the NYT says that Danchenko was "born in Ukraine". That doesn't appear to square with text in Interview, tho Interview does appear to indicate that Danchenko was part Ukrainian (as also indicated by his name.) 
2/ NYT admits that Carter Page FISA falsely stated that Danchenko was "Russian-based". The falsehood (and FBI/DOJ efforts to conceal through redactions) was previously deduced some months ago here and in our twitter circle:
the NYT also purports to sanitize the impact of the dossier as limited to a "narrow part of FBI's early Russia investigation", the FISA against Page. This is a totally false narrative.
The crucial Intel Assessment presented to Obama admin on Jan 5, 2017 and incoming Trump team on Jan 6, 2017, cited Steele, not as a Democrat Party contractor, but as "former employee of friendly foreign intelligence service" with a "layered network"
grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/…
grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/…
the Assessment directly quoted from Steele report 2016/95, which purported to explain events on the grounds that Putin "feared and hated" Hillary Clinton.
the Intel Assessment (Annex A) also repeated three of the most disturbing and damages claims of the Steele dossier: long term cultivation, an unholy bargain on Wikileaks and sanctions, secret meetings and kompromat.
imagine the impact of these revelations on departing Obama admin officials, presented with such concerns by the most senior officials of the Intel Community. For example, Sally Yates, who does not appear to have been aware of the backstory, must have had her hair on fire.
Rather than the impact of the fraudulent claims in the Steele dossier being limited to the troubling, but somewhat esoteric, issue of Carter Page FISA, it had an important and essential role in the crucial ICA, which severely constrained policy options of incoming administration.
the NYT's unction about unmasking of Danchenko is at a fever level reminiscent of almost identical unction when Halper was unmasked. npr.org/2018/05/24/614…
at the time of Halper's unmasking, various apologists e.g. "FBI historian" Douglas Charles, stated that "FBI does not “place” or insert informants, as it would do with undercover FBI agents". And yet that was exactly what they did with Halper, who,
theconversation.com/informants-are…
theconversation.com/informants-are…
already funded by the questionable Office of Net Assessment, initiated contact with Carter Page and the insufferable Papadopoulos and fabricated a false story about Flynn and Lokhova. Halper should have been charged by FBI, not protected.
while I believe that nearly all the damaging lies in Steele dossier originate with Steele, rather than Danchenko, there was far more basis for FBI to be concerned about Danchenko being fed false information than there was in regard to anyone in Trump campaign.
and yet rather than being rousted at dawn like Roger Stone, David Laufman, who had previously given out immunity agreements "like candy" to Hillary Clinton operatives Huma Abedin and Better Call Cheryl, gave out another immunity agreement to Democrat subcontractor Danchenko.
Danchenko's evidence contradicts Steele's evidence at every turn. The contradictions are far more serious and troubling than Steele merely placing too much certainty on unverified information, the excuse proffered by so many.
Nor do Steele's most troubling allegations - collusion - arise from sources in RUSSIA. In addition to his investigations in Russia, Danchenko made a desultory effort to locate dirt on the Trump campaign in the US and it was this effort that led to collusion allegations.
However, the collusion charges, as leveled in the dossier, did not originate from any information that Danchenko provided to Christopher Steele. None of the details in Steele report 95 came from Danchenko.
There is overwhelming evidence that the damning collusion allegations and details were fabricated in UK by Steele and associates. They are British disinformation, not "Russian disinformation".
If Danchenko truly wishes to assist his country of residence, then his obligation ought to have been to publicly speak out against the deceptions of the Steele dossier, not to hide in the shadows of a Laufman immunity agreement for a Democrat subcontractor.
