The Igor Danchenko Trial - Day 3 Revealed - the FBI Paid Danchenko over $200,000

[WVU82]

Techno Fog

Oct 14

Day 3 of the Igor Danchenko false statements trial started with the testimony of Democrat activist and Clinton ally Charles Dolan. For background, Dolan has historic ties to the Democrat party, was a state chairman of Bill Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, and was an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

And he was also a source for the Steele dossier.

Dolan’s connections to Russia began from his consulting work, where he served to attract foreign investments into Russia in the 2000s. As part of that job, he would have regular conference calls with the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin and had occasional meetings with other Russian officials. Other work, such as assisting Disney in obtaining a broadcast license, would keep him connected to Russia.

Dolan was introduced to Igor Danchenko through Fiona Hill in the spring of 2016. I’ll let Dolan explain:

That friend Danchenko was trying to assist was a woman by the name Olga Galkina. Dolan would eventually meet with her in Cyprus in March of 2016. Galkina would eventually become relevant to the Dossier story.

Danchenko and Dolan kept in touch, meeting from time to time. Part of the reason they stayed connected was because of the “potential opportunities” Dolan’s firm (kgobal) and Danchenko’s employer, Orbis, might pursue. (The business opportunities never presented themselves.)

In May 2016, Dolan reached out to Danchenko because he would be traveling to Moscow to attend a conference at The Ritz-Carlton. Dolan eventually traveled to Moscow in June 2016. At that time, Danchenko was already in Moscow and the two met in that city. Dolan returned to the US and he and Danchenko remained in occasional contact.

All this background information was necessary to help establish the Dolan-Danchenko relationship. From there, Special Counsel Michael Keilty produced an e-mail where Danchenko reached-out about the Trump campaign:

Dolan responded to Danchenko, stating: “Let me dig around on Manafort. Pretty sure the new team wanted him gone ASAP and used today's New York Times story to drive a stake in his heart.”

He followed-up with another e-mail to Danchenko, where he said:

"I had drink with a GOP friend of mine who knows some of the players and got some of what is in this article, which provides even more detail. She also told me that Corey Lewandowski, who hates Manafort and still speaks to Trump regularly played a role. He is said to be doing a happy dance over it. "I think the bottom line is that in addition to Ukraine revelations, a number of people wanted Manafort gone. It is a very sharp elbows crowd."

This information turned out to be false. Dolan admitted upon questioning from Keilty that he never had a drink with a “GOP friend.” He got the information from cable news.

The Reactionary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Danchenko would again request information from Dolan, saying “It's an important project for me, and our goals clearly coincide.” Dolan figured Danchenko said this because “he knew I would be a supporter of the Clinton campaign.”

Special Counsel Keilty then showed Dolan parts of the Steele Dossier and compared them to the information Dolan provided Danchenko. He asked Dolan if the information he provided Danchenko was “substantially similar” to what was in the Steele Dossier. Dolan’s response: “Yes.”

Fast forward to January 2017. Buzzfeed released the Steele Dossier and a client of Dolan’s was mentioned in the document. Dolan had a suspicion about Orbis and Danchenko’s involvement, so he reached out. Danchenko hedged on the matter and then disappeared, never getting back to Dolan:

Cross-Examination of Dolan

I’ll be brief on this part. Dolan conceded that at the time he first saw the Steele Dossier, he didn’t recognize the information he provided Danchenko. Instead, Dolan recalled he may have realized he was a source of the Dossier information during an interview with the Special Counsel in September 2021. Then there was this key exchange:

Q And I think you have already testified to this, but even knowing everything that the government has done to look into you, it's still your testimony today that you've never talked to Mr. Danchenko about anything that ended up in the dossier, correct?
A Correct.

Re-direct of Dolan

That exchange we cited above seems to contradict Dolans’s statement during direct examination that the information he gave Danchenko was “substantially similar” to the Dossier allegations. Keilty cleaned it up with this exchange:

The Testimony of FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson (Washington Field Office)

Agent Helson was Danchenko’s handler once he became a confidential human source (CHS) in March 2017. He wasn’t a part of Crossfire Hurricane. But he was approached by members of the Crossfire Hurricane team – Steve Somma and Brian Auten – to help manage their new source.

“I was approached most likely -- I think it was around the end of January 2017 -- by two members of the Crossfire Hurricane team who had identified an individual that they had just conducted a three-day interview. It was in the course of that three-day interview they had learned that there was potential for more information relative to the programs that I was working.”

The Danchenko CHS task was assigned to Agent Helson by his Washington Field Office supervisor. Helson was to “meet with and eventually open Mr. Danchenko as a CHS, to get him to report on stuff that was of interest to us.” His interest in Danchenko was primarily “Russian counterintelligence,” as opposed to Auten and Somma’s interest in the Dossier.

Helson had been managing Danchenko by the time Mueller was appointed Special Counsel. Here’s how the interactions went:

“The general understanding that I had with Crossfire Hurricane and ultimately what became the Mueller Investigation was if you want questions asked related to the dossier, I will ask them, but it's going to be incumbent upon them to give those to me.”

Helson was asked about whether Danchenko was able to corroborate any of the Dossier allegations:

Interestingly, Danchenko appeared to have been given favorable treatment – even for a paid CHS. Helson said it’s typically standard practice that the monetary compensation is “based on the type of information” the source gives. Danchenko, however, was paid thousands just to sit down and talk to the FBI.

Helson would eventually take part in interviews with Danchenko that were recorded without Danchenko’s knowledge. Some of the questions were presented from Auten, such as Auten’s instructions to “Readdress the Sergei Millian matter. We have discrepancies.”

The Millian matter would be readdressed – with Helson first admitting he didn’t know Millian had a formal relationship with the FBI until trial prep. In fact, Helson was kept in the dark by Auten and Somma, not seeing any correspondence between Danchenko and Millian (and not seeing correspondence between Dolan and Danchenko). Helson stated he was “very confident” Danchenko told him he spoke with Millian a couple times.

From there, a good deal of questions related to the Crossfire Hurricane/Mueller Team not providing Helson with Danchenko’s communications:

Q. With respect to this email [from Dolan to Danchenko], would that be something that you would have been interested in on June 15th of 2017?
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn't have -- did you have it or not?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever get that other than recently?
A. No.
…
Q. Do you know, sir -- or at the time, did you know whether or not there was any information that then appeared in any of the dossier reports relating in some way to these emails?
A. Not until you showed me.

There was also a long series of questions and answers on Dolan, the interviews, and Olga Galkina. Then Durham asked Helson about the Dossier being used in the Carter Page FISA warrant, and Helson’s 2017 conclusion that it was bunk:

Q. And who is it that is saying in there (As read): "Right, because it's not others, no legally -- there's no attorney that's ever going to put that on as evidence anyway."?
A. Yeah, that was me.
Q. But do you know, sir, now, whether or not the uncorroborated information concerning a well coordinated conspiracy of cooperation portion out of 95, was that used in a legal document?
A. I understand that it -- I think it was used or cited in a FISA application.
Q. And that was against an American citizen, correct?
A. I believe that was -- yes.
Q. And it was completely unvetted?
A. Yes.

Cross-Examination of Helson

Briefly, here are some highlights of the cross-examination of Helson by Danchenko’s attorneys:

• Helson came to trust Danchenko. Their relationship lasted from March 2017 through October 2020.
• Early on, Danchenko demanded more money from the FBI, purportedly because he was “at risk.”
• The Crossfire Hurricane/Mueller Team “never raised any real concerns” about the information Danchenko provided.
• The Crossfire Hurricane team never asked Helson to image Danchenko’s cell phone or obtain his e-mails.
• Helson told Danchenko, as a CHS, that “he should scrub his phone” to mask “his connection to Steele and any connection” to the FBI.
• Helson sought approval to pay Danchenko $10,900 at one point. Another request was for $10,000.
• Helson was “upset” that Danchenko’s January 2017 was released to the public.
• After Danchenko was ended as a source, Helson requested Danchenko receive a lump sum payment of $346,000. This would have brought the total payments to Danchenko to $565,000. The $346,000 payment was not approved. (Overall, Danchenko was paid over $200,000….)

Re-Direct of Helson

To close, we’ll provide key excerpts of the conclusion of Helson’s testimony. Our friend Fool Nelson was in attendance and said Durham lit Helson up. Understandably so, as Helson defended and criticized the closure of Danchenko as a CHS.

Specifically, Durham caught Helson in a falsehood about the paperwork used to open Danchenko as a CHS:

Q. Let me ask you again, with respect to the opening of Mr. Danchenko as a confidential human source, you filled out paperwork, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in that paperwork, one of the important questions is: Is there any derogatory information about this person, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you wrote, there is no derogatory information?
A. Yeah, based on my search.
Q. And that is untrue?
A. It was there was a case on him.
Q. And what was the -- what was the nature of the case?
A. It was a counterintelligence investigation out of a different field office.
Q. It's a 65-day file, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that counterintelligence?
A. Yes.
Q. Of a particular type?
A. Yes, an espionage case. An espionage case.

Durham raked Helson over the coals on this issue, pointing out that Helson never corrected his falsehood after learning of this derogatory information”

Durham also brought up the issue of Danchenko committing fraud in connection with his immigration. As you can see, Helson tried to explain-away the mistakes.

Q. Yeah. In fact, it's to determine whether or not there was fraud committed in connection with his immigration, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you do that?
A. No. He went -- he had went to –
Q. Well, that's not my question.
A. Okay.
Q. Did you do that?
A. No, no.
Q. To your knowledge, did anybody that's working on Crossfire Hurricane, Mr. Mueller's group or otherwise, ever run that to ground and do what had been recommended?

A. No.

Durham also brought up Helson’s failure to check Danchenko’s statements against his past travel records, and how Helson didn’t follow recommendations to assess Danchenko’s “actual motives”:

Q. All right. Well, what about looking at what he had said as compared to what the records showed? Did you do that going backward?
A. Not going backwards, no.
Q. Did they make a specific recommendation to you that the Bureau behavioral assessment group conduct an examination to determine what Mr. Danchenko's actual motives, allegiances and vulnerabilities were?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do that?
A. No.

Helson’s failures kept on being pointed out:

Q. Were you -- was it recommended that you do an assessment or to look at the financial nature of Mr. Danchenko's employment because of the concern that he may be prone to shopping around his information in search of work and pre-composing reporting containing unsolicited material, which may indicate the FBI is not the primary audience for his information?
A. Yeah, I saw that in the report.
Q. Did you do that?
A. No.
Q. Was it recommended that the Washington Field Office determine whether Mr. Danchenko committed any unauthorized illegal activity for the apparent falsehoods and inaccuracies contained in his visa and immigration documents?
A. Yes, they recommended that.
Q. Did you do that?
A. No.

Then Durham asked Helson about the Washington Field Office recommendation to polygraph Danchenko, apparently concerned with Danchenko’s loyalties:

Q. Did they specifically recommend to the Washington Field Office and you that you considered administering a polygraph of Mr. Danchenko to determine if he has ever been tasked by a foreign individual, entity or government to collect information or to perform actions adverse to the U.S. interest?
A. They recommended that, yes.
Q. Did you do that?
A. No.

There was one final point of contention between Durham and Helson which will spill over into tomorrow morning. Helson had disagreed with the recommendation to look further into Danchenko’s ties to Russian intelligence. This recommendation came from an analyst who spent 19 years as an army counterintelligence officer in Europe.

With that in mind, today ended with this question/answer:

Q. Do you recall, sir, whether or not you or any of your colleagues who were looking at the dossier and trying to corroborate the information there, did you or anybody to your knowledge in the FBI attempt to run to ground and complete or conclude, resolve that case that had to be closed because the FBI mistakenly thought he had left the country? Anybody do anything to resolve that?
A. No.

Other matters…

It looks like Danchenko will not testify. Not a surprise. We might see closings on Monday. Probably followed by a verdict that same day, if not by Tuesday. We’ll see.

This is the second day in a row that Durham has basically treated the FBI Agents/Analysts as hostile witnesses. First it was Auten, now it was Helson. It’s just not about the incompetence and their basic investigative failures.

It’s also that these FBI Agents and Analysts come across as arrogant, at least from my reading of the transcripts, and continue to hold themselves essentially blameless. All the while, they have at times defended Igor Danchenko, the witness who didn’t tell them the truth. It’s not a good look for the Bureau.

 

[WVU82]

Gateway Pundit on GETTR : The FBI Ordered Informant Igor Danchenko to Erase All Evidence from His Phone of His Role in Their Attempted Coup of President Tr...

In June 2020 TGP broke the story that the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for the Steele dossier was Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most of the made-up lies in the Steele dossier. Danchenko was American-based not Russian-based. Danchenko is the one individual those looking into the Trump–Russia...

gettr.com

 

[WVU82]

Techno Fog

Oct 16

On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham finished presenting evidence in the Igor Danchenko trial.

The most damning part of the day, if not the trial? Testimony that FBI supervisors within the Mueller Special Counsel refused requests to interview a source for the Steele Dossier: longtime Democrat activist Charles Dolan.

But first we start with the redirect examination of a witness from Thursday afternoon – FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson - who handled Danchenko when he was a confidential human source. (Our prior article discussed Helson’s investigative failures at length.)

Durham questioned Helson about efforts to determine the Danchenko-Dolan connection in the summer of 2017. By that time, the Mueller Special Counsel had been ongoing since May 2017 and had, on its own, taken part in the last Carter Page FISA renewal. And if you recall from our last articles, Danchenko had been an FBI CHS since March 2017. Once Mueller was appointed, Helson was the go-between, asking Danchenko questions posed by the then-Special Counsel’s team.

By June 2017, the Mueller Special Counsel had developed information that Democrat Charles Dolan may have been a source of the Steele Dossier. They passed questions about Dolan to Agent Helson:

Q Who did those [Dolan] questions come from?

A It came from the Mueller investigative team, particularly Ms. [Amy] Anderson.

Durham also cleaned-up Helson’s sloppiness. The previous day, Helson testified that Danchenko didn’t know the Steele Dossier was going to the FBI. Helson admitted he didn’t have any evidence to support his own conclusion.

Q You were asked a question yesterday that you adopted -- you were asked a question about, well, the defendant didn't know that Steele's reports were going to the FBI, and you said yes. Do you have any independent knowledge of that?
A No.
Q That's just what the defendant told you, right?
A Yeah.
Q So when you told the jury that he, Mr. Danchenko, didn't know that they were going to the FBI, you don't know that to be the case?
A I had no other knowledge that suggested that, no.
Q Right. There's no independent evidence of any sort, correct?
A Yes, correct.

Helson was also asked about Danchenko’s lack of complete honesty with respect to his interactions with Charles Dolan and his travels to Moscow. As you’ll see, Helson’s answers also implicate his own failure to fully investigate his source.

Q Did Mr. Danchenko tell you about his having been in Moscow in June of 2016?
A No, he did not tell me that.
Q Did he tell you anything about his having met with or seen Mr. Dolan in Moscow in June of 2016?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall, sir, whether or not you ever learned the dates on which Mr. Danchenko was in Moscow in June of 2016?
A I learned of it later.
Q And do you remember: When you learned at a later point in time he had been in Moscow in June of 2016, did you talk to him about that?
A No.

Danchenko’s June 2016 Moscow trip, where he met with Dolan, has significant timing because Danchenko flew from Moscow to London to give “a report”. Who was in London? Christopher Steele.

​

Durham also inquired about Helson’s October 24, 2017 interview of Danchenko. Helson described the purposes of that meeting:

“This meeting was -- in part, it was a direction from the Mueller investigative team bringing up the discrepancies in the Sergei Millian matter, and they wanted me to go back specifically to ask the questions and get his response.”

Just so we’re clear – by October 24, 2017, the Mueller Team knew there were issues with Danchenko’s allegations about Sergei Millian. At a minimum, they were aware of the discrepancies in Danchenko’s claims about Millian. And how did Danchenko respond? By changing his story.

​

The importance is two-fold. First, it confirms to the Mueller Special Counsel that there are even more problems with Danchenko’s story. Second, it catches Danchenko in a lie that would, 4+ years later, be part of his own indictment.

The Testimony of Former FBI Intelligence Analyst Brittany Hertzog

Hertzog was with the FBI from 2008 through 2019 as an intelligence analyst with a primary focus on Russian counterintelligence. She described her role as an analyst who “looks at information and tries to identify trends, patterns, and investigative next steps.” She was assigned to the Directorate of Intelligence at FBI Headquarters.

Hertzog was assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s Office in July 2017. She described her role and chain of command with the Mueller Team:

Q And what, generally, was your role with the Special Counsel Mueller's team?
A I was primarily initially to focus on looking into reports that the FBI had received on Russian matters.
Q All right. Did those reports have a particular name?
A We referred to them typically as the Steele dossier.
Q Now, as a member of Special Counsel Mueller's team, was there a chain of command?
A Yes.
Q Can you describe the chain of command that you worked with?
A I reported directly to SIA Brian Auten. Above him was Special Counsel Mueller. There were horizontal chains of reporting as well. So there was an attorney, a supervisory special agent, and then head of FBI personnel.
Q Okay. So you had occasion to work with special agents as well, correct?
A Correct.
Q And who were some of the special agents that you worked with Special Counsel Mueller?
A I worked with Supervisory Special Agent Amy Anderson and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.

Hertzog became familiar with the Steele Dossier, and with the parties involved in the Steele Dossier, once she joined the Mueller Team:

Q And how did you become familiar with Mr. Steele?
A When I reported [July 2017] to the Special Counsel's Office, SCO, I had received background information on the investigation up until that point.

It was her job to “look into the Steele Dossier.” She described this as “trying to identify the sourcing for the claims in the dossier and, specifically, the national security threat with regards to the Russian influence piece.” Hertzog explains:

Q And a lot of names appeared in those dossier reports?
A Correct.
Q Did you learn that there were a number of different sources that the defendant relied on?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a particular focus on any of those sources?
A There were a number of sub-sources that were identified for investigative next steps.
Q Okay. And did you have a particular individual that you focused on?
A Yes. There was an individual named Olga Galkina who was -- when I was assigned to SCO, was my primary focus initially.

Compare Hertzog’s testimony to the words of Robert Mueller:


How do we not conclude that Mueller lied to Congress?

Unless his own team kept him in the dark about their own investigation of the Steele Dossier?

The title of this post references “obstruction” by the Mueller Special Counsel. Just to clarify, we’re not saying that there will be charges of obstruction of justice from anyone on the Mueller Team. (We’re not going to predict what comes next.) By obstruction we mean obstructing the truth, or obstructing the efforts to determine the truth. We plan to dive deeper into this Mueller issue in the near future.

Back to Hertzog. She took investigative steps to look into the Steele Dossier. She investigated Olga Galkina. She also looked into Charles Dolan:

Q And what's your understanding of who Mr. Dolan is?
A Mr. Dolan, to my understanding, having reviewed FBI databases, had connectivity to both Mr. Danchenko and Ms. Galkina.
Q So your testimony is that you learned about Mr. Dolan through the various FBI databases?
A I believe information was provided to me as background when I on boarded with SCO, and I became aware of more information as I researched.

In fact, Hertzog connected Dolan to Olga Galkina, and also to those who had worked in the Russian government (such as Putin ally and confidant Dmitry Peskov). She checked Dolan’s travel records, finding he had traveled to Cyprus (where Galkina was located) and also to Russia. She found Dolan’s link to Galkina, a “sub-source for the Steele Dossier” of particular importance.

The Reactionary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid


Hertzog also discovered that Dolan and Danchenko had been in Moscow together and described that fact’s importance:

“It was an important fact because Mr. Danchenko was identified as being a source for the Steele dossier, and connectivity between Mr. Dolan and Danchenko was important, especially considering Mr. Dolan's connectivity to Dmitry Peskov.”

Special Counsel Keilty asked Hertzog about her desire (and the desire of counterintelligence analyst Amy Anderson, and even Brian Auten) to interview Dolan. Hertzog was emphatic that she wanted the interview:

​

Other members of the Mueller Special Counsel team, however, took the position “to not investigate Mr. Dolan.” Their side ultimately won. To the best of Hertzog’s knowledge, “nobody at Special Counsel’s team interviewed Mr. Dolan.”

Not that Hertzog didn’t try to convince others to look deeper into the Dossier sources. Her file on Galking, which referenced Dolan, was uploaded into three different case files. Hertzog did those because she “wanted others to see it who had the authority to take action.”

And what did she take that step?

​

That report was specifically put into once case file she “believed would be reviewed by Washington Field Office, FBI headquarters, and the Inspector General.” Hertzog explains why she sent it to the IG:

Q And for the benefit of the jury, to your knowledge, what is generally the inspector general?
A The inspector general looks at matters -- sorry. Are you asking specifically that or just the inspector general?
Q Just generally, what the inspector general does, to your knowledge.
A To my knowledge, the inspector general reviews Department of Justice agencies to ensure that actions are being taken appropriately.
Q Okay. So you wanted the inspector general to see your report on Ms. Galkina, correct?
A Correct.
Q And that's because Mr. Dolan's name was in it, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you thought Mr. Dolan was an important individual?
A I believed that -- yes.
Q And did you believe that further investigative steps should have been taken on Mr. Dolan?
A Yes.

The Testimony of FBI Special Agent Amy Anderson

Agent Anderson, who works in the field of counterintelligence, was part of the Crossfire Hurricane/Mueller Team from April 2017 through January of 2018. Her initial assignment was “to attempt to validate the Steele Dossier,” to “either verify the reporting or determine that it was not accurate.”

Anderson described her role and supervisors with Special Counsel Mueller:

Q What was your initial -- who were you initially working with in that role at the Special Counsel's investigation?
A When I first arrived at the Special Counsel, I worked with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, as well as quite a few other intelligence analysts, Stephanie LaParre, Iva Drasinover. We had a team that was working the dossier in particular.
Q Did you work with someone by the name of Brittany Hertzog?
A I worked with Brittany a little bit later. She came in not at the very beginning but maybe a month after, a month or two.
Q And in terms of who you reported to at the Special Counsel's office, if you could, just tell us who you reported to.
A Technically, I reported to Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.

Anderson said she was interested in Dolan in particular, given his connection to Galkina and Danchenko:

Q And how did you learn of the connection between Mr. Dolan to Ms. Galkina and the defendant?
A I believe it was also database checks, and Ms. Galkina did tell us that she knew him -- both of them.
Q And learning of Mr. Dolan's connection to the two individuals, what did you do with respect to Mr. Dolan? Did you look into him?
A I wanted to look into him.

She also wanted to speak to Danchenko. But she had to do that through Agent Helson, Danchenko’s handler. Here’s how that process worked:

Q And just briefly explain to the jury how it might work. If you wanted to get information from Mr. Danchenko, how would you go about getting that?
A I would speak to the source handler. So in this case, I would speak to Agent Helson, and we would discuss what might be interesting for us to know. And then he would go and speak to his source. We do that for reasons of source safety, so that not everyone knows who our sources are.

Agent Anderson would eventually fly to Cyprus with Auten to interview Olga Galkina. She said Galkina was mostly forthcoming, except when it came to discussing Charles Dolan:

Q And did you interview with her all days?
A Yes, we did three days.
Q And would you characterize Ms. Galkina as forthcoming with her information about her role with the dossier and any information in it?
A She seemed mostly forthcoming.
Q You said mostly forthcoming. Was there a particular area that she was not forthcoming about?
A Yes. She was hesitant in telling us about Mr. Dolan.
Q All right. Let's start with the beginning of these interviews. When you began interviewing Ms. Galkina, did you specifically ask her about Mr. Dolan or not?
A We did.
Q And if you could, how did she react when you asked her about Mr. Dolan the first time?
A She did not want to speak about him.

But Anderson kept pressing and eventually straight-up asked if Dolan had a connection with the Steele Dossier. At that point, Galkina admitted Dolan’s involvement:

​

Agent Anderson then prepared a report of the interviews and compiled a report on everything that she and Analyst Hertzog had compiled on Charles Dolan. That report was submitted to her supervisor, Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson. Read what happened next:

​

How convenient that the Mueller Special Counsel ended an inquiry that would have implicated itself.

Agent Anderson didn’t have any personal knowledge as to why the interview request with Dolan was declined. We’re confident Durham asked that very question to SSA Joe Nelson.

The Testimony of FBI Special Agent Ryan James

Agent James’s purpose was to discuss evidence acquired by Special Counsel Durham’s team through the course of their investigation. To briefly summarize, he discussed:

• How they obtained telephone/e-mail/Facebook records.
• Danchenko’s e-mails, call records, and Facebook postings.
• Sergei Millian’s travels and his telephone calls.
• The time and dates of the calls between Danchenko and Dolan.
• The lack of calls between Danchenko and Millian, and the lack of the 10 to 15 minute call Danchenko purportedly received from someone he thought was Millian.

And that wrapped-up evidence for this case.

The court did, as reported, dismiss Count One of the indictment, which alleged Danchenko gave a false statement when asked whether he had talked to Mr. Dolan about anything that ended up in the Dossier. The problem Durham always faced with Count One was the FBI Agent’s lack of attention to detail; the world “talked” has a very specific definition. The judge recognized as much. No surprise with that dismissal.

As to the Defense?

Danchenko will not be testifying, and his attorneys will not be presenting any evidence. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday. Expect them to last an hour or less, with jury deliberations to begin thereafter. The jury might give us a verdict on Monday afternoon at the earliest.

But the trial’s biggest takeaways will be what we learned about the FBI and the Mueller Special Counsel.

 

[WVU82]

Devin Nunes rips Clinton, Democrats after Danchenko trial updates: 'If anyone had ties to Russia, it was them' | Fox News Video

Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes discusses revelations from the Igor Danchenko trial.

www.foxnews.com