Short . . . but perfect.

President Donald Trump, sounding more unhinged each day, sent out this tweet, apparently trying to get his base to join him in demanding a Wall:

     "Three separate caravans marching to our Border.   The numbers are tremendous."  @Foxandfriends.

To which Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) responded:
   "These caravans, do you see them in the room with you right now?"

"Is Oleg Deripaska the missing link in the Trump-Russia investigation?"

The respected British newspaper, The Guardian, published this article by Peter Stone in its U.S. online news service.   It's a succinct summary of what's known about a key Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who Stone suggests may be the missing link that ties together Russia and the Trump campaign.

Remember that Oleg Deripaska is the one who just got sanctions relief from the Trump administration that will save him hundreds of millions of dollars.  This action came less than a year after Congress finally persuaded an obviously reluctant Trump to activate those same sanctions that they had voted to impose months before.

The article concerns a recent disclosure that Paul Manafort and Manafort's Russian business associate, Konstatin Kilimnik, had a discussion in New York on August 2, 2016.   Manafort at the time was Trump's campaign chairman, and the talk was just three months prior to the election.

Kilimnik, Manafort's long-time aide, is widely believed to have had ties to Russian intelligence.  

Here, in Peter Stone's words, edited to shorten the piece:

*     *     *

"The meeting came just days after Kilimnik met in Moscow with Oleg Deripaska, a powerful oligarch and close ally of . . . Vlaadimir Putin.   Deripaska had been a major client of Manafort but had sued him over a failed business deal in Uktraine and was seeking to recoup almost $25 million.

"The Trump administration announced late last year it intended to lift sanctions on Deripaska's companies, despite strong opposition from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress.   The treasury department had imposed the sanctions . . . for 'malign activity' which included 'attempting to subvert western democracies and malicious cyber-activities'.

"The talk in New York, revealed in a recent court filing from Mueller's office, came soon after Kilimnik emailed Manafort that he needed to brief him on his Deripaska meeting.   Kilimnik, who worked for a decade with Manafort when he was a political consultant making tens of millions representing Deripaska and pro-Moscow Ukrainian political parties, emailed Manafort in last July that he had just spent hours with the man 'who gave you your biggest jar of black caviasr several years ago,' referring to Deripaska.

"Kilimnik's email to Manaforft said that Deripaska asked him to convey 'several important messages from him to you.'

"Mueller's new mid-January court filing was the first evidence that Manafort and Kilimnik had talked about Ukraine peace plans.   The filing also stated they discussed such proposals on 'more than one occasion' . . . [which] may signal a growing interest in Deripaska's involvement with Manafort and Kilimnik. . . . 

"'This raises the question as to whether Mueller has an ongoing interest in Deripaska in his investigation,' said [Michael] Zeldin [Zeldin is a former federal prosecutor who specialized in money laundering enforcement].

"Some pro-Moscow peace plans for Ukraine have been 'proxies' for ending the painful sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 after it invaded eastern Ukraine and Crimea, a major Kremlin goal, Zeldin noted. . . . 

"'Intelligence veterans say Kremlin linkages could have been at play in the back-to-back talks in Moscow and New York.   'Deripaska is a key lieutenant and a significant oligarch in Putin's oligarch system,' said Steven Hall, a retired CIA chief of Russia operations.

"'Deripaska would get his marching orders from the Kremlin about what Russia wanted, including lifting of sanctions and a resolution of the situation in Ukraine that favored Russia,' Hall said.  'It seems likely the chain of communication would have been Putin to Deripaska to Kilimnik to Manafort.'

"'The Manafort connection to Deripaska is essential,' Hall added.   'I think people really need to focus on the Manafort-Deripaska relationship.  It's essentially a Trump-Putin connection.' . . .  

"Soon after Trump hired Manafort -- originally to help secure the delegates to grab the GOP presidential nomination -- the latter emailed Kilimnik to ensure that Deripaskaw was in the loop about Manafort's role with the campaign.

"In emails first reported by the Wshington Post, Manafort proposed giving Deripaska 'private briefings' on the Trump campaign, and told Kilimnik to pass the idea on to the oligarch, apparently an effort to win his favor and settle the lawsuit that Deripaska had brought against him.  Manafort, Kilimnik and Deripaska have said no formal proposal was ever made and nothing came of the idea."

*     *     *

So now we have two possible channels that could have been the connection between the Trump campaign and the Russians, understanding that "the Russians" always means that Putin knows and is behind it.

The Roger Stone indictment suggests one avenue through his connections with Wikileaks and the release of the DNC and Clinton emails.   Now, this Mueller revelation of the New York meeting between Trump's campaign manager and a conduit to one of Putin's oligarchs could be another.

Neither, of course, yet provides public knowledge of any direct involvement of Trump himself.   But how can it be that the president of the United States is closely surrounded by such high-up officials in his campaign and presidency (campaign chair, Director of National Security, deputy director of the inauguration committee, as well as his son and son-in-law) who have all had dealings with Russians -- dealings about which they apparently all had reasons to lie?

How does that possibly happen without the central figure, Trump himself, at least knowing about it?

Ralph

If Trump will just stop demanding money to "build a wall" and talk about "border security" instead, they'll get the job done.

Deb Reichmann, writing for the Associated Press, says that President Trump "is prepared to shut down the government again or declare a national emergency if Congress won't give him the border wall money he wants."   Her article continues:

*   *   *

"White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told CBS's "Face the Nation" that Trump's goal is to work with Congress.

"'What he wants to do is fix this the way that things are supposed to get fixed with our government which is through legislation,' Mulvaney said. . . . [He also said] the president doesn't want another shutdown, but he would do it if necessary.   Keep in mind he's willing to do whatever it takes to secure the border. . . .

"On Fox News Sunday, Mulvaney wouldn't directly answer whether Trump would take less than the $5.7 billion, but said the president was willing to negotiate.   The president has already gone to the Democrats and said, look, it's not a 2,000 mile sea-to-shining-sea wall.

"Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership in the House, said that a long wall would be ineffective and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.   'That's a 5th century solution to a 21st century problem. . . .  What we want to support over the next few weeks is a 21st century border security.'

"Jeffries said Democrats are willing to invest in additional infrastructure, especially at legal ports of entry where the majority of drugs come into the country.  'We're willing to invest in personnel.   We're willing to invest in additional technology. . .  in the past, we have supported enhanced fencing and I think that's something that's reasonable that should be on the table,' he said.

"Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, said he thinks a compromise is possible.   'I think the American people are tired of watching the government where people get locked down for no reason except maybe political reasons,' Blunt said, adding that Trump has changed his demands on border security as he's learned more about the problem."

*   *   *

I detect some subtle changes that suggest both sides are signalling room for some give and take.   Mulvaney, closest to Trump as his chief of staff, takes the harder line, summing it up by saying that "At the end of the day, the president is going to secure the border one way or another."    But note, also, that he says "secure the border," not "build the wall."

Veteran Republican senator Roy Blount talks about compromise and about the people's wishes to take this out of politics.   And Democratic rising star in Pelosi's leadership team, Hakeem Jeffries, lists the "21st century security measures" that Democrats are willing to support.

The stumbling block seems to call for a wordsmith more than anything.   If Trump would stop saying "wall," maybe they could get this done.   The foolish truth, according to rumor, is that "a wall" was simply a word-device that Roger Stone suggested.  As the story goes, the early campaign plan was to make immigration a big issue;   but Trump could never remember to talk about it at rallies.   So Stone came up with the slogan "build a wall," which appealed to Trump.   He would shout it to the crowds, they would respond with shouts of "Build the Wall!"    That was something he would remember to bring up next time -- and it caught on.

So now we just need to reverse-engineer and eliminate that slogan.   Have Trump talk about "border security," and Democrats will negotiate with him on that.

Ralph