Attorney Robert Mueller has been behind a multitude of questionable allegations regarding President Trump and the 2016 election pertaining to Russian involvement. Mueller’s previous record has repeatedly demonstrated that he should never have been appointed to such a position, yet the most recent revelation is staggering.
While the series of investigations appears to be a never-ending witch hunt, recent information has revealed that despite Mueller investigating President Trump, he appears to have his own personal ties to Russia involving an FBI investigation which are undeniably questionable and conflicting.
Considering any pending investigations regarding President Trump, it is a significant conflict of interest that the special counselman was once involved in significant funding from the Russian government.
Such an incident occurred when Mueller was working for the FBI in 2009.
He requested millions of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s personal finances to fund a search and rescue mission for “a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.”
Many were involved in the search for Bob Levinson; however, he was, unfortunately, never located.
The estimated cost of the efforts totaled around $25 million and included making a lucrative offer “to free Levinson” in 2010.
In 2011, the team was forced to forfeit locating Levinson.
Around such time, Deripaska was found on numerous occasions engaging in “secret hotel meetings in Paris, Vienna, Budapest, and Washington.”
Of course, Deripaska “has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and…was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.”
Back during the Levinson operation, Deripaska was reportedly considered an appropriate candidate for such a ‘spy novel’- like operation: his ties to aluminum in Iran, it was a way for the U.S. to get around possible sanctions for becoming involved in international affairs in such a way, and Deripaska had reportedly “been banished since 2006 from the United States…over reports that he had ties to organized crime and other nefarious activities” for which he was never convicted of.
He was cooperative at the time, and in 2009, the U.S. even allowed him entrance into the country to visit “Washington on a rare law enforcement parole visa” despite not being an employee of the Russian Foreign Ministry, as was confirmed by the FBI.
Upon being questioned about his ban into the country, Deripaska claimed that it was only done as “a pretext,” also citing his involvement with the FBI.
He continued that the organization would never “have reached out to me for assistance” if any of the accusations were valid.
Due to such Russian ties, even “independent ethicists” have determined that it is admittedly questionable for Mueller to be searching for supposed Trump-Russia involvement.
However, that was not all that Deripaska was involved in, as he also had notable ties to Paul Manafort who investigated Russia’s alleged involvement in the election for monetary gains, leading him to become associated with “money laundering and illegal lobbying.”
Despite Manafort’s misdeeds, Deripaska went as far as to hire him as an advisor and became a business partner with him in an investing scheme.
Deripaska later sued Manafort over “a business venture that went bad.”
However, Deripaska is not innocent himself, as he has reportedly been caught in “malign activities” as well.
Yet, suspiciously, when Mueller indicted Manafort, he left out the important point that Deripaska was involved.
According to reports, “there’s no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with the election.”
Still, that does not relieve Mueller from his ties to him or other key Russian figures who may have.
Those defending Mueller and Deripaska’s involvement are claiming the same argument that the Russian did: that he is a trustworthy figure if the FBI requested his help in finding a lost CIA member and allowed “him into the country eight times.”
Thankfully, not everyone is buying this excuse. A Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, called this a clear “conflict of interest” considering the previous financial incentives he gained from Russians.
A former Clinton Justice Department lawyer, Melanie Sloan, brought up the point that the “earlier FBI operation” had major legality issues and may have been in violation of the Antideficiency Act.
However, that does not speak well to Mueller’s credibility either.
Jonathan Turley of George Washington University added that this is a “potential embarrassment for Mueller” and continued to question whether such a revelation would result in him being determined a noncredible source to be conducting such a high profile investigation.
If a high court determines that Mueller’s Russia involvement is indeed conflicting, then he will surely be removed from the investigation as should have rightfully occurred some time ago.
Once again, in the hunt to convict President Trump for just about anything, those investigating supposed claims have proven to be far more crooked the allegations against the president.