Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 115 of 115

Thread: Q Legal/Government Documents

  1. #106
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    October 11th Was Day 1 of Durham’s Igor Danchenko Trial





    How will the government prove part of its case against Danchenko? Keilty lays it out:

    1). Danchenko’s e-mails “The defendant's very own words will show that there was never a call to say nothing of a meeting in New York which Millian supposedly skipped out on.”
    2). “The defendant's own phone records will make it abundantly clear to you that he never received a call from somebody he claimed to believe was Sergei Millian.”
    Being a false statement case, the Special Counsel must prove that the lies were material. The Special Counsel provides insight into how it will meet that burden:

    — “You will learn that lies can cause the FBI to wield their powers too aggressively, and you will also learn that lies can cause the FBI to not act aggressively enough. And you will see examples of both -- both of those situations here in this trial.”
    — If Danchenko had been truthful, the FBI would have been under an obligation to correct its own misrepresentations to the FISA court.







    I paid for “The Reactionary” subscription so you don’t have to!
    Part 2 of the transcript coming soon…
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FC2635C6-4612-44EB-BB69-9EE0F72AC962.jpg 
Views:	207 
Size:	57.2 KB 
ID:	20557   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CF9AFE27-9EE4-4C13-9134-0278AB6EE3FC.jpg 
Views:	199 
Size:	69.1 KB 
ID:	20558   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	069F3D79-E12F-4B7A-9C97-88983F3A7004.jpg 
Views:	191 
Size:	52.1 KB 
ID:	20559   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	70203E83-1BE8-41D2-879E-D4F54B022D00.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	93.6 KB 
ID:	20560   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2D1EB35D-5FC1-415C-ACDB-DDA73868715D.jpg 
Views:	193 
Size:	65.8 KB 
ID:	20561  


  2. #107
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Day 1 Igor Danchenko - Part 2 - FBI Unable to Corroborate the Steele Dossier







    Durham also asked Auten about Sergei Millian, whose name had been discussed in the October 2016 Steele interview. Auten stated that Millian had previously been a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office. Millian then moved out of the Atlanta area and his service as a CHS was closed.

    Q: And what was that relationship?

    A: Mr. Millian, at one time, had been a source.

    Q: When you say "source," that's the same thing as confidential human source, correct?

    A: That is correct.

    Q: In common parlance, might be known as an informant?

    A: In common parlance, yes.

    Q: And do you remember for how long Mr. Millian had been a confidential human source for the FBI?

    A: I don't recall that.

    Q: Do you recall or do you know in German what the nature of the assistance was that Millian provided?

    A: I know where he had provided the assistance. I don't know exactly what type of assistance it had been.

    Q: Okay. So you know that he has helped as a CHS?

    A: Correct.

    Q: For a period of time?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And you said you knew where he was providing that information?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And where was that?

    A: I believe it was the Atlanta -- the Atlanta field office.

    Q: Okay. Do you know, again, personal knowledge, do you know whether or not at some point in time Millian's status as a CHS ended, he was closed?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And why was it closed, if you know?

    A: I believe it was closed because he moved out of the area of responsibility for the Atlanta field office.

    Q: Now, with respect to Mr. Millian, you heard about Millian from Steele, you knew he had a relationship with the bureau, correct?

    A: Correct.

    As an aside, let’s briefly discuss the importance of Millian’s prior relationship with the FBI. Most significantly, it put the FBI on notice that Millian would be willing to corroborate any Steele/Danchenko allegations. The FBI never took advantage of that prior relationship. Again, here we have the FBI failing to follow-up on leads because it knew such steps would blow-up its investigation.

    As an aside, let’s briefly discuss the importance of Millian’s prior relationship with the FBI. Most significantly, it put the FBI on notice that Millian would be willing to corroborate any Steele/Danchenko allegations. The FBI never took advantage of that prior relationship. Again, here we have the FBI failing to follow-up on leads because it knew such steps would blow-up its investigation.

    Back to the transcript. Auten said the FBI opened an investigation on Millian after the October 2016 interview of Christopher Steele.
    He admitted the FBI found no evidence Millian had “assisted in the interference” of the 2016 presidential election.


    Q: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether or not -- again, to your personal knowledge – whether or not the bureau opened some file on Mr. Millian?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And was that a matter investigated by the Bureau?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And to your personal knowledge, was it at some point closed?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Were any charges brought against Millian?

    A: No.

    Q: Was there any wrongdoing in terms of him assisting in the interference in some way with the 2016 presidential election?

    A: No.

    However, the Millian allegations – which arose from Danchenko’s claims to Steele – were still included in original FISA application and all subsequent renewals:

    From there, Durham spent a good deal of time asking about the specific allegations in the FISA applications. The purpose of this line of questioning is materiality of Danchenko’s lies: to lay the foundation the FISA applications relied on uncorroborated information from the Steele Dossier, and to later argue the FBI had the duty to correct
    this false information.

    In fact, by the fourth FISA application (the Mueller application), the FBI was still trying to corroborate the allegations. And it still couldn’t.


    Q: Between October 21 of 2016 and when the FBI submitted its fourth FISA applications on a United States citizen, did the FBI continue to try to corroborate information?

    A: Yes, it did.

    Q: It was never able to -- it didn't corroborate. That information came from that dossier report, correct?

    A: Correct.

    In fact, Auten and others from the FBI made additional trips overseas to try to talk to Steele and others to try to get corroborative information. Auten said he was not able to get such corroborative information through these efforts.

    Auten also testified that he identified Igor Danchenko as Steele’s primary subsource in December 2016. He made the connection “Through a number of searches through databases, a number of making connections of existing material that we had.” Some of this relates to the prior counterintelligence investigation of Danchenko - something Durham can’t get into, yet.

    What followed was Danchenko’s January 24-26 interviews in 2017. From the FBI side, Deputy Assistant Director Jennifer Boone was involved in helping set up the interview. So was Jonathan Moffa, Stephen Somma, and Auten. (Author note: also involved was the DOJ National Security Division’s David Laufman.)
    Auten described the purpose of the Danchenko interviews, which were handled by himself and Stephen Somma:


    “We were there to go through to determine, you know, who the sub-sources were in
    these reports and what he could tell us about the reports in general.”

    After walking Auten through the immunity agreement provided to Danchenko, Durham admitted a LinkedIn message from Danchenko to an associate, where he took credit for much of the allegations in the Steele dossier:

    “Yes, I collected some 80 percent of raw Intel and half the analysis for the Chris Steele dossier and went through debriefings with the FBI on the collusion matters, period.”

    Then there was a discussion about the FBI’s plans to bring Danchenko into the fold as a confidential human source. According to Auten, this was the FBI’s plan prior to the January 2017 interviews.

    Q: Even prior to actually approaching Mr. Danchenko in January of 2017, that was the FBI's plan, wasn't it, to see if they could get him -- bring him on as CHS?

    A: Yes, that was part of the thinking.

    Q: And you wanted to bring him on -- the bureau wanted to bring him on for what purpose?

    A: To get as much information as we could to corroborate or understand the sourcing of this material.

    Here’s how the process worked.

    Q: Okay. And tell the jurors what happened with respect to the handling of Mr. Danchenko as a confidential human source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

    A: Mr. Danchenko was subsequently a confidential human source out of the Washington Field Office. Mr. Somma had gone back to New York.

    Q: Tell the -- he left -- Somma left Washington, went back to New York, somebody else took over?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And that person who took over, do you recall who that person was?

    A: That was Special Agent Kevin Helson.

    Q: Okay. So Kevin Helson was assigned to the Washington field office, correct?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And did he have a particular expertise or area in which he worked?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And what was that?

    A: Russian counterintelligence.

    Q: Okay. So Helson comes on. He's going to be the handler. When he did take over -- he, Mr. Helson, did take over, was the Crossfire Hurricane personnel -- were they cut out of this or what was the relationship between Crossfire Hurricane, you, Somma and company, and then Special Agent Helson?

    A: No, there was back-and-forth between Mr. Helson and Mr. Helson's embedded analyst as well as the analyst on my team.

    Q: And, indeed, when this -- this arrangement was initially set up, do you recall, sir, whether or not Helson was to pose questions for Mr. Danchenko on behalf of the Crossfire Hurricane people?

    A: In some cases, yes.

    The use of Danchenko as a CHS – with Agent Helson being the go-between by the Crossfire Hurricane team – overlapped into the Mueller investigation. (At that time, FBI Special Agent Amy Anderson was assisting with corroborating the Dossier information.) What a convenient arrangement. The Mueller Special Counsel could make use of Danchenko while he was protected on other matters.

    Before the first day wrapped-up, Auten discussed the January 2017 interviews with Danchenko and Danchenko’s claim he spoke with Millian over the phone. Auten was curious about that phone call and about the information relayed in that phone call, calling it a “very strange part of the interview.” Specifically, Auten wondered how the information that came from the Steele dossier “had come out of the very short phone call like this.”

    From there, the first day of trial saw a close. We’ll be providing daily updates with transcript excerpts. Thank you for the support – transcripts aren’t cheap.


    Techno.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BED115AA-1547-4257-99F4-351A843FA5CE.jpg 
Views:	192 
Size:	94.4 KB 
ID:	20562   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3BA9FFF7-0CF1-4D02-9E95-2767828E589A.jpg 
Views:	193 
Size:	80.4 KB 
ID:	20563   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AA7EA327-D4AA-497D-80BA-A6A64552040B.jpg 
Views:	188 
Size:	65.5 KB 
ID:	20564  

  3. #108
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Day 2 Durham/Igor Danchenko Analysis - The FBI is Also on Trial



    Igor Danchenko is on trial, but so is the FBI.

    That is the theme of Russiagate special counsel John Durham’s prosecution of Danchenko, heading into its third day of trial in Alexandria, Va., federal court.

    Danchenko was Steele’s principal source. In essence, Durham accuses him of (a) concealing from the FBI that he was getting some information about the Trump campaign from Clinton political ally Charles Dolan and (b) falsely claiming he received explosive information from Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-American tangentially associated with Trump, alleging the GOP candidate was in a “conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin.

    The trial is highlighting the FBI’s shocking malfeasance in the Trump-Russia “collusion” probe, which it codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.”

    The first witness in the case was FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten, of whom Durham himself conducted the prosecution’s questioning. Auten conceded the FBI had offered Steele $1 million if he could prove his sensational allegations that Trump was in cahoots with the regime of Vladimir Putin and that the Kremlin was positioned to blackmail the then-candidate because it supposedly possessed a video recording of Trump engaging in sexual hijinks.


    The same FBI agent who made the $1 million-offer claim also provided a report for the FBI that pooh-poohed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation.

    Ultimately, the bureau never had to pay the $1 million because neither Steele nor Danchenko could prove the dossier allegations. In fact, according to court filings, Durham’s investigation has concluded the so-called pee tape was a complete fabrication. Further, when the FBI finally got around to interviewing Danchenko, months after it first received Steele’s reporting, Danchenko debunked it as a screed of rumor and innuendo, much of it exaggerated and gussied up to look like professional intelligence analysis.

    More to the point, though, that the FBI offered to pay such an exorbitant sum in hopes Steele’s anti-Trump claims could be backed up is proof positive the bureau knew these claims were not verified.

    That is key. The rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Justice Department mandate the FBI must verify information before submitting it to the court in applying for surveillance warrants. Even though it could not prove the Steele allegations and had every reason to know they were exaggerated if not out-and-out false, the FBI relied on the Steele claims in sworn applications.

    It gets worse. The FBI obtained FISC surveillance warrants to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in October 2016 and mid-January 2017, representing to the court that Trump appeared to be in a corrupt conspiracy with the Kremlin. Finally, in late January, the FBI interviewed Danchenko, who debunked Steele’s reporting. Nevertheless, even after speaking with Danchenko, the bureau continued relying on Steele’s allegations when — again under oath — it persuaded the court to extend the surveillance in April and June 2017.

    Indeed, not only did the FBI fail to disclose to the Justice Department and the court that Danchenko had contradicted Steele’s claims. The bureau told the court it had interviewed Danchenko to “further corroborate” Steele’s reporting (which actually had not been corroborated). In so doing, the bureau elaborated, it found Danchenko to be “truthful and cooperative.”

    Of course, what the FBI didn’t mention was that what Danchenko had been “truthful and cooperative” about was the fact Steele’s claims were sheer nonsense. Thus, FISC judges were led to believe Danchenko had verified Steele’s reporting when the truth was just the opposite.


    Under cross-examination Wednesday, Auten acknowledged Durham told him he was the subject of a criminal investigation. And after the Justice Department’s inspector general blasted the FBI’s performance in the Crossfire Hurricane probe, Director Christopher Wray referred Auten to the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility for an internal investigation and possible discipline.

    Unbelievably, even with all that going on, the FBI brought Auten in during the run-up to the 2020 election to analyze derogatory information about Hunter Biden’s potentially corrupt overseas business dealings, which enriched the Biden family to the tune of millions of dollars.

    Auten reportedly produced an analysis that pooh-poohed the disparaging Biden reporting as Russian disinformation. That claim, which appears to be baseless, was used by an FBI supervisor to undercut the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden and by former US intelligence officials to dismiss the New York Post’s reporting on Biden’s deeply disturbing laptop data.

    Yes, Igor Danchenko is on trial, but the spotlight ought to be on the FBI — and on what Durham’s final report will have to say about the nation’s premier federal law-enforcement agency.

    Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor.
    https://nypost.com/2022/10/12/utter-...ielded-hunter/

    Some Comments...

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	33F93373-A8CB-43CA-B4C9-77DF94E2B76B.jpg 
Views:	183 
Size:	27.0 KB 
ID:	20569   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0D70C8D7-CEAF-4EC9-8ABD-987F84262EFB.jpg 
Views:	186 
Size:	41.9 KB 
ID:	20568   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D0E47F2B-6C14-469C-BC8F-2FC3DDC116BC.jpg 
Views:	184 
Size:	50.6 KB 
ID:	20570  

  4. #109
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Day 2 Transcript Durham/Danchenko Trial - Durham Mocks FBI Lack of Corroboration


    Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten and his discussion of the FBI’s interviews of Danchenko, which started in January 2017.

    We’ll resume there – with Special Counsel John Durham’s questions about Danchenko’s purported 10 to 15 minute call with Belarusian businessman Sergei Millian.


    Q Just to get everybody back on track, the first day you had said that he had sent two emails, no response, and then got an anonymous call from somebody speaking with a Russian accent and it was male, correct?

    A That is correct.

    Q Do you recall, sir -- with respect to what it is that Mr. Danchenko said, did he say what kind of telephone facility he received the call on, that is, a hard line? A cell phone? Do you recall?

    A My recollection is he said a call.

    What did Millian purportedly tell Danchenko during that call? According to Auten:

    He had talked about a relationship between – with the Trump campaign and Russia and issues involving, I think, kind of whether or not there was any relationship and a kind of -- I don't think he used the term "well-developed conspiracy" in that, but it was along those lines.

    Auten was then asked about the documents that Danchenko provided to the FBI. Auten testified that he was provided a single e-mail chain. In fact, there were other e-mails that “Mr. Danchenko had sent to Mr. Millian” that Auten hadn’t seen up until his preparation for trial. (The importance being Danchenko’s concealment from the FBI.)

    Moving on, Durham asked Auten about a LinkedIn message sent from Danchenko to Millian. This e-message proposed a call or a meeting in Washington or New York:



    Danchenko’s request for a “call” is particularly important since it was made after he supposedly received that 10 to 15 minute call from someone he thought was Millian. This supports the prosecution’s theory of the case: the call from Millian to Danchenko never happened. Danchenko invented the call so that he could provide cover for his real source (Democrat Charles Dolan).

    Durham then introduced an e-mail from Millian to an acquaintance, sent five days after Danchenko reached out. Here it is in full:



    Durham then used that e-mail to focus on the FBI’s lack of effort to corroborate Danchenko’s claim about Millian. FBI Analyst Auten admitted he hadn’t seen that e-mail until recently, and that the FBI didn’t even check Millian’s travel records during that period of time.

    Q Now, with regard to that email from Millian to Zloderev, you didn't have occasion to see that prior to being shown this document recently?

    A No.

    Q With regard to Millian saying that on Friday he's returning from Asia and the like, do you know whether you or other members of your group had ever retrieved Millian's travel records to see if he was even in the United States on -- in the latter part of July 2016?

    A I don't recall that.

    Q Would it surprise you to learn that he wasn't even in the United States?

    A I mean, he says he's in Asia.

    Continuing with the theme of purposeful FBI incompetence, Durham asked Auten if the FBI had translated communications between Danchenko and an associate of Millian. These documents were provided to the FBI by Danchenko in January 2017. Auten responded “I’m not aware if it was translated.”

    Auten was also asked about other Danchenko communications with associates of Millian. There were introduced to establish that Danchenko never received that mysterious call. A key excerpt:

    Auten and the FBI, however, chose to remain ignorant and never obtained these communications. Durham had Auten run down the reasons why they would have been important:

    Q Yesterday you told the jury that in meeting with Mr. Danchenko, there were two things that you were interested in, correct?

    A Correct.

    Q One of them was corroboration of information in the dossier?

    A Correct.

    Q And the second was sources of information?

    A Correct.

    Q Would those have been significant to you?

    A Yes.

    Q Why would they have been significant to you?

    A It would help us to better understand exactly how the course of information went that was in the reports themselves.

    Q Would it have been of any import to you to know in evaluating whether an anonymous call had come in to see the content of the emails from July 21st and then August 18th concerning Mr. Millian not having responded?

    A Yes. I mean, all of those emails would be very helpful to understanding the full extent of communications between the parties.

    Q Because if the written record in the defendant's own words was that he never responded, wouldn't that be of assistance in evaluating his reliability concerning whether or not he had gotten this call he supposedly had gotten?

    A It would be helpful, yes.

    Durham continued pressing Auten about why analyzing these communications would have been important. There was this key exchange on whether these e-mails, which Auten said were “significant,” could have influenced the FBI. Pay attention – it’s Auten hedging when confronted with his own failures.

    Q Would it have the capacity or the ability to have influenced steps taken or not taken by the FBI?

    A Possibly, yes.

    Q Possibly?

    A Well, again, I'm an analyst, not an investigator. So in that sense, it would be very helpful from an analytical side to understand the full extent of communications between the parties.

    Direct examination then moved on to Auten’s knowledge of Charles Dolan. (Background on Dolan here.) During Auten’s overseas interview with Christopher Steele in October 2016, Dolan’s name had come up:

    Q And did you tell the jury yesterday that separate and apart from sources, you had gotten three names from Mr. Steele as to persons who might be knowledgeable?

    A Yes.

    Q Was Charles Dolan one of those names?

    A Yes.

    However, from October 2016 through January 2017, the FBI hadn’t put together – or, hadn’t properly investigated – whether Dolan was a source for information in the Steele Dossier. Then there’s this remarkable admission from Auten. Although they were interested in Dolan, they didn’t raise this issue with Danchenko.

    Q By January of 2017, do you recall what information the bureau was interested in relating to Mr. Dolan?

    A From my recollection, we had done some preliminary looking, and it was at that stage -- I don't recall. There was a lot being done.

    Q Okay. So my next question, then, to your recollection, did you or Mr. Somma raise Mr. Dolan's name with Mr. Danchenko?

    A Not to my recollection, no.

    Durham also asked Auten about Danchenko’s lack of transparency about using Dolan as a source. Danchenko never offered Dolan’s name.

    Q Tell the jurors what your recollection is in that regard.

    A My recollection is asking if there were any additional individuals that we haven't talked about in this interview that would be sources of information for the dossier.

    Q And is that clear in your mind?

    A Yes. I documented it in the EC.

    Q No doubt that you were asking Mr. Danchenko if there were any other sources you can tell us about, correct?

    A That's my recollection.

    Q Charles Dolan's name was not brought up?

    A No.

    From there, a series of e-mails between Dolan and Danchenko were presented to Auten. These e-mails showed Danchenko begging Dolan for information on the Trump campaign, and Dolan obliging. Auten hadn’t been given these e-mails by Danchenko. And they were significant, as they showed the flow of information and how Danchenko thought his and and Dolan’s interests converged - because they both were assisting, in their own way, the Democrat candidate for President.

    Auten then discussed his time with Special Counsel Mueller’s team.

    Q And then when Crossfire Hurricane transitioned into Director Mueller's inquiry, did you remain with the project, or did you go elsewhere?

    A No. I remained and went with Special Counsel Mueller.

    Q In that connection, at any point in time after January 2017, whether you were part of the Crossfire Hurricane group or had evolved into Mr. Mueller's inquiry, did you continue to be involved personally in matters relating to Mr. Danchenko and his sources?

    A Yes.

    However, one name that was provided by Danchenko was that of Olga Galkina. Auten and others had gone to interview Galkina in Cyprus in August 2017 – during Auten’s time with Special Counsel Mueller.

    After that interview, Auten passed questions on to FBI Agent Kevin Helson, who had become Danchenko’s handler, after Danchenko was made to be a confidential human source. (Convoluted, I know.) Specifically, those questions were about Charles Dolan.


    Q And do you recall with respect to the subject matter of the question or questions that you asked Mr. Helson to pose to the defendant, what were those about?

    A Those were about -- I think there were questions about Mr. Dolan. I believe there were questions about other aspects of things that Ms. Galkina had talked about that we wanted clarification on.

    Q With respect to the questions that you asked Mr. Helson to ask of Mr. Danchenko, to your knowledge, are those questions then put to Mr. Danchenko?

    A That is my understanding.

    Unfortunately, Auten didn’t know the responses to those questions. Agent Helson, whom we expect to testify, might have that information.

    Cross-Examination by Danchenko’s Attorneys

    The cross-examination – our summary of which will be brief – started with Auten’s previous statements to the Inspector General about Danchenko. During the IG’s investigation, Auten had given “a number of positive statements regarding Mr. Danchenko.” He had also made positive statements to Congress about Danchenko – testimony Auten still stands by (if only because he’s dug himself into a hole):

    "I believe the primary sub-source was being truthful about who his sub-sources were. I don't think he was fabricating sub-sources."

    However, after Durham was appointed, Auten became – and apparently remains – a subject of the investigation:



    Danchenko’s defense was effective when asking about Auten’s impression of Danchenko at the time of the interview. Auten thought Danchenko was “trying to help.” And Auten admitted that he and Stephen Somma didn’t necessarily want to conduct a thorough interview of Danchenko at the time, thus explaining why they didn’t demand documents or ask about every allegation in the Steele Dossier. They also laid the groundwork for the defense that Dolan wasn’t necessarily a “source” for Danchenko, in that Dolan relied on some open source articles when relaying information on the Trump campaign.

    The defense also spent a good deal of time discussing Millian’s various phone numbers and the possibility that he (or the person Danchenko “thought” was Millian) used an App like Skype, WhatsApp, Wickr, or Telegram to contact Danchenko. The flaw? Danchenko’s e-mails to Millian requesting to speak over the phone or meet – after the alleged call.


    Redirect by Durham

    Durham again focused on Auten and the Crossfire Hurricane Team’s efforts to corroborate Danchenko’s statements. Auten’s testimony was an admission of how little they did, ignoring both travel records and phone records.

    There were further details on Auten being a “subject” of an “inquiry.” The investigation into Auten – who is a subject, not a target – has to do with the Danchenko matter and also Crossfire Hurricane and the Carter Page FISAs:

    Durham also raised a good point about the believability of Millian, a vocal Trump supporter, calling Danchenko to provide insider dirt:


    Q. So would you find it peculiar that somebody who had never spoken to Millian, Millian never spoken to him, would be telling somebody he doesn't know about a, quote, well-developed conspiracy of cooperation, between The Trump Organization and Russian leadership?

    A. I mean, I would say that is peculiar, yes.

    Q. That is very peculiar, right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Almost unbelievable, wouldn't you say?

    A. I don't know if I would say "unbelievable," but I would say "peculiar."

    Things got testy towards the end of Auten’s testimony, indicating Durham’s general irritation with Auten’s conduct in Crossfire Hurrican and his waning patience with Auten as a witness.

    Q. Right. So when he -- Mr. Danchenko told the FBI he received this call from somebody he believed to be Millian, isn't it, in fact, true that you took that to mean that that information from the report had come from Millian based on what the defendant told you?

    A. No. I think we believed at the time that we weren't clear and that we would have other opportunities to talk to him about that as well.

    Q. Okay. So what you are telling this jury is that you all then took information from the affidavit or from the dossier report and put it in an application to a FISC and you thought – . . . Is that what you’re telling the jury?

    A. Again, as an analyst, I am not involved in putting together the application in a FISA.

    It continued – with Durham straight-up telling Auten he was going to be suspended by the FBI. (Leading us to believe any charges against Auten are unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.)



    Then Durham’s near-mocking of Auten’s investigative decisions.


    Q. And is there some particular reason why experienced FBI personnel wouldn't go and look to see what the phone records reflected?

    A. Again, you would have to talk to somebody that was in the investigative side of things. I -- as an analyst, I can't -- I can't ask for phone records. That has to be –

    Q. You want this jury to believe that analysts don't participate in investigative decisionmaking?


    A. Analysts participate, but analysts aren't the ones that are going to make the decision to go out and actually get phone records or obtain NSLs or the like.

    Q. Can you think of any good reason -- not any reason, but any good reason not to have gotten those records and analyzed them?

    A. No.

    Q. Do you believe whether -- with respect to this information, if people were much too ready, willing, and able just to accept it?

    A. I don't know if I would articulate it that way.


    Q. Well, you didn't have any corroborative evidence, correct?

    A. Correct.


    That about wraps it up with Auten – and with the second day of trial.

    The next witness? Tomorrow starts with Charles Dolan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B56F0007-9884-4384-857E-386C7BEDAF39.jpg 
Views:	177 
Size:	36.6 KB 
ID:	20571   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	96933555-A280-4F98-895E-85C0FBAF9113.jpg 
Views:	181 
Size:	33.9 KB 
ID:	20572   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7CAC1140-7565-433B-A4FA-918D11AF80C3.jpg 
Views:	184 
Size:	14.5 KB 
ID:	20573   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C5EB63ED-1829-46FE-8DEA-1885D2CEBD0E.jpg 
Views:	176 
Size:	31.9 KB 
ID:	20574   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CC5A0554-6F76-4F65-BB80-05AB90176078.jpg 
Views:	175 
Size:	37.2 KB 
ID:	20576  


  5. #110
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Day 3 Transcript Durham Danchenko Trial - Durham Grills Arrogant & Complicite FBI

    I get the Durham/Danchenlo transcripts through my paid subscription to TechnoFog writing on substack at his webpage "The Reactionary"



    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...

    WSJ: Vengeful Russian PR Exec Was Source Of Outlandish Dossier Claims

    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.

    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0264BB69-7486-4BE0-B96B-CEDA9B04EC91.jpg 
Views:	171 
Size:	55.5 KB 
ID:	20586   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FAFAB3F7-71E3-4450-AE8C-C530A4C86FE9.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	25.6 KB 
ID:	20585   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F351D9DD-183A-413C-AFCC-F50F5875D49D.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	28.9 KB 
ID:	20584   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CC714638-F8F4-4430-94E1-626CB97301C6.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	52.7 KB 
ID:	20587  
    Last edited by buffy; October 14th, 2022 at 11:16 AM.

  6. #111
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Day 4 Transcript Durham/Danchenko Trial- Mueller Refused to Investigate Charles Dolan



    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.

    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:

    (image limit reached, continued in next post...)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8F6C1E17-3371-4F41-8D10-DE531E1737E8.jpg 
Views:	170 
Size:	25.4 KB 
ID:	20595   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6DD5CD02-5680-4C9B-8E76-92AB71B638C0.jpg 
Views:	164 
Size:	33.0 KB 
ID:	20596   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2319610D-BE9E-4C75-9D9A-E3D2657932D2.jpg 
Views:	168 
Size:	29.4 KB 
ID:	20597   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3501ED85-0CC7-4E98-99DB-4E66472FC612.jpg 
Views:	167 
Size:	26.8 KB 
ID:	20598   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	946562E3-1EB1-4A37-A2BF-21733D12D59F.jpg 
Views:	168 
Size:	36.2 KB 
ID:	20599  


  7. #112
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    Part 2 - Day 4 Transcript Durham/Danchenko - FBI Protected Clinton Operative, Dolan

    Continued from post above ^



    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5AD528B3-3189-449C-88A1-10DE80444A6D.jpg 
Views:	160 
Size:	46.3 KB 
ID:	20600  

  8. #113
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    E District Virginia Jury Finds Igor Danchenko NOT GUILTY on ALL COUNTS

    The Russian Spy Did Not Lie When He Made Up Fake Sources For Fake Stories Contained in the Fictitious Steele Dossier, Which Started the Russia Hoax.

    TechnoFog's analysis...



    Count 2. March 16, 2017: Danchenko told FBI agents he received a call in late July 2016 from a person he thought was Sergei Millian, when Danchenko knew he had never received a call from Millian.

    Count 3. May 18, 2017: Danchenko gave a false statement to FBI agents that he “was under the impression” that the late July 2016 call was from Millian.

    Count 4. October 24, 2017: Danchenko falsely stated to FBI agents that he believed he spoke to Millian on the phone on more than one occasion.

    Count 5. November 16, 2017: Danchenko lied that he “believed he has spoken to [Millian] on the telephone,” when Danchenko well knew he had never spoken to Millian.

    That’s the difficulty of proving a false statements case when the FBI and the Mueller Special Counsel were uninterested in pursuing the truth.

    As we’ve seen from the course of this trial, the most important takeaways from this trial have never been the alleged lies. Danchenko himself has long been known as a fabricator, with his deceptions revealed as soon as information on his involvement in the Steele Dossier, his background, and his FBI interviews was released. Cue observations from 2020 from ourselves and many others:


    https://twitter.com/techno_fog/statu...EdSaa9BO6tomjA

    What is more important is that which informs our understanding of the Trump/Russia investigation and the FBI/DOJ/Mueller misconduct that sparked Crossfire Hurricane and continued through the Mueller investigation. That information was revelatory. The institutions were on trial alongside Danchenko, with Durham recognizing in closing arguments that “the FBI mishandled the investigation at issue.” And the institutions rightly suffered. Danchenko might have been spared, but is there any reasonable doubt as to the FBI’s incompetence - and guilt?

    This past week, we provided some of the most comprehensive coverage of the Danchenko trial that you’ll find. Our goal is to always provide the most relevant information, preferably through transcript excerpts where you, the reader, can see the testimony for yourself and reach your own conclusions. At the same time, we also aim for concision. We hope that we achieved those goals.

    For us, here are some of the most important highlights from the trial:

    Steele was offered “up to a million dollars” to corroborate the Dossier.
    Q. And what was it - tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
    jury what it is that the FBI offered Mr. Steele for any
    corroborative information

    A. Mr. Steele was offered anywhere up to a million dollars for any information, documentary, physical evidence, anything of that sort which could help to prove the allegations.

    Q. At any time when you were overseas meeting with Steele in early October, did he provide
    anything?

    A. He did not.

    Q. At any time after the October meeting with Mr. Steele and after the million dollars-plus had been offered as an incentive to provide corroborative information for what was in those reports, did he provide any corroborative information?

    A. No
    • Danchenko was a confidential human source for the FBI from March 2017 through October 2020. He was accused of giving a number of false statements during that time period. He was paid over $200,000 as an informant, and his status as a CHS buried him as a witness. “Sources and methods.”


    • The Mueller Special Counsel had FBI Agents and Analysts investigating the Steele Dossier - but purposefully limited the scope of that inquiry, making sure any information damning to their investigation would not be uncovered. Former FBI Intelligence Analyst Brittany Hertzog testified she learned of Charles Dolan’s connections to Danchenko during her time with the Mueller Special Counsel. She requested to interview Dolan; others opposed that request. The opposition won out.



    • FBI Special Agent Amy Anderson, also part of the Mueller Special Counsel, requested to interview Dolan. Her request was shut down by superiors.



    • Director Comey was informed on all parts of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, from its beginnings up until (theoretically) his termination.


    • FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson, who handed Danchenko as a confidential human source, omitted key derogatory information – that Danchenko was the target of a previous espionage case – in his opening paperwork.


    • FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson was recommended to assess Danchenko’s employer and look at the financial nature of Danchenko’s employment. Helson failed to do so.


    • FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson was recommended to investigate whether Danchenko lied in his visa and immigration documents. Helson failed to do so.


    • FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson (there’s a purpose in the repetition) was recommended to conduct a polygraph of 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.” Helson failed to polygraph Danchenko.


    • Crossfire Hurricane started based on “a suggestion of some kind of suggestion” from a “friendly foreign government.” It was opened as a “full investigation,” which allowed for the use of “investigative tools” not allowed at the “preliminary investigation stage.


    • The FBI wanted a FISA on Carter Page “fairly early on” – around the end of July 2016 or soon thereafter. However, the FBI didn’t have enough to “secure” the warrant. The evidence wasn’t there.


    • FBI Analyst Brian Auten was unable to “confirm or corroborate” any of the Steele Dossier claims from the receipt of the document until the first FISA application in October 2016.


    • FBI Analyst Brian Auten and FBI colleague Stephen Somma knew Democrat Charles Dolan could be a source of information of the Steele Dossier. Neither asked Danchenko about Dolan.
    • Dolan would ultimately testify that he believed some Dossier information came from him.


    • The FBI checked with other agencies and was unable to corroborate the Dossier info.
    • FBI Analyst Brian Auten is a “subject” of the Durham investigation and will likely be “suspended” by the FBI.


    • Sergei Millian was a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office. The Crossfire Hurricane team found no evidence Millian had “assisted in the interference” of the 2016 presidential election.


    • While Danchenko told the FBI he spoke with Millian. E-mails from Millian demonstrate he had no idea who Millian was. The FBI/Mueller Special Counsel never obtained those e-mails.


    The unanswered questions

    When presented with the FBI failures documented during the Danchenko trial (and the Michael Sussmann trial), one can’t help but be reminded of their investigation of the DNC “hack.” Both investigations have similar types of “errors”: the failure to pursue investigative leads and collect evidence, and uncorroborated claims of Russian interference (or collusion) based on information provided by DNC/Clinton “contractors”.

    Here, the FBI and Mueller Special Counsel refused to interview witnesses with knowledge of the Dossier allegations. In the case of the DNC “hack”, the FBI never obtained the DNC server. The FBI didn’t even obtain the unredacted Crowdstrike reports relating to the hack. Instead, the RBI relied upon Crowdstrike, hired on behalf of the DNC by disgraced attorney Michael Sussmann, to essentially inform the FBI’s assessment of the hack. As Aaron Mate explained in this essential essay:

    The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start.

    At some point, “mistakes” consistently made in one direction cease to be harmless errors and become circumstantial evidence of something nefarious. (In another context we might call that the “cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence.”) While we can draw inferences from that behavior, Durham faces a more difficult task: using such circumstantial evidence to build a criminal case. Maybe he has more. Maybe not. Maybe these FBI agents and officials were adept at hiding their criminal conduct under the guise of incompetence or cluelessness or a poor memory.1

    We also ask whether that’s it for Durham. The Wall Street Journal reported this would likely be the final prosecution of the Special Counsel, to be followed by a report detailing Durham’s findings. If that’s true, expect the report to be submitted after the midterms, absent further developments or other prosecutions by the Durham Special Counsel. If the reporting is true. We’ll see.
    __________________________________________________ ___________________________
    1
    This reminds us of Horowitz’s report on the Carter Page FISAs, which made such findings such as: “While we found no documentary or testimonial evidence that this pattern of errors by Case Agent 1 was intentional, we also did not find his explanations for so many significant and repeated failures to be satisfactory.”
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1E316948-2739-443B-8382-66809DBCE469.jpg 
Views:	159 
Size:	27.3 KB 
ID:	20606   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B4BE05CB-AF4B-4F52-90C9-58DF8AC1C180.jpg 
Views:	159 
Size:	77.8 KB 
ID:	20607  

  9. #114
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    There's Newly Unsealed Court Documents From Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell Case

    The Reactionary


    Epstein Island: Newly Unsealed Evidence of Abuse
    Unsealed testimony implicates Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

    By Techno Fog

    We have newly unsealed documents – including the depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell and one of her victims – revealing new details on the extent of the abuse and victimization that took place by Jeffrey Epstein. Those filings come from Giuffre v. Maxwell, a civil case filed against Maxwell in 2015 in the New York Southern District.

    Some of the broader allegations have already been made public. Sarah Ransome, who accused Epstein and Maxwell of abuse that took place during her early 20s, settled a civil lawsuit against them in 2018. Ransome has publicly described some of the abuse. And there have been reports on what transpired at Little St. James, often referred to as Epstein Island.



    Let’s get to the new details, starting with the testimony of Ransome, available here. She actually lived one of Epstein’s apartments in 2006 with a few other girls. During that time, she worked for what she described as an “agency” which arranged paid dinners with wealthy clients: “I was paid to spend dinner with a gentleman.” Whatever happened after dinner with the client was done on her “own accord” and “after that time period had finished.”

    Ransome was introduced to Epstein by a female associate of his (her name is still redacted), who described Epstein as a wealthy “philanthropist” who “really cares about people” and “really wants to help them.” She was open to meeting Epstein because she was struggling financially. Soon after meeting Epstein, Ransome was invited to travel on Epstein’s plane to Epstein Island. She was told it “was going to be a girls’ week” and they would have “so much fun”:

    Q. How did the flight meeting become arranged, if you know?

    A. So it was pretty a last-minute thing. phoned me up and said that Jeffrey Epstein would very much like to have me go to his island. It was going to be so much fun, it was going to be a girls' week, there were lots of other girls going, we were going to have so much fun, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

    What happened on the flight – her first flight with Epstein – must have been shocking to Ransome. She described what happened after they took off:

    “The rest of the passengers in the -- I think it's towards the front of the plane where all the seats are -- we all -- all the guests were -- fell asleep. I pretended to be asleep.

    Jeffrey then went – Jeffrey went to his -- was in his bed on the plane, having open sex with for everyone to see, on display.”

    Ransome would eventually give massages to Epstein at the Island. She had been told that Epstein “loves women, loves getting massages” and that this “was a nice way to make extra cash.” At first, the massages were relatively normal. Then then escalated to the type of “massage” Epstein is now notorious for – much of which was done without Ransome’s consent.

    She described her experiences at Epstein’s Island as being constantly surrounded by “beautiful young people” and that there “were always girls” there to visit “Jeffrey and Ghislaine.” Ransome also gave a description of the Island as having multiple buildings – a main house and then various buildings around the Island for Epstein and his guests:

    “like little shelter things where him and his guests used to have sex with the girls, like beds set up for instant sexual entertainment.”

    There was a “constant influx of girls” at this Island. It was a type of brothel. According to Ransome:

    “It's like, I'm sure if you go into a hooker's brothel and see how they run their business, I mean, it's just general conversation about who's going to have sex with who and, you know -- what do you talk about when all do you is have sex every day on rotation? I mean, what is there to talk about?”

    She testified that all those girls “appeared to be teenagers.” They “looked young.” One girl in particular “looked well under 18.” This girl told Ransome that “they abused her on the island.” Another girl ran out of Epstein’s room crying and saying she was “forced to have sex with Jeffrey Epstein.”



    Ransome would meet Ghislaine Maxwell on a later trip to Epstein Island. She was told that Maxwell was “a very dangerous character and has connections,” and “to do everything she told me to do.” The girls would report to Maxwell. Ransome and other girls were in fact intimidated by and scared of Maxwell:

    “I met a lot of girls who we all had the same opinion of Ghislaine; we were all frightened of her. She had a very odd relationship with Jeffrey and -- yeah, she's not a nice -- I'm sorry, I know she's your client, but she's not -- she's not a friendly, warm person.”

    Ransome also described the role of Ghislaine Maxwell at Epstein Island:

    “Ghislaine was Jeffrey's right-hand woman, so, you know, whatever Jeffrey wanted went through Ghislaine and then filtered through.”

    “So there was -- everyone was afraid of Ghislaine. All the girls were afraid of her…”

    “And we were told by Jeffrey Epstein to listen to Ghislaine. So Ghislaine was the main right-hand woman of Jeffrey Epstein. We were told by Jeffrey Epstein to listen to Ghislaine.”

    Maxwell would actually assist Epstein with managing his sexual “rotation” on the Island:

    Q. And when you say you were on rotation, you mean you were having sex with Jeffrey multiple times per day?

    A. No. As in when I was finished, another girl was called by Ghislaine. And when they had finished, another girl was called.

    Q. How do you know that another girl was called by Ghislaine?

    A. Because I was there, and I saw it and heard it with all my senses. I saw Ghislaine call another girl, and she called me herself, to go give Jeffrey Epstein a sexual massage.



    Q. What do you mean by call? I guess I'm thinking like telephone. That may be my --

    A. No. As in going up to the person and going, Jeffrey wants to see you in his bedroom, which meant it's your turn to be abused. That kind of thing.

    ++

    Other unsealed parts of the civil case concern the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo – something we have previously reported on – who said Epstein and Maxwell were with a 15 year-old girl and had taken her passport:

    A. What happens next when Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and a 15-year-old girl walk into Eva Anderson's home? . . . “A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I'm having a casual conversation. That quickly, I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said they asked me for sex, I said no.

    And she is just rambling, and I'm like what, and she said -- I asked her, I said what? And she says yes, I was on the island, I don't know how I got from the island to here. Last afternoon or in the afternoon I was on the island and now I'm here. And I said do you have a -- this is not making any sense to me, and I said this is nuts, do you have a passport, do you have a phone? And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and her phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened.”

    There is still more to come. Currently, multiple “John Does” are fighting the unsealing of their names. We expect those names to be unsealed but there is an appeals process we’ll have to wait for.

    Some of the men are only casually referenced in the case. Others were potentially involved in Epstein’s criminal acts. We’ll publish those names once they’re out.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8CC8CBA4-27E1-49BA-A3F5-EF4267D0A2C1.jpg 
Views:	138 
Size:	31.8 KB 
ID:	20667   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	92624146-3E53-4971-9305-BF25CA5A05A4.jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	34.1 KB 
ID:	20668  

  10. #115
    Member buffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    15,329

    The Durham Report

    Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations
    Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns


    Special Counsel John H. Durham


    Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.B(c)
    Washington, D.C. May 12, 2023


    You Can read the FULL REPORT HERE

    ** IMPORTANT TO NOTE - Durham wrote two reports; the public report inked above, and a classified report for AG Merrick Garland.



    CNN FINALLY reports the truth, but the best analysis is from TechnoFog's Substack, which I've copied here at post #539.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image 5-15-23 at 6.09 PM.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	25.3 KB 
ID:	20729   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image 5-15-23 at 6.26 PM.jpg 
Views:	114 
Size:	73.2 KB 
ID:	20730  
    Last edited by buffy; May 16th, 2023 at 07:32 AM.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 36 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 36 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •