There are several complications that make the story so twisted that it's difficult to follow and not so easy to see how this causes light to shine on conflict of interest for Mueller. I'm fairly certain you're not going to be so interested in this because it sounds like too much, the impulse is bring this to court and let professionals slog through it. Nevertheless, it's an important development, and this morning Sundance put up a third explaining the ramifications.
First, Soloman had new information with startling details. The Hill chose to publish his piece in their opinion section not the front page. Why they did this is debated. It's thought they were hoping it wouldn't get much attention. Right after publishing, Soloman received new information that deserved an entire new post. Instead the Hill updated the old post with an update. Again, their reason for this treatment is debated. Again, it is thought they'd prefer the post not to get much attention. Therefore, readers are commenting on the post to drive it to the front page.
The Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, has reason to make Manafort pay. His involvement in financial manipulation here in the U.S. has caused Trump to severely restrict his entry to this country. He's only allowed here under especially tight conditions. This bears heavily on his business activity. The FBI knows Deripaska doesn't like Manafort for costing several millions of dollars through a bad deal in the Ukraine. Deripaska maintains Manafort stole the money from him and he wants it back. The FBI approached Deripaska at this home with information that Manafort had involvement with Russians to steal the 2016 election. They wanted to use Deripaska to help dirty up Manafort. Although Deripaska has good reason to seek revenge on Manafort, he laughed at the agents because he knew that wasn't true. Deripaska is smart enough to know not to get involved this way or he'd risk loosing his access to the U.S. altogether.
Laura Ingraham presumes her viewers are all slow on the uptake, and this is so precious, she explains it three times, studded with damaging bits.
This morning Sundance splayed it all out for open vivisection.
1) Rober Mueller earlier asked Oleg Deripaska for assistance in an operation to spring an agent who had been captured by Iran. His name is Robert Levinson. The agent assigned to the case was Andrew McCabe. Chiefly, the FBI needed financing. Oleg Deripaska came through with $25 M. This type of operation is illegal, the amount involved meant it was required to be passed by Congress. They were bypassing proper procedure. Everything was set. Jet on tarmak. One last detail. Iran demand a public statement from State saying Iran did nothing wrong. Hillary Clinton refused. Robert Levinson remains a prisoner in Iran. This happened in 2009.
2) In 2016 Andrew McCabe is Deputy Director of FBI. Agents approach Oleg Deripaska again, this time to help FBI describe Paul Manafort as a tool for Russia to help Donald Trump steal the election.
3) John Solomon reports Deripaska wanted to testify before congress without asking for immunity but was prevented. It is unknown who blocked him.
4) Oleg Deripaska's lawyer is Adam Waldman who also represents Christopher Steele, the author of the patently ridiculous dossier damaging to Trump that claimed Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed, but was nevertheless used to attain FISA warrants to spy on an associate of Trump and by extension spy on Trump himself and everyone else within 2° of separation from Trump. Waldman is the liaison used by Senator Mark Warner who Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to set up a meeting with Steele.
5) Deripaska was blocked from testifying, but not by the Nunes House Committee. Therefor by someone on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
6) Why are Deripaska and his lawyer reaching out now to John Solomon the journalist working for The Hill? Does he hope to have Trump's sanctions removed?
7) Adam Waldman is both lawyer and lobbyist representing both Deripaska and Steele. Was Deripaska part of Steele's network, or was Steel working for Deripaska? Was Deripaska willing to finance or facilitate the Steele Dossier so that it dirtied up Paul Manafort? Yet when asked to participate directly he demurred.
8) Was Robert Mueller purposeful in omitting mention of Deripaska form his 2017 indictment of Manafort? Is there some evidence against Manafort that is related to Deripaska vendetta, or is Mueller trying to hide his prior relationship with deripaska
9) Senator Chuc Grassley asked Deripaska's London Lawyer, Paul Hauser, questions about Deripaska's connections to Christopher Steele and received very lawyerly response. Grassley should have asked Adam Waldman, representing Deripaska in the U.S.
10) A good deal could be learned from Oleg Deripaska testimony about the nature of his engagements and the network of characters within intelligence services in the U.S. and abroad. That Deripaska is willing to engage with journalists to explain his involvement could open new lines of inquiry about the validity and origin of the Mueller investigation. Media will find the basis of their Russian collusion conspiracy narrative is fraudulent.
First minute, Senator queries FBI Director Christopher Wray about Deripaska but Wray refuses to answer.