Thread by @awprokop

Durham tries to get to the bottom of where the pee tape allegation came from. He seems to imply what he thinks is the answer without actually proving it.

This is a bit complicated so needs some decoding (cont'd)...

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Much of the Steele dossier relied on information provided by Igor Danchenko, who is the subject of this indictment.

Per indictment, Danchenko was close to an unnamed Democratic PR Executive who worked in Russia and had associations with many key figures named in dossier

This Democratic PR Executive told Danchenko that he had inside information on the downfall of Paul Manafort, from "a GOP friend". Danchenko wrote up his info and put it into the dossier.

But the PR exec actually just made that up, had no "friend" who gave him inside info

The PR Exec also stayed at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in June 2016 and heard about Trump's visit. The PR exec admitted to FBI that no sexual or salacious activity was mentioned.

After that, Danchenko (who had not actually visited the hotel) wrote up the pee tape stuff for Steele

Durham seems to want to imply that either the PR exec or Danchenko made up the pee tape claim. Similarly to how the PR exec fabricated the Manafort claim.

He doesn't actually prove that. He says, if not for Danchenko's false statements, FBI could have questioned the PR exec more

Like Durham's last indictment was mainly about establishing a narrative about Alfa Bank, this indictment means to establish a narrative about Steele Dossier.

That narrative: lots of its info came from someone close to the Clintons, a guy who tended to make stuff up

Fewer indictments so far but Durham's investigation is mirroring Mueller's in some ways.

A big sweeping topic being investigated, but the cases coming out of it are false statements with the bigger narrative not being definitively established