Danchenko trial opens, expected to be last of prosecutor's probe into origins of Trump-Russia

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Special counsel John Durham’s probe into the origins of the FBI’s handling of the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is reaching a critical peak: the launch of what’s expected to be the final trial in his long-running investigation.

Durham is seeking the conviction of Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who is charged with five counts of lying to the FBI in interviews as agents investigated potential Trump-Russia collusion in the probe that became known as “Crossfire Hurricane.” Danchenko was a leading contributor to the so-called Steele dossier, a compilation of salacious and unverified allegations about Donald Trump’s relationship with the Russian government. Danchenko pleaded not guilty to the five counts against him.

The government aired the allegations during opening statements on Tuesday, accusing Danchenko of lying about his main sources for his contributions to the dossier, as well as communications he had with Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-American businessman who once did real estate work with the Trump Organization and stayed in touch with Trump associates during the 2016 campaign. Prosecutors specifically accuse Danchenko of fabricating Millian as a source, claiming he lied about speaking to the businessman over the phone.

“We are going to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant never received a call from Sergei Millian,” prosecutor Michael Kielty said.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/11/danchenko-trump-russia-investigation-00061339

[riversedge]

1. Durhams main objective to prove a conspiracy existed against Trump. He FAILED

but no doubt fox news and the RT will continue to LIE


.......Danchenko is the third person to be prosecuted in Durham’s probe, which has largely fallen short of expectations from Trump and his allies who long maintained that the investigation would reveal a conspiracy against the former president. The other targets of his probe include the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was acquitted on a charge of making a false statement to the FBI, and Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email in 2017 in relation to a wiretap renewal application. Clinesmith received no jail time.

[msfiddlestix]

3. Oh right, now I remember the Clinesmith thingy. plead guilty, no jailtime

But I wonder if he was really guilty. Could have pleaded out to avoid being sentenced.

none the less Durham should be taken to the woodshed big time.

[msfiddlestix]

2. It's rather curious that Garland has approved this weird prosecution. it really does seem political

Among other things, this one is a head scratcher to put it mildly:

“We are going to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant never received a call from Sergei Millian,” prosecutor Michael Kielty said.

How do you prove a negative with regard to phone calls to a jury?

Has anyone ever heard of burner phones in the prosecitors office? (just for starters)

The article also says the "final trial".

I was aware of "probes" on this matter, Durham was "put on the case" two or three years ago, but really? There have been other trials related to Steele Dossier? They've all flown under my radar.

very curious. I can see why Garland let it go on, but jeeze.

[Lonestarblue]

4. I wanted him to cut Durham, but he probably thought that would appear too political.

Durham has spent more than three years chasing unicorns, and he has wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars all so Trump can claim that there were no pee tapes. I hope he’s another one who fades into obscurity. He has certainly proved to be just as corrupt as other lawyers supporting Trump. The judge in this case has already thrown out “evidence” that had no bearing on the case and may have been created from thin air.

[ancianita]

9. Durham's been a thorn in the side of Dems, but he's not seen by the DOJ as corrupt.

From Frank Foer of The Atlantic:

As Garland spoke about his approach to his job, he asked an aide to pass him a copy of a tattered blue book that was sitting on a side table, Principles of Federal Prosecution, ... He kept extolling the neutrality of the department, how it should never favor friends or penalize foes, how it should only bring cases that persuade juries and survive appeals. “What I’m saying isn’t novel,” he said. “It’s all in here.”

... I asked him if he’d had anything to do with its publication. “I helped edit it,” he said, and then wistfully recalled his mentors in the department who oversaw its production. It struck me that Garland isn’t just by-the-book. In some profound sense, he is the book.

This unbending fidelity to rules and norms has often looked impotent in the face of the democratic emergency that is Donald Trump. In his quest to avoid the taint of politics, Garland allowed certain Trump-era policies to remain in place. He ordered the DOJ to continue defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a writer who accused him of raping her. He has permitted the Special Prosecutor John Durham’s investigation of the origins of Russiagate to persist, despite a raft of Democrats clamoring for him to shut it down. (I should note here that Durham mentioned my reporting on Trump and Russia in court filings, and his lawyers asked witnesses about it in his prosecution of a Clinton campaign lawyer, whom a jury acquitted.) Those flash points created an impression of passivity; instead of rushing to confront the legacy of Trumpism, he seemed to be meekly deferring to it...


I came to appreciate that the qualities that strike Garland’s critics as liabilities would make him uniquely suited to overseeing Trump’s prosecution. The fact that he is strangely out of step with the times—that he is one of the few Americans in public life who don’t channel or perform political anger—equips him to craft the strongest, most fair-minded case, a case that a neutral observer would regard as legitimate.

United States v. Donald Trump would be about more than punishing crimes—whether inciting an insurrection, scheming to undermine an election, or absconding with classified documents. An indictment would be a signal to Trump, as well as to would-be imitators, that no one is above the law. This is the principle that has animated Garland’s career, which began as the Justice Department was attempting to reassert its independence, and legitimacy, after the ugly meddling of the Nixon years. If Garland has at times seemed daunted by the historic nature of the moment, that is at least in part because he appreciates how closely his next move will be studied, and the role it will play in heading off—or not—the next catastrophe...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/10/merrick-garland-donald-trump-investigation-indictment/671683/



As for John Durham, he's been tough on our side during the whole dustup over the validity of the Steele Dossier, and has pursued Clinton and the Fusion GPS stuff. But he has not been seen as corrupt, even as the Right think they have weaponized him. So after their toughest lawyer with a solid criminal prosecution history has fallen short of indicting Democrats, the Right's whole argument that Democrats have been trying to undo Trump's election has lost its factual basis and legal validity. It's been the basis of their fighting against the Democrats' two impeachments, with Senate Repubs' refusal to vote him guilty, as well.

Repubs, venal and corrupt as they are, have denied any criminality, and seen the Democrats' investigations of them as mere political setups to keep them out of majority rule. They're right about keeping them out of majority rule, but they set up themselves with their criminal machinations to foment a coup. They think our side is so evil that they'll try it again no matter how many Garland's DOJ convicts.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-biden-cabinet-b48026fe9d00fe9b046ba8087bec1262

U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was appointed in October by then-Attorney General William Barr as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, will remain in that capacity, the senior Justice Department official said, but is expected to resign from his other position as the U.S. attorney in Connecticut.

Biden hasn't removed him. I'm don't think AG appointed Special Counsel even can be removed without the current AG appearing political, so that's probably the stance Garland takes and Biden respects.

[Bayard]

5. Steele dossier

"A compilation of salacious and unverified allegations."

Has anyone every disproven any of it? I believe Mr. Steele.

[intrepidity]

6. Michael Cohen is adament that at least one part of it is wrong

Something about him (or at least his cell phone) supposedly being in Europe on a specific date when he was at a baseball game (or something along those lines).

[former9thward]

8. The FBI has disproven much o it.

From a New York Times story about it:

Was the dossier a reliable source of information?

No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

When the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017, he told the bureau that he thought the tenor of the dossier was more conclusive than was justified; for example, Mr. Danchenko portrayed the blackmail tape story as rumors and speculation that he was not able to confirm. He also said a key source had called him without identifying himself, and that he had guessed at the source’s identity. The indictment accuses Mr. Danchenko of lying about that call and of concealing that a Democratic Party-linked public relations executive was his source for a claim about Trump campaign office politics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/trump-russia-investigation-dossier.html

[TygrBright]

7. I suspect something is going to come out that will confirm links btw [Redacted] campaign & Vlad. n/t