Danchenko/Durham Trial Day 1

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Please have a look around and if you like what you see, please consider registering an account and joining the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!


GIM2 Refugee
Reaction score

Durham team gives FBI a pass for Trump-Russia collusion probe, blames Danchenko’s ‘lies’​

Special counsel John Durham, in what is likely the final trial of his probe into the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion investigation, let the bureau off the hook for misconduct, casting it as a hapless victim of a dishonest Russian analyst named Igor Danchenko.

Mr. Danchenko, a critical source for the anti-Trump dossier, lied to FBI officials and spurred their “troubling” behavior while going after the Trump campaign in 2016, prosecutors said Tuesday in opening statements at Mr. Danchenko’s trial.

“The Steele dossier caused the FBI to engage in troubling conduct. The defendant’s lies played a role in that conduct,” prosecutor Michael Keilty told the jurors in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia.


FBI Counter Intel Supervisor Admits in Court that FBI Offered Steele Another $1 Million to Prove Dossier was Real But He Couldn’t – Lawless FBI Used It to Go After President Trump Anyway​


Durham team gives FBI a pass for Trump-Russia collusion probe, blames Danchenko’s ‘lies’​

Special counsel John Durham, in what is likely the final trial of his probe into the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion investigation, let the bureau off the hook for misconduct, casting it as a hapless victim of a dishonest Russian analyst named Igor Danchenko.

Mr. Danchenko, a critical source for the anti-Trump dossier, lied to FBI officials and spurred their “troubling” behavior while going after the Trump campaign in 2016, prosecutors said Tuesday in opening statements at Mr. Danchenko’s trial.

“The Steele dossier caused the FBI to engage in troubling conduct. The defendant’s lies played a role in that conduct,” prosecutor Michael Keilty told the jurors in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia.

not buying what the Wash Slimes is selling. Time wiil tell if the fibbies get a pass...
[Forwarded from Techno_Fog]
We have the transcripts for the 1st day of the Igor Danchenko trial.

The FBI's million dollar offer to Christopher Steele.

Sergei Millian being a prior FBI Source.

And - how it was a bad day for FBI leadership.


[Forwarded from Brian Cates]
[ Photo ]
Keilty's opening statement to the jury yesterday directly states the reason the FBI began paying Danchenko to come aboard as a CHS from March 2017 all the way thru October of 2020 was...

so Danchenko could provide evidence that would corroborate the Trump/Russia collusion allegations in the Steele Dossier.

But of course, Danchenko could not do this.

[ Photo ]
Every SpyGate researcher worth their salt knows exactly why this admission from Auten is a huge BOOM.

They opened an investigation into the Trump campaign based on a 'suggestion of some kind of suggestion'.

As Strzok later admitted to his side dish Lisa Page: there was never any 'there there'. There was no evidence.

All they ever had was a rumor of a statement George Papadopoulos made to Alexander Downer in a U.K. wine room.

Yet the FBI opened up a full investigation of Donald J. Trump and all his campaign associates...based on a rumor.

Devin Nunes was saying back in 2017 this Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened up with any kind of proper predicate and he's going to be completely vindicated on that by the time this trial is over.

The following gleaned from Brian Cates on Telegram from various posts and his commentary made there.


Another key admission Durham got from Brian Auten.

He got Auten to admit that the preliminary investigation into Downer's tip to the FBI turned up no evidence whatsoever to support it.

But hey...when you open up a full investigation, why, you get new investigative tools at your disposal that aren't allowed in preliminary investigations!

So when the preliminary investigation came dry, the FBI decided to launch a full investigation to unleash all their amazing investigative tools into trying to find any evidence to support Downer's tip!

And 6 years later, what do we know?

They never found SHIT to corroborate any of this stuff, and even got so desperate they were waving money under the noses of Steele and Danchenko to corroborate it for them because they were so hot to investigate Trump.


Notice how Auten never discusses that part of the FBI's investigation into Carter Page and George Papadopoulos prior to September 19, 2016, the date they officially received the Steele Dossier, involved sending an undercover informant to surreptitiously tape Page & Papodopoulos without their consent or knowledge.

An informant setting up several meetings with both men to secretly tape them while asking them leading questions failed to 'secure' enough 'evidence' for a FISA warrant.

This is why the FBI then decided to use the Steele Dossier instead.

As I've been saying for going on 3 years now, the Steele Dossier was "Plan B" after Plan A failed.


Durham establishes on the record that the FBI failed to corroborate any of the Steele Dossier allegations before they used them in the FISA warrant targeting Carter Page for surveillance - and by extension, the entire Donald Trump presidential campaign.

Yet when the Supervisory Agent acting as the affiant signs off on the warrant application, they are making a legal sworn statement to the court that the evidence in the warrant is true and they have verified it to the best of their ability.

Durham got Auten to admit that it wasn't Danchenko who lied to the FISA Court.



But surely the FBI received corroborating evidence for the Steele Dossier/Danchenko allegations from somewhere before they filed that warrant with the FISA Court, right?

I mean, they wouldn't just submit a warrant full of allegations they hadn't be able to verify, right? Right?


Even when the FBI trawled the intelligence agencies looking for anything to back up Steele & Danchenko's allegations, they found nothing.

And notice how Auten tries again to mumble a non-answer before Durham forces him to explicitly say it to the jury.


That's twice now that Auten has tried to provide a non-answer to a direct question from Durham.

First, when Durham asked Auten if the FBI had corroborated any of the Steele dossier allegations before submitting the FISA warrant to the Court, Auten mumbled that he and the other Crossfire Hurricane team members "looked through FBI systems to determine whether or not we could verify, corroborate, confirm, or disconfirm the information in those reports.”

THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER. So Durham pinned him down and forced Auten to say it in front of the jury:

Durham: "And between September 19th of 2016 and October 21st, when the FBI submitted the FISA application, were you able to confirm or corroborate in any of the FBI system the very serious allegations that were contained in the dossier reports?"

Auten: "No."

Then when Durham directly asked Auten if any of the intel agencies has provided any corroboration for Steele & Dancheko's dossier allegations that the Crossfire Hurricane team had placed in the Page FISA warrant application, Auten again tries to mumble a non-answer:

Durham: "And what can you tell the jurors about whether or not any of the intelligence agencies that the FBI contacted for corroborative information produced any corroborative information?"

Auten: "We did receive information back from a number of different agencies."

Durham: "Then, as to the information that you received back from the agencies, did they corroborate the specificity of specific allegations that were contained in the dossier reports?"

Auten: "Not corroborating the specific allegations, no."

You're not going to slip an non-answer to the jury with Durham doing the questioning.

As FBI Special Agent Brian Auten found out the hard way.

Special Agent Brian Auten


For 5 years now this elaborate and deceptive dance has been allowed to go on - with mainstream media help - as the FBI and Steele pass the buck back and forth between themselves over who was supposed to verify the allegations in his dossier.

Steele scoffs when asked that his dossier was just 'raw intelligence' he collected and hey, it's not his job to verify raw intelligence, don't cha' know?

So of course from the very beginning when the FBI asked him for any evidence to back up his dossier reports, Steele didn't have anything to offer them.

But Durham is about to reveal in court what an absolute farce this stupid dance always was on both sides.


Tell me again how Durham is covering up for the FBI's use of completely unverified allegations in the Carter Page FISA warrant?

By constantly getting the FBI agent on the stand to affirm that nobody verified any of this before it was used to spy on Trump and his campaign?

Who lied to who? Danchenko lied to the FBI, but he wasn't the one who put the damn allegations in the warrant.

The FBI deliberately and with its eyes wide open, perpetrated a criminal fraud on the FISA Court.

Am I being clear here?


You think it's bad for the FBI now, wait until we reach the part where Durham gets FBI people to affirm on the stand under oath to the jury that they knew all along who Danchenko and Steele were working for before they used their fake stuff to get a FISA warrant.


You think Durham won't go there?


The only real solution to fix the problem so it never happens again is to use Shootist's rope, but I doubt anything happens more than a fine if that.
Issue a Florida-wide hunting license for $100 per hunter, and turn Hillary loose somewhere -- anywhere in the state.

It would be a tremendous revenue and justice raiser.
Zac aka Redpill78 does a synopsis of the recent trial events


BIG BOOMS coming out of day 1 of the trial of Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source of the Steele Dossier designed to smear Candidate Trump and resulted in the illegal spying of American citizens.
caveat ... as long as he told the truth. A 'lie' negates the deal! Durham has been investigating this since 2017!!

FBI had immunity deal with Steele source Danchenko, Durham inquiry trial reveals​

by Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter |
October 12, 2022

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — The FBI set up an immunity agreement with British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s main source shortly before the bureau made Igor Danchenko a paid confidential informant in early 2017, special counsel John Durham’s trial revealed.

Danchenko was on the FBI's payroll as a confidential human source from March 2017 to October 2020, as shown by Durham in court filings, before he was charged in November 2021 with five counts of making false statements to the bureau. He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers claim the FBI will praise his work for the bureau.

Durham prosecutor Michael Keilty said Tuesday that the FBI in early 2017 had two main goals related to Danchenko: uncovering the Russian’s dossier sources and attempting to either corroborate or refute the dossier’s allegations. Keilty noted the existence of the immunity agreement in his opening argument, arguing that its requirements were that Danchenko tell the truth, not conceal information, and not lie.

Danchenko defense lawyer Danny Onorato argued that Keilty was lying about the existence of an immunity agreement during his own opening argument, telling the jury, “That’s a lie. He just lied to you.” Onorato told the jury to “think about that while you consider the government’s case” as he argued that the agreement his client had signed in January 2017 did not provide immunity from prosecution.

After the jury left the room, Durham said that the comments by Danchenko’s lawyer were “highly inappropriate” and “untrue.” He said the agreement Danchenko had signed with the Justice Department referenced the statute guiding immunity, and Durham called on the judge to instruct the jury to disregard the Danchenko lawyer’s claims. Keilty and Onorato continued to debate the document quietly during a brief recess.

Igor Danchenko

Igor Danchenko leaves Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, Thursday, Nov. 4, 2021.
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Techno Fog is a lawyer covering trial - here is Day 1

The Igor Danchenko Trial - Day 2​

FBI Analyst reveals he is the "subject" of an investigation​

Techno Fog

Durham presents new evidence on day 2 of Danchenko trial - POLITICO
Our article on the first day of the Igor Danchenko trial cut off during the testimony of FBI 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.​
Last edited:

Day 2 cont.​

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:


Day 2 cont​

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.

[Forwarded from ULTRA Pepe Lives Matter 🐸 (Pepe Lives Matter)]
[ Video ]
"There's a long list of people that were working both for the FBI and the DNC all to get and frame Donald Trump....It's hard to believe that Comey and the whole cabal were not aware of this.​
This wicked web that Durham has now outlined for everyone..Durham has now got the goods on many people in the FBI and the Department of Justice, and the Clinton Campaign, and the DNC ..​
If people do not go to jail, the trust in the FBI is going to go even farther down and I'm not sure how much farther it can go. But you're beginning to hear people talk about... it's time that we change or disband the FBI. That would become louder and louder if there's not a prosecution in this case and if Durham is not allowed to continue the investigation into what is clearly a conspiracy."​

Gonna leave a part and the link... too much to post

The Igor Danchenko Trial - Day 3​

Revealed - the FBI Paid Danchenko over $200,000​

Techno Fog
44 min ago

The FBI's Million-Dollar Dossier - WSJ

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.

Meanwhile not a Peep in the news. Shocking
Shocking? Not really.

Did anyone reading actually expect msm coverage of this trial?

Not covering what goes against the narrative, is in fact their M.O.

They plan on covering it after the not-guilty verdict (ie:the fix) is in.

Then they'll scream from the rooftops about it.

Hopefully I am wrong, but that is pretty much how the last trial went. They viewed it as proof that their claims were correct.


Even After Offering $1M, FBI Never Got Corroboration Of Russia Dossier They Used To Spy On Trump


We have the transcripts for the 1st day of the Igor Danchenko trial.

The FBI's million dollar offer to Christopher Steele.

Sergei Millian being a prior FBI Source.

And - how it was a bad day for FBI leadership.



New Durham Filing Reveals FBI Had Steele Dossier Source On Payroll As Informant From 2017-2020
Meanwhile not a Peep in the news. Shocking. Most people have no clue there is even a trial.
You trying to knock the Kardashians off the front page, Mr. Extremist??

PS: You're ded now on Twitter, Facebook, and PayPal. You will receive a receipt for your $2500 fine.
Last edited:

Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction​

The Mueller Special Counsel refused witness interviews that would have implicated itself​

Techno Fog

Judge drops 1 of 5 charges against Trump-Russia dossier source, in blow to  special counsel Durham | CNN Politics
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.

Livestream begins: Oct 16, 2:30 pm EDT

The Danchenko Trial - Part 4​


Durham Continues To Reveal Previously Undisclosed SpyGate Evidence

How Do You Break 5 Years of Relentless & Endless Russia Russia Russia Propaganda Programming That Still Influences A Large Segment Of The American Public? John Durham Thinks He Knows...​

Brian Cates

Team Durham paints FBI as hapless victim of Igor Danchenko's 'lies' in ...
The trial of a key member of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign’s dirty tricks team is now winding down in an Alexandria, Virginia courtroom.

A lot of media commentary regarding the Durham Special Counsel is being focused on a narrative that this trial will be it for Durham, and that he’s going to wrap it up now. There will be no further indictments or investigatory actions by the SCO and he’s going to devote his last months as Special Counsel to writing his final report.

“Yeah, keep telling yourselves that…”

The narrative holds that Durham is going to completely ignore the second half of the scope he was given when he was appointed to be the Special Counsel to investigate the Spygate scandal.

That is, that Durham will take no action on the multitude of obvious felonies that occurred when a bogus warrant application using fake shit that came straight from the Hillary Clinton campaign was approved and renewed three times to target the Donald J. Trump campaign for federal investigations and surveillance during the 2016 election and into the Trump administration itself.

I disagree that Durham is going to shirk his duty and never address the main reason for his being appointed a Special Counsel before riding off into the sunset. Now I’ll explain why I think that.

In ordinary cases, the prosecutor uses a grand jury, builds a case and then unseals indictments, makes arrests and then holds trials or accepts plea bargains on the basis of the evidence collected. It’s pretty straightforward.

Except in the extraordinary circumstances where there’s been a massive criminal conspiracy amongst mainstream news media to taint your prospective jury pool for going on 5 + years.

Most RICO investigations haven’t had:
  1. The New York Times
  2. The Washington Post
  3. CNN
  4. ABC
  5. NBC
  6. CBS
  7. Fox News
  8. Time Magazine
  9. Newsweek
  10. NPR
  11. Twitter/Facebook
working relentlessly to preemptively poison the well for 3 years before a US Attorney is even appointed to publicly begin their investigation and get their boots on.

And then have these same news media organizations keep up their immersive gaslighting for another three years while the US Attorney/Special Counsel is conducting his investigation.

You either recognize this special situation that exists, or you do not.

I can assure you from what I’ve observed of Durham since June of 2019, that he recognizes the task he faces in trying to counter almost 6 years of fanatical gaslighting about RussiaGate.

Durham Is Engaged In Counter-Programming After Almost 6 Years of Gaslighting​

Durham is having to prosecute the massive RussiaGate ‘joint venture’ in reverse. He’s using the most minor of charges faced by ground-floor level RICO conspiracy personnel to surface key evidence that’s been held back for half a decade. He’s used the Sussmann & Danchenko trials as venues to bring out a ton of evidence.

Why was much of this evidence held back for five years?

I’m glad you asked.

Durham’s had to do this backwards to counter a massive psychological disinformation campaign that is still ongoing, but now to much less effect than just a year or two ago.

If all the things I’ve listed below came out five — or even just two — years ago, would it have moved the needle at all on the issue of RussiaGate? When most of the population is still buying into the ceaseless gaslighting?

With the first two trials, Durham is putting the final nails in the coffin of that Russia Russia Russia disinformation campaign.

I understand that a lot of people do not accept this take, that Durham’s been forced to do this backwards to try to counter more than 6 years of relentless propaganda and gaslighting so he can attempt fair trials. But it is an eminently rational position.

Yes, I will stipulate for the record that if there had not been a vast, well-organized psychological operation targeting the American public for 6 years using
  1. law enforcement agencies
  2. intelligence agencies
  3. Congressional hearings and investigations
  4. the entire Big Brother Fake News Matrix mainstream media - including all the major social media platforms
  5. popular culture books, movies, music
to sell the fake Russia Russia Russia narrative that Donald Trump and many of the people around him were Russian agents and traitors to their country, John Durham **could have** dropped the big indictments three years ago.

Yes, I will stipulate that for the record.


There **was** a years-long mass psychosis campaign to condition the American public to view Trump and his close associates as agents of the Putin government in Moscow. You can’t even rationally debate otherwise. We all saw it. We all lived through it.


If it were up to Devin Nunes, special counsel John Durham would unveil a wave of new charges right now, escalating his endeavor to root out misconduct surrounding the FBI's Russia inquiry.

But Durham isn't doing that. In fact, his yearslong investigation appears to be winding down with what could be the final prosecution of the affair, leading Nunes — who, during his closing act in Congress, sent more than a dozen criminal referrals to the Justice Department focused on the Russia matter and the 2016 election — to speculate openly that Durham is somehow "being blocked" from expanding his aim.

"I think what is happening here, Durham is being blocked," Nunes said Friday on Fox News. "And I don’t say this lightly. He’s being blocked by somebody within the Department of Justice where he cannot bring the charges that should be brought right now. And those are charges of conspiracy of lying to Congress, misleading Congress, [and] defrauding the government."

Going over the trial

The Danchenko Trial - Part 5​

starts at 14min speed 1.5X
1:50:00 mins
Join Patrick and Just_Human on Badlands Media for Part 5 of the Danchenko Trial. Just_Human has the transcripts from the trial and will be providing analysis of what has transpired so far.
[Techno Fog]



  • photo_2022-10-18_14-31-54.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 1
A jury on Tuesday found Russian national Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source of the anti-Trump dossier, not guilty on all four counts of making false statements to the FBI.

The charges had been brought by Special Counsel John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the FBI's original Trump-Russia investigation.

The Danchenko trial is the second out of Durham's years-long investigation, and the second time a jury delivered an acquittal.

On a personal note:
-Will Durham now slink off into the ash bin of history?
-Will he join Bill Barr on his redemption tour?
-What will Donnie Boy have to say? (Can't wait for this. Could be worth a few laughs.)
On a personal note:
-Will Durham now slink off into the ash bin of history?
-Will he join Bill Barr on his redemption tour?
-What will Donnie Boy have to say? (Can't wait for this. Could be worth a few laughs.)
I think he's playing the long game here.

Convicting Danchenko wasn't as important as getting evidence entered into the record.

Screen Shot 2022-10-18 at 4.38.36 PM.png
I think he's playing the long game here.

Convicting Danchenko wasn't as important as getting evidence entered into the record.

View attachment 1269

I could be dead wrong, but I honestly believe indictments are coming for Trump and his minions (the ones directly involved in Jan 6th.) And I think they will be coming soon.

If they do come, great. If they don't...........oh well, nothing I can do.

Either way............time will tell.
[Bio Clandestine]
Do you find yourself upset about the Danchenko verdict?

Do you think all hope is lost because a low-level Russian spy paid for by Hillary escaped charges for lying to the FBI?

If you answered “yes” to either of these questions, allow me to assist.

Durham’s role is much more significant than simply “prosecutor". His role is to brief the public on a broader conspiracy.

See my full analysis on the Danchenko verdict here!

A jury on Tuesday found Russian national Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source of the anti-Trump dossier, not guilty on all four counts of making false statements to the FBI.

The charges had been brought by Special Counsel John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the FBI's original Trump-Russia investigation.

The Danchenko trial is the second out of Durham's years-long investigation, and the second time a jury delivered an acquittal.

On a personal note:
-Will Durham now slink off into the ash bin of history?
-Will he join Bill Barr on his redemption tour?
-What will Donnie Boy have to say? (Can't wait for this. Could be worth a few laughs.)

he is gonna write a book and give speeches , the book and beach tour
Top Bottom