Danchenko told the FBI that the Steele dossier claim of July 2016 that Page met Sechin did *not* come from him.
That's as good evidence as you can find that Steele fabricated the story and later parallel constructed the same story via Source 5, thereby setting up Danchenko.
That's as good evidence as you can find that Steele fabricated the story and later parallel constructed the same story via Source 5, thereby setting up Danchenko.
Alternatively, Danchenko parallel constructed the story much later because Steele needed something to back up the earlier fabrication. Either way, it was parallel constructed ex post facto.
Long story short is how did Danchenko magically come up with a story in October to back up what Steele had fabricated and reported in July? I can see only two options. Either Source 5 was sent in to tell Danchenko or Danchenko put the words in Source 5's mouth to please Steele.
There's a big red flag in that Danchenko told the FBI that the story came from Source 5 but at one stage he says it came from Source 3 as well. In other words, a story made up by Steele in July is suddenly backed up by two of Danchenko's "sources".
Doesn't pass the smell test.
Doesn't pass the smell test.
@CasualSemi points out that the information may have been conflated and Source 3 may not have talked about Sechin.
Still leaves Source 5. Not plausible that Source 5 just happens to confirm Steele's fabrication (and even then only that there was a meeting, not the collusion).
Still leaves Source 5. Not plausible that Source 5 just happens to confirm Steele's fabrication (and even then only that there was a meeting, not the collusion).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
