Here’s some more random thoughts on the Danchenko indictment. One thing in particular caught my eye. Durham alleges that Danchenko lied to the FBI when he told them that none of his friends or acquaintances knew that he was Steele’s primary source in creating the dossier. It
stood out because of its seeming randomnesss. That false statement isn’t one that Danchenko is charged with making, but it’s there for the broader context. Durham cites as proof of its falsity evidence that Dolan, the PR Executive knew of Danchenko’s role, as shown by his written
communication to a client in January 2017. And by evidence that Olga, SubSource 1 , who was in Cyprus, also knew. So what does this mean? Well, begin with the premise that Danchenko lied for a reason. He had immunity when the FBI interviewed him, and his lawyer in Jan 2017 would
have emphasized to him that he had a get out of jail free card- provided he told the truth. So why fabricate a story about a 20 minute phone call in late July 2016 from an anonymous caller, who Danchenko later concluded must have been Millian? And then why stick with that same
phony story over the course of five separate interviews? It’s possible he was being threatened, and it’s fairly certain he was covering for someone. The indictment doesn’t say who told Danchenko to report to Steele the critical information beginning with #95 , that there was a
conspiracy between Trump and Russia, in which Russia agreed to help Trump get elected and in return Trump and his campaign agreed to cooperate on certain issues, including the Republican platform provisions on Ukraine. At the point on behalf of the campaign in this conspiracy was
an advisor, Carter Page. These allegations were in Steele’s memo #95, which according to Danchenko was solely sourced to Millian, the anonymous caller. So who told Danchenko to fabricate a story about a conspiracy in which Page played a key role- allegations that found there way
almost verbatim into the FISA warrant application? Who is Danchenko covering for? The indictment doesn’t say, but certainly hints that Durham knows. Go back to the allegation that Danchenko lied when he said nobody but Steele knew of his role as Steele’s primary source. Durham is
implying that there’s one or more unnamed persons who knew what Danchenko and Steele were up to, and most importantly, knew what the FBI needed to launch an investigation and even get some warrants. Later, SubSource 1, Olga in Cyprus, allegedly contributed more details about
Page’s role. She also knew about Danchenko’s role, and she also knew Dolan, who also knew about what Danchenko was doing. Those two likely have given Durham information as to whom they might have told- someone who had a motive to feed Danchenko with precisely the language needed.
Here’s more color on Danchenko’s lie about Millian:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kingmaker - Big IF! (True)

Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KingMakerFT

6 Nov
@KimStrassel has a good editorial in the WSJ on the Clinton Dossier scandal. She explores the role of Chuck Dolan in creating some of the dossier. Unfortunately, she does not address an even bigger part of the scandal: the framing of Sergei Millian as Source D and Source E, the
person allegedly behind the parts of the dossier most damning to Trump, which the FBI included almost verbatim in the FISA application for a warrant to spy on Carter Page. The dossier reports that those damning allegations of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, complete with
details aplenty, had but one source: a native Russian very close to Trump and his organization. Danchenko told the FBI that person was Millian. The indictment, backed by email evidence, charges Danchenko with lying. Millian was framed. Left unanswered is where did Danchenko get
Read 5 tweets
5 Nov
On this DOJ war against Project Veritas, in the below video O’Keefe fails to mention that the diary in question found its way onto the internet last year before the election. Most of it wasn’t newsworthy, just things that could be embarrassing to Ashley Biden. My recollection
is that there were a couple of pages that could have been embarrassing to Joe or his sons, but there was nothing on its face to authenticate the diary. But I also recall someone posting something claiming that Ashley herself admitted it was hers. So it’s not clear what’s going
on with the FBI seizing reporters’ notebooks regarding a diary that’s already been published- and not by Project Veritas. Is this an effort to put a lid on it? Or did someone try to blackmail the Bidens? Your guess is as good as mine, but First Amendment rights are at stake.
Read 6 tweets
4 Nov
For those who’ve been following these developments on Twitter, the Steele dossier blew up primarily when Danchenko was identified by investigators in this corner of Twitter, then the same group identified Danchenko’s sub sources, and then the same group figured out, with help
from @SergeiMillian, that Millisn had been framed as Source D and that he and Danchenko had never met or spoken. This indictment brings that story almost full circle , but it leaves one question outstanding: Who was Danchenko covering for? He had immunity- a get out of jail free
card- so long as he told the truth. When he fabricated the story and framed Millian, who was he covering for? Did someone tell him what needed to be in the reports he then sourced to Millian? My guess is yes.
Read 4 tweets
28 Oct
Paul Sperry’s latest claims that Durham has given out more than one immunity deals is not surprising. Defense lawyers in DC probably already figured this out. The question then, is, who are the lucky culprits who got get-out-of-jail-free deals and are now singing like songbirds?
Looking at this from a trial lawyer’s standpoint, there was always one major issue that gave defendants a window of opportunity at trial to confuse the jury into believing that the Alfa Bank DNS lookups were genuine and justified a complete, thorough investigation by the FBI and
CIA. If the jury could be convinced of that fact, then the argument would be that everything that was done was not only justified, but protected by the First Amendment right to petition the govt and right of free speech, in the form of going to the press. A jury could easily be
Read 6 tweets
23 Oct
Merick Garland promised he would remove politics from the Dept of Justice. Now, there is no stronger proof of the hollowness of those words than his own memo in response to a Sept 29 letter to the WH from the NSBA. Garland’s politically charged, attempted federalization of local
school politics has turned into an utter embarrassment to the DOJ and the administration. First, Garland admitted to Congress that the DOJ had no genuine data showing that violence and threats of violence against local school boards were a serious national problem. Second, he
admitted that parents except using their First Amendment rights were not domestic terrorists and were not candidates for prosecution under the Patriot Act. Without expressly saying so, Garland repudiated the hot button language in the very letter he admitted had been the primary
Read 7 tweets
22 Oct
It’s no surprise that wooden-headed Peter Strzok has yet again weighed in on the Russiagate investigation. He argues, for the umpteenth time,that Durham and all his predecessors have a chilling effect on the FBI’s honorable calling to protect us all from evil Russia- even if that
means accepting that not everyone who is an FBI source always tells the whole truth- indeed, they may even shade things if they have hidden motives. The FISA process is such a great tool that such things can be overlooked, Strzok seems to suggest. Strzok’s piece in and of itself
is evidence of someone with a motive who only gives a portion of the story, making what he wrote entirely misleading. He goes on about a Section 1001 omission charge, and suggests that perhaps Sussmann’s defense will be that as a “source,” Sussmann had no duty to disclose who his
Read 6 tweets

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/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(