Thread by @ClimateAudit

there's fascinating story in Spectator today from Steele apologist Paul Wood, which gives Steele's defense against revelations in Danchenko interview.
spectator.co.uk/article/was-th…

2/ as a preview, my opinion (as expressed many times before) is that majority of fabrications (including the collusion charges) were fabricated by Steele, not Danchenko or his network. I realize that both say The Other Dude Did It, but I think Steele is totally untrustworthy.

3/ as background, we have a few dates locked in stone from Millian's records. Danchenko's first email to M was on July 21, 2016; second on Aug 18. Also that M was on business trip to Asia from Jul 13, returning late in evening of Jul 27. M did ABC TV interview in NY on Jul 30.

4/ Wood recognizes that key Steele allegations derive from "Millian", said by Steele to be Source D of report 80 and Source E of reports 95, 97 and 102.

5/ Wood says that, after dossier "detonated", Millian "ran for cover". Dossier detonated on Jan 10. Millian attended Trump inauguration on Jan 20. Millian was (falsely) exposed on Jan 24, then went on Russian TV to defend himself. He (truthfully IMO) denied any involvement.

6/ at almost exactly same time as Millian's TV interview, Danchenko was telling FBI that he'd never met Millian, that he'd tried and failed. All Danchenko had was an anonymous caller who said that there was "nothing bad" about Trump.

7/ Wood concedes that "If that is true... the dossier is a bad joke, invention masquerading as ‘intelligence’." Well, there's lots of evidence that Danchenko's information to FBI on this issue at least was true.

8/ it's impossible that Millian via Danchenko could have provided pee tape information to Steele as Source D in report 80 (June 20.) Danchenko first reached out to Millian on July 21, under assignment not given until late Jun/early Jul.

9/ According to Wood, Danchenko reported to Steele about "three meetings with Millian, as they happened, at restaurants in DC, New York and Charleston." OK, what were the dates of these three meetings?

10/ according to Steele dossier, in addition to Report 80 (June 20), Millian info was used in report 95 (undated but ~Jul 25-26), report 97 (Jul 30) - both attributed to contact in "late July" - and report 102 (Aug 10)- attributed to contact on Aug 9.

11/ taking the most generous interpretation of Steele's account to Wood, the three restaurant meetings have to account for four reports. However, on August 18, Danchenko sent 2nd email to Millian, still seeking a meeting. But all the Steele reports are already written!

12/ so it seems pretty certain that none of the supposed restaurant meetings with Millian were real.

Wood proposes two different alternatives - that Danchenko wrote "prize-winning fiction" for Steele or "was very careful with what he told FBI", emphasis on "not recalling".

13/ Steele's supporters deceive themselves on this issue: Danchenko unequivocally told FBI that he never met Millian. I agree that Danchenko's immigration status would make him "very careful" in what he told FBI, but I view that as a good reason for Danchenko to tell truth

14/ as I've noted previously, FBI ineptly failed to directly ask Danchenko what he had told Steele. So it's "possible" that Danchenko constructed "prize-winning fiction" for Steele about three dinners with Millian in NY, Washington and Charleston and also told truth to FBI.

15/ personally, I'm dubious that Danchenko claimed fictional dinners to Steele (tho it's possible). Handling of report 80 is obvious precedent. Danchenko told FBI that he got an unconfirmed rumor about pee tape from Source 2 (Vorontsov), which he was unable to confirm with staff.

16/ Danchenko's account of incident makes sense. But in Steele report 80, this unconfirmed rumor was represented as "confirmed" by Source D (Millian) with whom Danchenko had then had no contact. So fabrication of Source D confirmation is firmly placed with Steele, not Danchenko.

17/ Wood also falsely claimed that "Steele has five other sources for 'golden showers' story." But all five, such as they are, come from Danchenko, who gave very different characterization. Neither of the staff confirmed the story in Danchenko's evidence to FBI.

18/ the supposed "American" is new. Wood/Steele says that an "other source" said it was "common knowledge" around Kremlin. The other source was Vorontsov/Source 2, who said that it was mere rumor.

19/ finally, the "Russian intelligence official" was not a contact of Danchenko's, but second hand via Sergei Abyshev (Source 1), who was supposed source (while out drinking with Danchenko and Vorontsov on Jun 15) for gossip about official, which wasn't about pee tape anyway.

19/ Steele claimed that "in two decades as a professional intelligence officer he had never seen such complete agreement by such a wide range of sources." If this is gold standard for UK and US intel, one weeps for Iraq, Syria and Libya over decisions made by false US/UK intel.