1/ @BarryMeier's exemplar Steele dossier incident - both in book and Isikoff interview - was the Michael Cohen in Prague incident, rather than the memos attributed to "Millian" that were relied on in ICA and Page FISA.
2/ it prompted me to reflect a little on Steele reports on Cohen incident, which I haven't thought much about, since Cohen visit to Prague was disproved early on, tho McClatchy later published allegation of Cohen phone being pinged in Prague. mcclatchydc.com/news/investiga…
3/ Cohen's name is first mentioned in Steele memos on three consecutive days in October (18, 19, 20), then again in the non-DNC memo on Dec 13.
4/ I think that there's an important point about Cohen-related content, as compared to the earlier memos that we've focused on. The reports on Cohen contained non-public information that could be disproven (and was disproven). In earlier memos, there was open source information
5/ that (for example) Carter Page was in Moscow on July 7-8. Or was information that pertained to private conversations that could not be disproven in any obvious way e.g. what Ivanov might have said to a subordinate.
6/ Danchenko's normal modus operandi was the creation of fictional conversations and meetings in a context where the parties could have been in the same room. @RealSLokhova long ago explained that frauds by Halper and his cousins tried to begin with people in same room.
7/ Danchenko generally adhered to what we might call Halper's Rules for Fraud. But the Cohen incident was a departure from this modus operandi: the claim that Cohen was in Prague in Aug/Sept wasnt open source and was disprovable.
8/ so what led to this mistake? Both Meier and Isikoff project "Russian" disinformation onto incident. But the overwhelming evidence in all other Steele/Danchenko memos is that the content wasn't "raw intelligence" from an actual network, but fiction by Danchenko and/or Steele.
9/ my initial impression was that Steele had embellished Danchenko information to Steele (that's what Danchenko told FBI), but I'm increasingly of the view that Danchenko fabricated most, if not all, of the content, based on topics assigned by Steele/Perkins Coie/maybe Fusion.
10/ we KNOW that the content attributed to "Millian" was totally fabricated by Steele and/or Danchenko. Vorontsov, Podobedova, Abyshev and Galkina have all publicly denied being sources of information attributed to them. Obviously, that's what they would say, but some points in
11/ in their denials add credence: e.g. Abyshev said that he didn't meet Trubnikov until 2017; Vorontsov saying that he was wary of Russian expatriates working for sketchy foreign companies.
2/ in any event, from the perspective that Danchenko wasn't actually getting ANY information for his supposed Russian network, it would be implausible that he would suddenly get blockbuster disinformation (about Cohen in Prague) from Galkina, then in Cyprus.
13/ so let's look at dates and chronologies. Danchenko was at a conference in Moscow from ~Oct 3-8. Supposedly unrelated to Orbis. Steele was in US with Perkins Coie, reporters on ~Sep 22-23; then in Rome with FBI on Oct 4. Danchenko and Steele in London from ~Oct 9-12.
14/ seems to me it's far more likely someone in US (Perkins Coie, Fusion, reporters, FBI) fed Steele the story about Cohen in Prague - the story that re-emerged much later with McClatchy; that Steele assigned Danchenko to look into it; and Danchenko duly composed usual fiction
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
