My Authors
Read all threads
THREAD: Senate SSCI contains a section (p 870, pdf 884f) entitled "Parsing the Dossier's Subsources" - something that we've been doing successfully in our corner of twitter in past few weeks. Thread examining SSCI efforts in light of what we know. Note redactions below.
2/ SSCI observed that it is "as standard practice" in Western intel services to "communicat[e] clearly to a reader any uncertainty about a source's access to information". This was NOT done in ICA, but SSCI shut their eyes to this critical intel failure.
3/ SSCI noted that Steele's own description of sources was "inconsistent and not completely transparent" and speculated that it might have been "intentional, for source protection purposes". In my opinion, obfuscation was to conceal amount of fabrication done in UK/US.
4/ SSCI observes that report 80 cited a "former Russian intelligence officer". We know that Danchenko has, to his knowledge, "never been in same room" as the former Russian intelligence officer - who is supposedly Trubnikov (who visited Halper and Dearlove at Cambridge in past)
5/ Danchenko's supposed information attributed to Trubnikov came via Sergei Abyshev (convincingly identified as Source 1 by Chuck Ross). Danchenko, Abyshev and Ivan Vorontsov (Source 2) had boozy evening (in Moscow) on June 15, 2016, noted up by Vorontsov next day.
5/ SSCI observed that "an intelligence analyst would not use this kind of information without corroboration,
because the credibility of such distant reporting is difficult to assess". However, SSCI failed to reprimand ICA for using such information in ICA Annex.
6/ as a comment here, the information attributed to "Trubnikov" in report 80 did not include the pee tape incident. That had different and even more implausible provenance according to Steele, but this wasnt commented in unredacted SSCI.
7/ the next bullet is heavily redacted, but concerns the information on Page-Sechin meeting. In this case, as nearly everywhere, SSCI, like everyone else in US intel community, was attracted to the shiny object of the "named sub-subsource", and not the intermediary.
8/ we know that Danchenko's sub-source was Lyudmila (Mila) Podobedova (Source 5), who was journalist for Russian news organization RBC, whose information, as with Source 1, was "distant access" in SSCI terminology. She, RBC and others in suit with Rosneft. themoscowtimes.com/2016/09/29/rus…
9/ Danchenko said (p 23) that, in July, Podobodeva (S5) only told him that Page-Sechin meeting was going to take place; then next day (p 30) said that he wasn't sure it was Podobodeva and couldn't recall who.
10/ Danchenko interview contains no indication he or Podobodeva were source of inflammatory details in Steele report 94 tht Sechin and Page discussed Ukraine-related sanctions. Or further inflammatory details in report 134. These appear to be fabrications by Steele and associates
11/ next SSCI bullet continues their preoccupation with shiny objects - the supposed high-level officials, who come primarily via Source 3, Olga Galkina, Danchenko's longtime BFF originally from Perm, but, in 2016, working in Cyprus as PR for webserver company (Gubarev).
12/ Galkina is source for supposed meeting between Cohen and Russian officials in Prague - the existence of which was refuted early on. It's a coincidence, to say the least, that Danchenko's longtime BFF, then in Cyprus, should have such intimate access to info unavailable to CIA
13/ if SSCI complied with its own strictures on importance on source and sub-source access analysis, it would have drawn attention to questions on Galkina's access to this information, but neglected to do so.
14/ subsequent to Danchenko's interviews, Galkina (Source 3) was interviewed by FBI in August 2017 and she "did not recognize anything" attributed to her. The IG speculated that she was "attempting to minimize her role". Perhaps. But also possible Danchenko used her as a maguffin
15/ more later. SSCI section on Millian is a shambles that will take a while to discuss.
16/ as noted above, SSCI pointed out that intel evaluation requires caeful examination of a source's access to information. However, SSCI abjectly abandoned this standard in respect to Steele/Danchenko access to Millian. SSCI made new smears, inconsistent with Steele's.
17/ since Danchenko's identification by Hmmm (building on details discussed in "our corner" of Twitter), we have quite exact details on both Danchenko and Millian in July 2016, showing that the contacts claimed by Steele did NOT occur.
18/ we know the exact dates of the two emails (Jul 21, Aug 18) sent by Danchenko seeking to meet with Millian and that, as of Aug 18, no meeting had occurred. We also know that Millian was in Asia from July 13 to July 27 - during a period when Steele said that he met Danchenko
19/ we know key Danchenko travel details: that he drove to NYC on July 27 with his [daughter] and stayed there for a few days sightseeeing, that he contacted RIA Novosti reporter Zlobodev on or about July 27 asking about Millian (presumably trying to set up physical meeting) and
20/ was told that Millian was [in Asia] and would be therefore "hard" to meet. We know that Danchenko told FBI that he informed Steele of Millian's [whereabouts] in late July.
21/ we also know that Steele, in late July, produced reports 95 and 97, both attributed to contact with Millian by PSS/Danchenko, and that these reports made the allegations that fulfilled every Democrat wet dream and fantasy about collusion between Trump and Putin on Wikileaks.
22/ we also know that Steele met directly with Perkins Coie on July 29 - something that Steele didn't tell the FBI in their October 2016 meeting.
23/ the allegations (falsely) attributed to Millian were the core of the Steele information included in the ICA (Intel Community Assessment) of Jan 6, 2017. So their sourcing ought to have been of fundamental concern to the SSCI, which, as we shall see, failed dismally.
24/ SSCI picked up Millian issues in heavily redacted paragraph on p 873 (pdf 887). They note [Millian] did not have the role with Trump campaign that was represented in Steele dossier, but fail to point out that Steele/Danchenko had had NO contact with Millian as of report 80.
25/ in addition, in unredacted sections at least, they failed to observe that Danchenko had told FBI that, following Steele's instructions, he [Danchenko] had sought "compromising information" (dirt) on Trump from Ivan Vorontsov (below), who told him about an unconfirmed rumor.
26/ instead of reporting the unconfirmed rumor from Vorontsov, Steele fabricated an embellished version - that the story was "confirmed" by Source D, someone in the Trump campaign who was in a position to know, Steele later identifying Source D to FBI as Millian.
27/ SSCI should have identified and called out this critical embellishment by Steele in report 80 and asked what else was fabricated and embellished. But, instead, the SSCI, to their shame and discredit, shut their eyes and obfuscated.
28/ Steele report 80 included a similar fabrication in which Steele falsely claimed that the pee tape incident had been "confirmed" by hotel management and a female staffer (Sources E and F). This was not what Danchenko told FBI. SSCI failed to call out fabrication, as I'll show.
29/ Danchenko told FBI in Jan 2017 that he was unable to confirm Vorontsov's rumor with hotel management, who "laughed it off". While both the manager and a female staffer said that "anything goes" in hotel, neither "confirmed" the story in respect to Trump.
30/ instead of reporting this lack of confirmation, Steele embellished and fabricated, changing the lack of confirmation into a confirmation. Steele was not the last person in this sorry tale to alter information, as we see later with Clinesmith.
31/ Instead of reporting PSS' direct evidence in Jan 2017 that hotel manager and female staffer did NOT confirm rumor when asked, SSCI cited a Horowitz footnote saying that PSS told FBI that "a staff member at the Ritz Carlton said there were 'stories concerning Trump'
32/ the Horowitz footnote referred to a supposed statement by PSS/Danchenko WFO Agent 1 on this issue. This assertion is NOT in the Jan 2017 interview which was thoroughly documented. The Mar 2017 and May 2017 interviews aren't presently available.
33/ I'm dubious that the Horowitz footnote (Horowitz abjectly failed to confront Steele fabrications and embellishments and whch seems to me to be a classic Nixonian "limited hangout") got nuance right. I think that the footnote incorrectly conflated Vorontsov as hotel staffer.
34/ be that as it may, the SSCI had an obligation to point out that Steele fabricated the claim that hotel staffers had "confirmed" the story. This wasn't just Pass The Telephone misunderstanding but active fabrication and embellishment to be more damaging.
34/ the next SSCI paragraph is entirely redacted. The purpose of the redaction is almost certainly to conceal ineptitude and/or malfeasance by intel community rather than legitimate national security. The redacted paragraph linked to SSCI fn 5823 which referred to Horowitz fn 345
35/ H fn 345 links to statement by PSS/Danchenko that he NEVER met Millian (an assertion contested by Steele, but confirmed by both emails from D to Millian and Millian's travels) and only possible contact was a single anonymous telephone call. This is what SSCI redacted.
36/ from perspective of obligation of Western intel services to evaluate sources - and SSCI duty to examine their evaluation - SSCI had duty to draw attention to fact that - at best - most inflammatory allegations derived from single anonymous telephone call on or about Jul 21-22
37/ next SSCI is similarly redacted, also for no valid reason. Associated footnote suggests it concerns fraudulent Steele dossier claim that Carter Page was conduit to Russian intel for Paul Manafort.
38/ Steele introduced fraudulent claim that Carter Page was conduit for Manafort in Report 95 - the "Democrat Wet Dream Report" attributed to Millian. SSCI,as noted above, failed to examine whether Steele had fabricated attribution to Millian.
39/ SSCI reviewed potential contact between Millian and Trump campaign, noting a number of (unrequited) attempts by Millian to involve himself in campaign.
40/ by Sept 2016, Millian had attracted interest of Fusion GPS and its coterie of journalists (eg Brian Ross, ABC). He contacted Cohen once again. The SSCI noted these new contacts (without noting the potential role of Fusion GPS) in fostering attention of journalists on Millian.
41/ after determining no substantive (or even insubstantial) connection between Millian and Trump campaign, SSCI ought to have pointed out the numerous false claims in Steele dossier that [Millian] was "close associate". But SSCI once again shut its eyes to Steele fraud.
42/ instead of pointing out Steele's fraud in regard to Millian, SSCI alleged that "much about Millian resembles activities by a Russian intelligence officer or cooptee". Before commenting on these allegations, if SSCI had these concerns,
43/ if SSCI was concerned that Millian was "Russian intelligence officer", shouldn't SSCI have pointed out the impact of these concerns on the ICA endorsement of Steele's "layered network of identified and unidentified sources"?
44/ Nor, in this case, can SSCI or Intel Community hide behind supposed opaqueness of Steele source network, since Steele, who purported to be concerned about identifying sources, voluntarily named Millian (who was being framed) as supposed source.
45/ SSCI's smear of Millian (if valid) also impacts one of the signature assertions of ICA: that "Putin ordered influence campaign" because he both "feared and hated" Hillary Clinton, a phrase from report 95 - the Democrat Wet Dream Report - attributed to Millian/Source E.
46/ the quote "hated and feared" was attributed to Millian, who SSCI now smear as a "Russian intelligence official or cooptee".
47/ if Millian was the "Russian intelligence official or cooptee" - as alleged by SSCI - shouldn't FBI Counterintelligence have been investigating the connections of Steele and Danchenko with this supposed "Russian intelligence official or cooptee"?
48/ the SSCI failure to draw the obvious conclusion from their wild smear and libel of Millian is merely one more proof of the total corruption and/or incompetence of the SSCI.
49/ also, SSCI redacted all sorts of material for no purpose other than to cover their own behinds, and redacted material to protect known scoundrels and liars like Halper, but didn't redact their questionable allegations about Millian.
50/ further, at the time that FBI was interviewing Danchenko (and Flynn), Millian was not in China (as implied by SSCI), but was in the US, even attending Trump inauguration.
50/ more later
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Stephen McIntyre

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!