At the moment the notion that Russia interest in the Trump campaign is a "false flag", with Mifsud playing the part of apparent Russian agent who is really British intelligence asset is a conspiracy theory.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Beware of hate. Do not call critical journalists and political analyst names (conspiracy theorists)! There are theories/speculations and there are facts. Chris Blackburn is a British political analyst and writer who specialises in counter-terrorism, intelligence and defense and has served as a consultant for the BBC. Mifsud’s links to LINK campus (the ‘007 university’) in Rome, to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and the UK Security Vetting panel, his ties with the Clinton Foundation, with Gianni Pittella and with Vincenzo Scotti are facts.

This entire biography needs to be recrafted, with more attention to fact, and less to sensational claims that have been adequately rebutted elsewhere. Regards --87.170.198.217 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

New discussions June-July 2019

About the Russia-Hoax-fiasco: "Exposing the BIG LIE: Bill Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA) and Larry C. Johnson (former analyst at CIA) Reveal the Fraud of RUSSIAGATE", 17 May 2019 --87.170.195.73 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Youtube is not considered a reliable source. Pilaz (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, Pilaz! "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK." See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. --93.211.220.2 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

LaRouche LivePAC is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a interview with NSA-Genius-Cryptanalyst Bill Binney who invented ThinThread (Documentary On Binney "A Good American"). He debunked Russiagate in 2017. Maybe you should pay attention ;-) --87.170.197.147 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly Now Dead

September 8, 2018: "The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday raised the prospect that the London-based professor who told former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton may be dead. DNC lawyers wrote in court filings Friday that Joseph Mifsud, who spoke to Papadopoulos during the 2016 presidential election, "is missing and may be deceased," Bloomberg News reported. The lawyers did not elaborate."[1] 108.2.61.158 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, "I have just been told my sources in Rome that Joseph Mifsud’s address has been disclosed to the Italian media. He has been living next to the US embassy in Rome for a year."

• and: L’avvocato di Mifsud ci spiega cosa c’entra la Link con il Russiagate --87.170.205.216 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

After George Papadopoulos outed Mifsud in Rome the Italian prime minister has suddenly requested resignations from 6 deputy directors of Italian intelligence agencies: DIS, AISI and AISE. Italy has flipped and are giving up Brennan: [2] --87.170.194.230 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this related to the disappearance discussion? I read the article and found no reference to Mifsud or Brennan. If you're just here to discuss the topic at large, be aware of #4 of WP:NOTFORUM. Pilaz (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Pilaz Francewhoa Please, pay attention to "The Gentleman from Ohio" Jim Jordan (Vera Bergengruen: Here's Why Mueller Kept Getting Asked About a Mysterious Maltese Professor, Time Magazine, 24 July 2019), listen to that video! --93.211.220.2 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Missing and may be deceased" is already in the article and has been for nearly a year. More recent updates are also included. There is still no definitive evidence of his whereabouts and nothing new to add on that subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Francewhoa, Soibangla → No, his whereabouts are not unknown. Here's a link to a good translation of the Il Foglio article that revealed where Mifsud lived for at least parts of the past year or two:

• Missing Mifsud was hidden in Rome, Il Foglio, 18 April 2019

Mifsud lived in a flat in Rome. The rent was paid by Link Campus. Link Campus was founded by Vincenzo Scotti (the former Minister of the Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs → western intel-chef).

Mifsud is beeing represented by Stephan Roh, who is has been involved with handling Mifsud’s legal affairs for many years. Roh volunteered to news media that Mifsud had told him he was working for the FBI when he reached out to Papadopoulos. Roh has informed news media that Mifsud wants to testify in front of the U.S. Senate:

• Joseph Mifsud Wants To Testify Before The Senate, A Lawyer Claims

Special prosecutor John Durham, Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice Michael E. Horowitz and American journalist and media executive John F. Solomon are all "in talks"/"working with" Mifsud. Solomon reported that Durham has reached out to Mifsud's lawyer, Stephan Roh:

• Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia, 23 July 2019 → Quote: "Mifsud was a “longtime cooperator of western intel” who was asked specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center of International Law Practice (LCILP) — two academic groups with ties to Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in Rome in mid-March 2016 ..." and "May 2019 letter from Nunes to U.S. intelligence officials corroborates some of Roh’s account, revealing photos showing that the FBI conducted training at Link in fall 2016 and that Mifsud and other Link officials met regularly with world leaders, including Boris Johnson, elected today as Britain’s new prime minister. A few days after the March dinner, Roh added, Mifsud received instructions from Link superiors to “put Papadopoulos in contact with Russians,” including a think tank figure named Ivan Timofeev and a woman he was instructed to identify to Papadopoulos as Vladimir Putin’s niece."

These are not reliable reports. The source you cite is an opinion piece: "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL". And it relies heavily on Nunes and Jordan for its facts. The "Mifsud wants to testify to congress" report was in November 2018 but that has not happened. Nothing here solid enough to put in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Misfud Is Allegedly A Western Spy. Not Russian.

I suggest to add a paragraph about the statement from a source who claimed Misfud is allegedly a Western agent/spy. Because this is significant. It directly contractict the other source in the introduction. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources. How about adding this draft for the article introduction/lead? With sources. For NPOV, I suggest to keep both views. Even if they contradict.

A source claimed that Misfud worked for a Western intelligence agency to frame the Trump campaign. In other words, the source claimed that Misfud did not work for Russia. Another source claimed that Mifsud has high level connections to the Russian government.</ref>

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

---

This additional and third source below is by Elizabeth Lea Vos. She reported details about Mifsud's alleged deception, lies, and framing others, at https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-23/conversation-chris-blackburn-contradictions-surrounding-mifsud

https://archive.fo/E1rIS

Is Zero Hedge is a reputable source? It seems to be a blog not a reputable news publisher. So I suggest to not use this 3rd source. Interesting reading though. The two other sources seems more reputable, I mean The Intercept & Washington Examiner.

Francewhoa (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to "Disobedient Media", Zero Hedge is only a Mirror website. Didnt you read "Elizabeth Vos: All Russiagate Roads Lead To London As Evidence Emerges Of Joseph Mifsud’s Links To UK Intelligence 4 April 2018"? Read the above posts! --93.211.220.2 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Zero Hedge is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. soibangla (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla:

Better delete everything from WP that was ever sourced from conspiracy theorists CNN (who sourced stories from 4CHAN TEENAGERS), WaPo, NYSlimes, Buzzfeed, Vox, Rachel Maddow, et al, then. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Francewhoa, we can and do say something about this, but your proposed paragraph is not acceptable. The three sources you listed (the reliable sources, not counting Vos) do not in any way support your version. They do not report the allegations as fact, and they do not attribute them to an anonymous “source”. Rather, they all describe the attempt by Nunes, during the Mueller hearings, to promote the “Western agent” story (even though the Intercept dismisses it as a “flimsy conspiracy theory”). All the reporting is about Nunes. His comments were widely reported, so we now mention them in the article. (We also mention Jordan, though he didn't get the headlines.) We also point out that Papadopoulos and others have made the same assertion. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Claim that Mifsud worked for a Western intelligence agency is nowhere to be found in both articles provided. I'd also call editors to the attention that there is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner. As for Zerohedge, on Wikipedia it is “considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.”. See here for discussions. On the other hand, I support the addition of the claim made by Nunes as long as it is attributed to him and given due weight. His opinion falls within WP:FRINGE and should be stated as a minority opinion. Pilaz (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I think Nunes is inferring that Misfud is Western intel from circumstantial evidence; I think that his argument probably does not deserve to be mentioned at this point because it is fairly speculative. However, Misfud's lawyer, Stephan Roh, recently told the WaPo that Misfud is a "western intelligence element". That seems important. Here's the wapo story: [3]. WaPo seems weirdly skeptical of Roh's claim to be Misfud's lawyer, but AP has reported it as a fact here: [4]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mifsud's lawyer (if that's who he is) is not a reliable source. In any case, we already cover this allegation in the article: Papadopoulos and some critics of the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign have asserted without evidence that Mifsud was actually a Western intelligence operative who was instructed to entrap Papadopoulos in order to justify the investigation.[25][26] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with first sentence of Shinealittlelight, disagree with rest. About Roh's claims: AP did not report that Mifsud was a "western intelligence element", they instead attributed the claim to Mifsud's lawyer Roh, whose book came out in the spring of 2018. From the text (emphasis mine): Earlier this year, Roh co-wrote and self-published a 284-page book speculating that both Mifsud and Papadopoulos were pawns of the Western intelligence community and had been enlisted in what Roh described as a conspiracy to create the appearance that the Trump campaign had cooperated with the Russian government. All subsequent text regarding the claim follows the premise that this is speculative material coming from Roh ("Roh makes even more unverified claims: His book describes Mifsud as being “very close” not just to Britain’s MI6 but to the Italian secret services and maybe other Western services besides."). Using Roh, a primary source that is not independent from the subject (WP:COISOURCE) and who self-published a book (WP:SPS) with an unverified claim reinforces my belief that it should only be in the article as it already is, per MelanieN. --Pilaz (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I cited the AP as a source for just the claim that Roh is indeed Mifsud's lawyer, which was meant to counter the sort of skepticism expressed on this point by MelanieN above. I agree that Roh is not reliable about whether Mifsud really is a western intelligence asset. But, since Roh is Mifsud's lawyer, he is reliable for what Mifsud himself thinks. The fact that Mifsud claims that he is a "western intelligence element" is, it seems to me, notable. And the current language that MelanieN quotes from our article is in my view misleading. The fact that Mifsud claims (via his lawyer) that he's with western intel is some evidence--not conclusive of course, but still evidence--that he really is a "western ingelligence element". Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mifsud does not claim this; he has said nothing. In any case he would hardly reveal something like being a secret agent, for either side or both or whatever is being claimed, and it is very unlikely he would authorize his attorney to make such a claim. Nor would we know, if he did, whether it is true or a "disinformation" cover story. Mifsud himself has not been seen or heard from in several years, and we have no idea if people who claim to speak for him are acting at his direction or are even actually in contact with him. Until he re-emerges in public it's just all speculation. In fact, that's what the AP article calls it: speculation. If Mifsud does come out and say something, then we can quote him. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not speculation that Roh is Mifsud's lawyer. I repeat: the AP has reported that this is true. A person's lawyer speaks on his behalf. So when Roh says what he says, he says it on behalf of his client Mifsud. Aside from that, I agree that we don't know if what he said is true; that's fine. But it is notable that Mifsud's lawyer says, on behalf of Mifsud, that Mifsud is a "western intelligence element". So it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No. The AP confirms that at one time Roh was Mifsud's lawyer. (Michael Cohen was once Donald Trump's lawyer, too. When Cohen talks now, is he speaking for Trump?) Whether he still is we don't know, because we haven't heard anything from Mifsud himself in several years and we have no confirmation aside from Roh's say-so that they are even in touch. Anyhow, the AP does not in any way confirm that Roh is speaking on behalf of Mifsud. In fact it says the opposite, that Roh is speculating that Mifsud is a western intelligence element. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the AP confirms that Roh was Mifsud's lawyer as of October 2018. The WaPo story says Roh is claiming--with documentation--to be Mifsud's lawyer as of one month ago. So your idea is that we don't know if Roh is Mifsud's lawyer because he may have resigned since last October, and may have presented falsified documents to WaPo? That's just not credible. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Roh showed WaPo a power-of-attorney letter from Mifsud dated May 2018. However, WaPo seems skeptical, since it describes Roh as “a Swiss lawyer who says he represents the professor.” In any case, it doesn't matter. Roh may still be Mifsud's lawyer, and as such he might have proclaimed to the world that Mifsud was a Western agent at Mifsud's direction. But that's even less credible. Spies just don't announce that kind of thing, at least not if it is true; it destroys their usefulness and puts their lives at risk. All we have from Mifsud himself is something he told La Repubblica before he disappeared: “I never got any money from the Russians: my conscience is clear. I am not a secret agent.” Roh's claim is, as the AP said, speculation - and it belongs lumped in with the other such speculation in our article, by Papadopolous and others. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat myself. We know that Mifsud's lawyer, speaking on his behalf, says that he is a "western intelligence element". That seems to me notable, and it sounds like you disagree. So there's no consensus for inclusion. Perhaps others will chime in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep stating that Roh claims that he is speaking on his behalf. But nowhere does Roh make such claim. Being one's lawyer does not mean everything somebody says is the exact thought of the client. For example, the tweets of Avenatti are probably not representating Stormy Daniels. So I also reject the idea that he is speaking on his behalf. And if he is speaking on his behalf: so what? We already have his opinion represted in the text, giving it undue weight seems unjustified. Especially given that Roh's talking point about Mifsud being a Western intelligence operative linked to the British MI5 and Italian services is always, without exception, sourced to his book, which is self-published. It is Wikipedia policy to “never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person” (WP:BLPSPS). At any rate, the undue weight of this unsourced, self-published and COI-plagued claim (which I have to agree with MelanieN, is somewhat absurd to publicize) isn't worth anything more than what's already in the article. A question for you: can you find some wording that says that Roh is speaking on behalf of Mifsud, and not just that he's his lawyer? --Pilaz (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo piece says Roh provided a power-of-attorney letter that appeared to be signed by Mifsud in May 2018 to show that he is authorized to speak on the professor’s behalf. In the context, I think that means he is speaking on Mifsud's behalf to WaPo. Another point worth noting: Mifsud disputes Papadopoulos's account of their contact, which happens to conflict with the speculation that Mifsud was involved in an entrapment operation. So I'm not claiming that the evidence generally supports that theory. I just think that, in the current situation, people would be interested to know what he told WaPo. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also: the language used in the text now is "without evidence". I think there are some problems with this. First, the RS cited do not make that claim as far as I can tell (can someone provide a relevant quote?). And of course they should not make that claim: it isn't as if there is no evidence at all for the theory. For example, as I said above, Nunes has provided some circumstantial evidence. There is such a thing as inconclusive evidence, or even very far from conclusive evidence. When there is at least very weak evidence for some claim, it seems to be false to say that there's no evidence at all for it. Rather, we should say that there is weak or inconclusive evidence. I think we should say that the theory is not established by the available evidence, and that Mifsud's own version of events via his lawyer is at odds with the theory, although he does maintain that he was a "western intelligence element". Something like that seems good to me--more informative and more accurate than what we have now, and better reflects what the WaPo piece says. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

Please add: Further reading

• Stephan C. Roh, Thierry Pastor (2018): The Faking of Russia-Gate - The Papadopoulos Case. ILS Publishing. ISBN 9887801720, ISBN 9789887801726
• George Papadopoulos (March 2019): Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump. Diversion Books ISBN 1635764939, ISBN 978-1635764932 87.170.197.65 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to oppose listing these. They are only peripherally about Mifsud, and they are both cases of special pleading by involved people, rather than reporting from reliable sources. I see that you did list them at the Papadopoulos article and I am OK with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN You know Stephan Roh is Mifsud's lawyer? --87.170.197.65 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I described both books as "special pleading by involved people". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Roh is defending his client Mifsud in the media against various allegations, steadfastly denying Mueller’s claim that his client ever told Papadopoulos about Clinton emails in Russia. Roh wrote that book last year and was the first explaining the idea of Mifsud as a Western intelligence op. --93.211.219.38 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose inclusion per WP:SPS and WP:COISOURCE. Roh and Thierry's book is the closest to dedicate a significant portion to Mifsud from what I can read online, but it's self-published [5], hence generally not accepted as a reliable source on the subject. It also has a clear conflict of interest (Mifsud employs Roh). Papadopoulos, who is close to the topic as a subject of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), can only be treated as a primary source and should not be included here due to WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Given the fact that Papadopoulos and Mifsud know each other, WP:COISOURCE may also be applied here to oppose inclusion. --Pilaz (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Roh has already admitted several times that he was a Western intelligence source and denied he worked for the Soviets this is old news folks A Heavenrich (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Roh has already admitted several times that he was a Western intelligence source and denied he worked for the Soviets this is old news folks A Heavenrich (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

JOSEPH Mifsud

Your article fails to mention that Misfud ‘s attorney recently stated that Misfud has long been a Western intelligence source ,specifically for the US State Department.This is a gross oversight considering Misfufd’s key role at the beginning of “operation Crossfire Hurricane “.I expect this ommision will be corrected ASAP! A Heavenrich (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? --bender235 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What Mifsud & Downer said

The current text writes: "At a meeting in April [26, 2016], Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had learned that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos repeated the information to the Australian High Commissioner in London, Alexander Downer, who later reported to American authorities that Papadopoulos had apparently known about Russia's theft of Democratic National Committee emails before it was publicly reported." The "dirt" is in the form of thousands of Hillary's emails understood to be from her private sever, and NO mention at all of the phishing of the Democratic National Committee. Nor, is there any mention of the DNC in Alexander Downer's cables. On the contrary, Downer goes on to specifically say he has no idea on the acquisition of the emails. Tachypaidia (talk)