Observers have noticed something that John Durham has been doing during the trials of Michael Sussmann and now Igor Danchenko that produces more questions than it does answers. While he is prosecuting Danchenko, he is revealing the corrupt practices of the FBI. In the Sussmann trial, he established that the Trump/Alpha bank story was actually made up by the Hillary campaign and accepted as truth by the FBI even though their own investigation found the campaign 5to be solely responsible for the story.
In the Danchenko trial, while questioning FBI intelligence analyst Brian Auten he discovered that the FBI had little interest in whether the stories in the dossier were true or not and that the FBI offered Christopher $1 million dollars if he could verify his dossier. He couldn’t naturally. But, that did not stop the FBI from using the fake stories to get the FISA court to okay a warrant on Carter Page that allowed them to spy on the Trump campaign.
#Durham via @GillianMorley_ FBI analyst Brian Auten testified FBI was offering Christopher Steele $1 million for corroborating evidence for claims in the dossier, but he was not able to provide any. pic.twitter.com/tVqTafR8qe
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) October 12, 2022
Danchenko is on trial for lying to the FBI five times. He was feeding the misinformation to Steele for his opposition research paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC. I see a pattern developing here. All roads lead to Hillary. Next, Durham interrogates an FBI analyst on the stand. The analyst claimed that verifying the facts in the dossier was not up to him, but to FBI field agents and that he never tried to verify the facts, and that he just assumed the FBI was telling the truth. He is at least guilty of being gullible. Who uses truth and the FBI in the same sentence?
The offer made to Steele and his inability to prove his dossier was honest is proof that the FBI knew the dossier was worthless when they used it to get FISA warrants on Page. Make no mistake, this was a coup attempt from the very beginning. They wanted Trump gone and they refused to let the truth get in the way.
Danchenko and his Brookings colleagues were neck deep in the Russian collusion and Trump-Ukraine impeachment storylines in support of their fellow Democrats:
Danchenko worked for the Brookings Institution from 2005 through 2010. Brookings is the think-tank waiting room for every Democrat administration and acts as a Democrat spin machine. For example, Ukraine/Russia expert and Danchenko friend Fiona Hill provided her expert opinion to Congress that President Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine was really bad. Impeachment-level bad.
It was Hill who introduced Danchenko to eventual “dossier” author Christopher Steele.
In 2008, as part of his spy duties, Danchenko is alleged to have offered bribes to Brookings colleagues who worked with the Obama Administration in exchange for information. They reported Danchenko to the feds. And then eventually the Feds hired him. It seems Danchenko was making a lot of money from all sides throughout the years — including from Steele, who hired the Russian defendant to press his “sources” in the motherland to get dirt on Trump for his “dossier.”
Technofog provides the key part of testimony when Durham questioned Auten about why he didn’t try to check Danchenko’s story by checking his phone, text, and travel records.
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?
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?