@shipwreckedcrew at his first interview, Danchenko confessed that he had NEVER met Millian. You mis-state this in your interesting article.
nor does it appear that FBI was misled by Danchenko's story of an anonymous telecon. It appears that Brian Auten disbelieved true part of Danchenko's confession: that he had never met Millian and had never even had a telephone conversation with someone who identifed as Millian
Auten and FBI appear to have decided that, for some obscure reason, Danchenko was "minimizing" his contact with Millian and accordingly disregarded his confession in favor of the original fabrications of the dossier.
the information in Danchenko's confession would have undermined the then fresh Intel Community Assessment, which the FBI had not only just endorsed but had insisted on the inclusion of the information undermined by Danchenko's confession
instead of recalling that component of the ICA (as the CIA had done when they learned that Curveball was not in a position to know the truth or falsity of his WMD allegations), the FBI permitted the sore to fester and become infected: Auten deep-sixed the Danchenko interview
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
unsurprisingly, commentary on Danchenko indictment is very inaccurate. US media is mostly trying to whitewash FBI and intel community by blaming on Danchenko, who is not an innocent. But after January 24, 2017, perpetuation of dossier hoax was due to FBI, not Danchenko deception.
in this thread, I'm going to comment on recent commentary, starting with Eric Wemple archive.md/sjvcJ and Glenn Kessler https://t.co/dik2U2o6vw of the WaPo, which announced partial retractions of past reporting.
3/ I'm going to focus on Millian commentary as that is one of two issues in Indictment. "Fact-checker" Kessler began his section on Millian with false claim that Millian was doxed in news reports "because Danchenko suggested [his name] to FBI". This is total BS.
this article perfectly exemplifies how preoccupation with Page FISA by so many Russiagate critics leads to false and distracting narrative. Article presumes that Page FISA was cornerstone of investigation and that DOJ was protecting its "poisoned fruit". Nope,
2/ while the Page FISA was seedy, it was, to mix metaphors, a dry well. It bore no fruit, poisoned or otherwise. Nothing from Page FISA appears in any of the proceedings or in Mueller report. In the end, it was irrelevant to progress main Russiagate hoax.
3/ yet we hear of almost nothing else - FISA, FISA, FISA - in complaints from majority of Russiagate hoax commentators and talking heads, even insiders like Ratcliffe.
I think that we have a clear winner in the identification of the mysterious October 2016 conference at which Danchenko and Dolan were participants. Three-day YPO "Inside the Kremlin" conference. Organizer-1 probably Steven Kupka. Credit to @_mzishi_
this is an amazing link. Frustrating that we didn't manage to make complete archive of Dolan's social media before he went dark. Time to dig into the other likes. Likes on a single Danchenko page were the Rosetta stone to his "network".
Gordon Carera of BBC Radio (in related but separate programming to The Trick) has second instalment online of Hack That Changed the World. bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0…
Second instalment describes dead ends, closes with teaser that next episode goes "east to Russia".
2/ in 2nd instalment, police told him that climategate hacker used proxy servers all over the world in operation. I expect that Corera will talk a lot about Mr FOIA using a proxy server in Russia, while being silent about his use of proxy servers in US and Germany.
3/ I wonder if he'll mention the upside-down Bellingcat analysis purporting to deduce Mr FOIA timezone from epoch timestamps in nomenclature of CG1 emails, which Bellingcat claimed to show +05:00. But they got it upside-down: if anything, it was -05:00 Eastern N America.
2/ The Trick portrayed Climategate hack as part of conspiracy by Russian intel services, US fossil fuel corporations and "follow the money" to derail Copenhagen, rather than spat between CRU and Climate Audit about withholding data, together with open-door UEA web "security"
3/ we left off at beginning of August shortly after I
had exposed that CRU, after refusing station data due to supposed confidentiality agreements, had nonetheless placed data on a public FTP site (which it took private after exposure while issuing new passwords to CRU staff).