Read on Twitter
' @walkafyre's muellerfiles https://themyefiles.knack.com/mueller-files/ is a tour de force of data assimilation. In addition to the laborious and essential work of collating dates, W has made some inspired identifications. 302s from early days of Crossfire are of particular interest to me.
2/ FBI either did hardly any interviewing prior to ICA or hasn't included them in release or both. Vault includes only two Aug 2016 302s, both concerning Manafort. One from Sep 2016 - plausibly identified by W as Alexandra Stephania Chalupa.
3/ there's a certain, shall-we-say, insolent appropriateness of FBI relying on highly Ukraine-partisan Chalupa as a supposed source and authority.
Character counts for both full name and surname match exactly.
Character counts for both full name and surname match exactly.
4/ an interesting detail in Chalupa's 302: she says that she read an article about "20,000 emails". Usual number was 33,000 emails, so 20,000 is interesting tracer that I've looked at before. Napolitano used it on May 9 on Megyn Kelly, then Hannity.
5/ it was then cited in MediaMatters article slagging Hannity, which is probably proximate origin for Chalupa.
But "20,000" originally came (as far as I can tell) from the Sorcha Faal website (which is in Q species) which said that Russia had "20,000" Clinton emails.
But "20,000" originally came (as far as I can tell) from the Sorcha Faal website (which is in Q species) which said that Russia had "20,000" Clinton emails.
6/ it's ironic that FBI was using Chalupa as a source. Chalupa, like Strzok, either didn't distinguish between Clinton emails and DNC hack emails or cynically conflated them. Either way, given paucity of actual FBI witnesses in 2016, disquieting that Chalupa is one of them.
7/ W identifies the Sep 26, 2016 interviewee as aluminum magnate Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, who Solomon long ago reported https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/451413-russian-oligarchs-story-could-spell-trouble-for-team-mueller to have been interviewed by FBI in Sept 2016.
8/ Character count (including patronymic) fits perfectly, so this identification can be locked stone. Needless to say, it's entirely redacted. Trump can declassify; it doesn't mean that bureaucrats won't defeat through redaction.
