Durham Investigation

Gern Blansten

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

We already knew how dirty democrats were. Now we’re learning how spineless they are as they throw each other to the wolves. Man it sucks getting caught.  I’d like to say it’s vindicating, but it’s shameful seeing people act like they actually thought trump was all they were fed. Russia? Oh, honey. 🤦‍♂️If you still support the left after they fois gras stuffed you full of their nonsense for the last decade, there’s no helping you- the rest of us have long moved on and are focused on saving the country from $10/gallon bidenflaton , who was supposed to be so much better than trump. 

L
O
L

hilarious....I remember arguing with people on twitter that nothing would come from this. Even if guilty there likely wouldn't have been much of a sentence.

The Juggler

Gern Blansten said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

We already knew how dirty democrats were. Now we’re learning how spineless they are as they throw each other to the wolves. Man it sucks getting caught.  I’d like to say it’s vindicating, but it’s shameful seeing people act like they actually thought trump was all they were fed. Russia? Oh, honey. 🤦‍♂️If you still support the left after they fois gras stuffed you full of their nonsense for the last decade, there’s no helping you- the rest of us have long moved on and are focused on saving the country from $10/gallon bidenflaton , who was supposed to be so much better than trump. 

L
O
L

hilarious....I remember arguing with people on twitter that nothing would come from this. Even if guilty there likely wouldn't have been much of a sentence.

And Mr rolemodelsinblood here has been hyping up, and moving the goalposts, and hyping up again this investigation for YEARS. 

Gern Blansten

I'm sure the alt right has determined that this was all Q's plan all along. Big things are coming...stay the course!

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

I'm sure the alt right has determined that this was all Q's plan all along. Big things are coming...stay the course!

No justice, no peace?

The Juggler

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/john-durham-michael-sussman-verdict-not-guilty-russia-alfabank-trump-barr-fbi-clinton.html

THE NATIONAL INTEREST 2:39 P.M.

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

 

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

By Jonathan Chait

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

Sign up for Dinner Party

A lively evening newsletter about everything that just happened.

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

However focused he may be, Durham is not winning prosecutions. His investigation has produced one extremely small fish – a guilty plea by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith* for a likely immaterial error. And now he is losing prosecutions. Durham abused his authority by trying to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton, whom Durham tried to convict on a single perjury charge. And the case turns out to have been so pathetically threadbare that it resulted in a rapid acquittal.

Sussmann went to the FBI in 2016 with evidence compiled by computer researchers that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia through a server run by the Russian bank Alfabank. The scientists were not sure if the server was a communications link between Trump and Russia and wanted the FBI to investigate. The link was never proven, and the FBI quickly decided not to pursue the thread, though Dexter Filkins has argued in detail that the case remains uncertain.

The charge against Sussmann alleged that he misled the FBI by saying he was not working on behalf of a client when in fact he was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not only is a single charge of lying to the FBI weak tea for a prosecution, it was obvious all along that the evidence for even this small charge was tenuous. The prosecution hung its case on the testimony of one FBI official, James Baker, based entirely on his recollection of a conversation. Baker, however, was foggy on many of the specifics of his interactions with Sussmann, and even testified to Congress that he couldn’t remember if he knew who Sussmann was working for.

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

The second is that the FBI never leaked its investigation until after Trump was elected. The only reporting on the whole matter before the election was in a New York Times report that the FBI “saw no clear link to Russia.” Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton investigation had sprung leaks all over the place. So the Trump-Barr-Durham theory somehow posits that the FBI set up a phony investigation in order to leak it and then forgot to leak, instead doing the opposite by telling the Times that the Bureau did not suspect the Trump campaign.

Indeed, the Sussmann trial revealed that the Clinton campaign did not want the FBI to open a probe into the Alfabank server because it feared an investigation would make it less likely that the media would write about the story at all. So to the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it. I argued in 2020 that Joe Biden’s Justice Department was correct to let Durham continue his investigation because it would expose the hollowness of Trump’s allegations. And it has.

The final, largest hole in the conspiracy theory is that there were in fact serious grounds for suspicion. By 2016 it was already apparent that Trump had hired as his campaign manager a guy who owed money to a Russian oligarch and who had previously managed the foreign campaign of a Russian puppet, had publicly asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, had exploited the results of that hack, among other things. The investigation turned up many more details, including a secret meeting where Trump’s campaign manager passed polling data on to a Russian agent, a secret business deal that promised to give Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk (and which he was exposing himself to Russian blackmail by denying in public), and so on.

Why would Sussmann go to the FBI? No doubt he wanted Clinton to win. Durham presupposes this was his only motive. But Sussmann was also privy to an allegation whose technical details he wasn’t qualified to judge, but which had potentially alarming implications. The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat to the United States is that Trump posed a security threat to the United States.

Halifax2TheMax

The Juggler said:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/john-durham-michael-sussman-verdict-not-guilty-russia-alfabank-trump-barr-fbi-clinton.html

THE NATIONAL INTEREST 2:39 P.M.

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

 

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

By Jonathan Chait

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

Sign up for Dinner Party

A lively evening newsletter about everything that just happened.

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

However focused he may be, Durham is not winning prosecutions. His investigation has produced one extremely small fish – a guilty plea by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith* for a likely immaterial error. And now he is losing prosecutions. Durham abused his authority by trying to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton, whom Durham tried to convict on a single perjury charge. And the case turns out to have been so pathetically threadbare that it resulted in a rapid acquittal.

Sussmann went to the FBI in 2016 with evidence compiled by computer researchers that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia through a server run by the Russian bank Alfabank. The scientists were not sure if the server was a communications link between Trump and Russia and wanted the FBI to investigate. The link was never proven, and the FBI quickly decided not to pursue the thread, though Dexter Filkins has argued in detail that the case remains uncertain.

The charge against Sussmann alleged that he misled the FBI by saying he was not working on behalf of a client when in fact he was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not only is a single charge of lying to the FBI weak tea for a prosecution, it was obvious all along that the evidence for even this small charge was tenuous. The prosecution hung its case on the testimony of one FBI official, James Baker, based entirely on his recollection of a conversation. Baker, however, was foggy on many of the specifics of his interactions with Sussmann, and even testified to Congress that he couldn’t remember if he knew who Sussmann was working for.

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

The second is that the FBI never leaked its investigation until after Trump was elected. The only reporting on the whole matter before the election was in a New York Times report that the FBI “saw no clear link to Russia.” Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton investigation had sprung leaks all over the place. So the Trump-Barr-Durham theory somehow posits that the FBI set up a phony investigation in order to leak it and then forgot to leak, instead doing the opposite by telling the Times that the Bureau did not suspect the Trump campaign.

Indeed, the Sussmann trial revealed that the Clinton campaign did not want the FBI to open a probe into the Alfabank server because it feared an investigation would make it less likely that the media would write about the story at all. So to the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it. I argued in 2020 that Joe Biden’s Justice Department was correct to let Durham continue his investigation because it would expose the hollowness of Trump’s allegations. And it has.

The final, largest hole in the conspiracy theory is that there were in fact serious grounds for suspicion. By 2016 it was already apparent that Trump had hired as his campaign manager a guy who owed money to a Russian oligarch and who had previously managed the foreign campaign of a Russian puppet, had publicly asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, had exploited the results of that hack, among other things. The investigation turned up many more details, including a secret meeting where Trump’s campaign manager passed polling data on to a Russian agent, a secret business deal that promised to give Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk (and which he was exposing himself to Russian blackmail by denying in public), and so on.

Why would Sussmann go to the FBI? No doubt he wanted Clinton to win. Durham presupposes this was his only motive. But Sussmann was also privy to an allegation whose technical details he wasn’t qualified to judge, but which had potentially alarming implications. The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat to the United States is that Trump posed a security threat to the United States.

And still does.

gimmesometruth27

i believe this whole thing is what don jr would call "a big nothingburger".

Cropduster-80

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1531671033412997121

swing and a miss....

how many of our taxpayer dollars have been wasted on this witch hunt?

A lot I’m sure. Probably way less though than the tax   payer burden that happens every time Texas sues the federal government 

Halifax2TheMax

Former President Trump on Tuesday expressed outrage at the news that Micheal Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann is being investigated by a special counsel in relation to the origins of the bureau’s probe of Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the small conservative social networking site he founded.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” John Durham, the special counsel, said in a statement on Tuesday.

static111

Halifax2TheMax said:

Former President Trump on Tuesday expressed outrage at the news that Micheal Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann is being investigated by a special counsel in relation to the origins of the bureau’s probe of Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the small conservative social networking site he founded.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” John Durham, the special counsel, said in a statement on Tuesday.

lol our legal system is corrupt when the verdict is given by the most impartial jury they were able to pick...ok

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

Former President Trump on Tuesday expressed outrage at the news that Micheal Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann is being investigated by a special counsel in relation to the origins of the bureau’s probe of Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the small conservative social networking site he founded.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” John Durham, the special counsel, said in a statement on Tuesday.

sounds like the rantings of a truly desperate man. 

Cropduster-80

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Former President Trump on Tuesday expressed outrage at the news that Micheal Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann is being investigated by a special counsel in relation to the origins of the bureau’s probe of Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

“Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the small conservative social networking site he founded.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” John Durham, the special counsel, said in a statement on Tuesday.

sounds like the rantings of a truly desperate man. 

It’s ironic it’s corrupt if it doesn’t
do exactly what he wants 

It’s compromised if it doesn’t 
Bend to political pressure 

its partisan if it doesn’t 
deliver a partisan result 

it’s scared when it 

Basically ignores threats and rants 

an election is rigged 
anytime you lose but never when you don’t 

mickeyrat

 

Russia-Ukraine war Donald Trump Virginia Government and politics

Witness contradicts theory against Trump dossier analyst

By MATTHEW BARAKAT

Today

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The FBI agent who questioned a think tank analyst charged with lying to the bureau about his role in the creation of a flawed dossier about former President Donald Trump has twice testified that he believes the analyst was truthful with him, jurors heard Wednesday.

FBI analyst Brian Auten testified for a second straight day at U.S. District Court in Alexandria at the trial of Igor Danchenko. The Russian-born analyst, who now lives in Virginia, faces a five-count indictment alleging he made false statements to the FBI about his sources of information he provided about Trump to British spy Christopher Steele.

Prosecutors allege that Danchenko fabricated one of his sources and obscured another when he was interviewed by the FBI about his role in the “Steele dossier.” That dossier, commissioned by Democrats in 2016, raised allegations of connections between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

During Wednesday's cross-examination, though, Auten acknowledged that he has had positive things to say about Danchenko in past testimony to a Senate committee and to the Office of the Inspector General, both of which conducted their own investigations about the FBI probe into links between Trump and Russia.

---

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Live Updates: Russia-Ukraine-War

West to bolster Ukraine air defense; nuke plant loses power

NATO cautious to avoid Ukraine war but members help anyway

Belarus army would likely have little impact in Ukraine war

The jury heard a partial transcript of testimony Auten gave to a Senate committee in October 2020, in which Auten said Danchenko “was being truthful about who his sub-sources were. I don’t think he was fabricating sub-sources.”

Auten told the jury he stands by the testimony he gave to the Senate.

The testimony was significant for the defense, which says special counsel John Durham has charged Danchenko with a crime when other government agencies found Danchenko to be credible. Special counsel Robert Mueller, who launched his own probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, never saw fit to charge Danchenko.

And the FBI, after three days of voluntary interviews Danchenko gave in January 2017, decided he was trustworthy enough to make him a paid “confidential human source” who would provide information to the bureau.

Durham was appointed by special counsel by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate any misconduct in the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. Danchenko is the third person to be prosecuted by Durham. It is the first of Durham’s cases that delves deeply into the origins of the dossier, which Trump derided as fake news and a political witch hunt.

Durham's other two cases resulted in an acquittal and a guilty plea with a sentence of probation.

In the Danchenko trial, prosecutors say he lied when he told the FBI he obtained some of his information in an anonymous phone call from a man he believed to be Sergei Millian, a former head of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.

Prosecutors say that Danchenko never spoke with Millian and that phone records show he never received an anonymous phone call at the time Danchenko claimed it occurred.

Prosecutors also say Danchenko lied when he told the FBI he never “talked” with a man named Charles Dolan about the allegations contained in the dossier.

Defense lawyers say that Danchenko did receive a call, perhaps over an internet app, from someone he genuinely believed to be Millian, and that he was truthful when he said he never “talked” with Dolan about the information in the dossier because their relevant exchanges were over email.

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

 

Russia-Ukraine war Donald Trump Virginia Government and politics

Witness contradicts theory against Trump dossier analyst

By MATTHEW BARAKAT

Today

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The FBI agent who questioned a think tank analyst charged with lying to the bureau about his role in the creation of a flawed dossier about former President Donald Trump has twice testified that he believes the analyst was truthful with him, jurors heard Wednesday.

FBI analyst Brian Auten testified for a second straight day at U.S. District Court in Alexandria at the trial of Igor Danchenko. The Russian-born analyst, who now lives in Virginia, faces a five-count indictment alleging he made false statements to the FBI about his sources of information he provided about Trump to British spy Christopher Steele.

Prosecutors allege that Danchenko fabricated one of his sources and obscured another when he was interviewed by the FBI about his role in the “Steele dossier.” That dossier, commissioned by Democrats in 2016, raised allegations of connections between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

During Wednesday's cross-examination, though, Auten acknowledged that he has had positive things to say about Danchenko in past testimony to a Senate committee and to the Office of the Inspector General, both of which conducted their own investigations about the FBI probe into links between Trump and Russia.

---

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Live Updates: Russia-Ukraine-War

West to bolster Ukraine air defense; nuke plant loses power

NATO cautious to avoid Ukraine war but members help anyway

Belarus army would likely have little impact in Ukraine war

The jury heard a partial transcript of testimony Auten gave to a Senate committee in October 2020, in which Auten said Danchenko “was being truthful about who his sub-sources were. I don’t think he was fabricating sub-sources.”

Auten told the jury he stands by the testimony he gave to the Senate.

The testimony was significant for the defense, which says special counsel John Durham has charged Danchenko with a crime when other government agencies found Danchenko to be credible. Special counsel Robert Mueller, who launched his own probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, never saw fit to charge Danchenko.

And the FBI, after three days of voluntary interviews Danchenko gave in January 2017, decided he was trustworthy enough to make him a paid “confidential human source” who would provide information to the bureau.

Durham was appointed by special counsel by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate any misconduct in the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. Danchenko is the third person to be prosecuted by Durham. It is the first of Durham’s cases that delves deeply into the origins of the dossier, which Trump derided as fake news and a political witch hunt.

Durham's other two cases resulted in an acquittal and a guilty plea with a sentence of probation.

In the Danchenko trial, prosecutors say he lied when he told the FBI he obtained some of his information in an anonymous phone call from a man he believed to be Sergei Millian, a former head of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.

Prosecutors say that Danchenko never spoke with Millian and that phone records show he never received an anonymous phone call at the time Danchenko claimed it occurred.

Prosecutors also say Danchenko lied when he told the FBI he never “talked” with a man named Charles Dolan about the allegations contained in the dossier.

Defense lawyers say that Danchenko did receive a call, perhaps over an internet app, from someone he genuinely believed to be Millian, and that he was truthful when he said he never “talked” with Dolan about the information in the dossier because their relevant exchanges were over email.

Should read, “that dossier, originally commissioned by republicans but picked up by the Clinton campaign after they dropped it, for reasons still unknown..........”

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

 

Russia-Ukraine war Donald Trump Virginia Government and politics

Witness contradicts theory against Trump dossier analyst

By MATTHEW BARAKAT

Today

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The FBI agent who questioned a think tank analyst charged with lying to the bureau about his role in the creation of a flawed dossier about former President Donald Trump has twice testified that he believes the analyst was truthful with him, jurors heard Wednesday.

FBI analyst Brian Auten testified for a second straight day at U.S. District Court in Alexandria at the trial of Igor Danchenko. The Russian-born analyst, who now lives in Virginia, faces a five-count indictment alleging he made false statements to the FBI about his sources of information he provided about Trump to British spy Christopher Steele.

Prosecutors allege that Danchenko fabricated one of his sources and obscured another when he was interviewed by the FBI about his role in the “Steele dossier.” That dossier, commissioned by Democrats in 2016, raised allegations of connections between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

During Wednesday's cross-examination, though, Auten acknowledged that he has had positive things to say about Danchenko in past testimony to a Senate committee and to the Office of the Inspector General, both of which conducted their own investigations about the FBI probe into links between Trump and Russia.

---

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Live Updates: Russia-Ukraine-War

West to bolster Ukraine air defense; nuke plant loses power

NATO cautious to avoid Ukraine war but members help anyway

Belarus army would likely have little impact in Ukraine war

The jury heard a partial transcript of testimony Auten gave to a Senate committee in October 2020, in which Auten said Danchenko “was being truthful about who his sub-sources were. I don’t think he was fabricating sub-sources.”

Auten told the jury he stands by the testimony he gave to the Senate.

The testimony was significant for the defense, which says special counsel John Durham has charged Danchenko with a crime when other government agencies found Danchenko to be credible. Special counsel Robert Mueller, who launched his own probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, never saw fit to charge Danchenko.

And the FBI, after three days of voluntary interviews Danchenko gave in January 2017, decided he was trustworthy enough to make him a paid “confidential human source” who would provide information to the bureau.

Durham was appointed by special counsel by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate any misconduct in the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. Danchenko is the third person to be prosecuted by Durham. It is the first of Durham’s cases that delves deeply into the origins of the dossier, which Trump derided as fake news and a political witch hunt.

Durham's other two cases resulted in an acquittal and a guilty plea with a sentence of probation.

In the Danchenko trial, prosecutors say he lied when he told the FBI he obtained some of his information in an anonymous phone call from a man he believed to be Sergei Millian, a former head of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.

Prosecutors say that Danchenko never spoke with Millian and that phone records show he never received an anonymous phone call at the time Danchenko claimed it occurred.

Prosecutors also say Danchenko lied when he told the FBI he never “talked” with a man named Charles Dolan about the allegations contained in the dossier.

Defense lawyers say that Danchenko did receive a call, perhaps over an internet app, from someone he genuinely believed to be Millian, and that he was truthful when he said he never “talked” with Dolan about the information in the dossier because their relevant exchanges were over email.

Should read, “that dossier, originally commissioned by republicans but picked up by the Clinton campaign after they dropped it, for reasons still unknown..........”

caught that

mickeyrat

gift article...

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=EdJ4epnosNKmAMR6RNQSVVOKSv76ZJBYeVPN7soF7MsGVv9P0ec1Nq_uGdmtBdHuJb8MNM6tQWvSc7OczMdv0S_ckJqTOk9g6tNNZrQft0pRQOe3Sz2A3hqhIF-AByfn0lp6eo8pfbdyDBDlKTqsef03X5Ds6uPsa6sK6r0jSMxqGdOjyqizV4P8frdCfJNzTUwUIHgs9ISTOwKSk7rqLnUUCkAmqJqVVwHZHuyt-sjCNtDRQBDUl7-b7ci1NKsZtdq6sf_IGSyypoAA0VzcSkPokQLZtl0mw4owboHU5UZ7YghAeq-MQVOkMf3tvjxm2-6pAbHAo-PrvwCm3WZOtrTCqdgJjg

 

WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

continues.....

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=EdJ4epnosNKmAMR6RNQSVVOKSv76ZJBYeVPN7soF7MsGVv9P0ec1Nq_uGdmtBdHuJb8MNM6tQWvSc7OczMdv0S_ckJqTOk9g6tNNZrQft0pRQOe3Sz2A3hqhIF-AByfn0lp6eo8pfbdyDBDlKTqsef03X5Ds6uPsa6sK6r0jSMxqGdOjyqizV4P8frdCfJNzTUwUIHgs9ISTOwKSk7rqLnUUCkAmqJqVVwHZHuyt-sjCNtDRQBDUl7-b7ci1NKsZtdq6sf_IGSyypoAA0VzcSkPokQLZtl0mw4owboHU5UZ7YghAeq-MQVOkMf3tvjxm2-6pAbHAo-PrvwCm3WZOtrTCqdgJjg

 

WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

continues.....

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Bull Durham has been vaccinated.

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=EdJ4epnosNKmAMR6RNQSVVOKSv76ZJBYeVPN7soF7MsGVv9P0ec1Nq_uGdmtBdHuJb8MNM6tQWvSc7OczMdv0S_ckJqTOk9g6tNNZrQft0pRQOe3Sz2A3hqhIF-AByfn0lp6eo8pfbdyDBDlKTqsef03X5Ds6uPsa6sK6r0jSMxqGdOjyqizV4P8frdCfJNzTUwUIHgs9ISTOwKSk7rqLnUUCkAmqJqVVwHZHuyt-sjCNtDRQBDUl7-b7ci1NKsZtdq6sf_IGSyypoAA0VzcSkPokQLZtl0mw4owboHU5UZ7YghAeq-MQVOkMf3tvjxm2-6pAbHAo-PrvwCm3WZOtrTCqdgJjg

 

WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

continues.....

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Bull Durham has been vaccinated.

against apolitical, nonpartisan rule of law virus.

would appear to be highly effective.....

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=EdJ4epnosNKmAMR6RNQSVVOKSv76ZJBYeVPN7soF7MsGVv9P0ec1Nq_uGdmtBdHuJb8MNM6tQWvSc7OczMdv0S_ckJqTOk9g6tNNZrQft0pRQOe3Sz2A3hqhIF-AByfn0lp6eo8pfbdyDBDlKTqsef03X5Ds6uPsa6sK6r0jSMxqGdOjyqizV4P8frdCfJNzTUwUIHgs9ISTOwKSk7rqLnUUCkAmqJqVVwHZHuyt-sjCNtDRQBDUl7-b7ci1NKsZtdq6sf_IGSyypoAA0VzcSkPokQLZtl0mw4owboHU5UZ7YghAeq-MQVOkMf3tvjxm2-6pAbHAo-PrvwCm3WZOtrTCqdgJjg

 

WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

continues.....

Well, well, well, talk about fruit from the poisonous tree and everything touched turning to shit. Fucking hilarious. Bill DISbarred should be subpoenaed before a senate investigory committee to testify about the criminal information provided by the Italians and the subsequent investigation or lack thereof. He should also be grilled on his pre-emptive obstruction of the Team Mueller and IG Horowitz reports. It’s clear as day that Billy DISbarred is a walking obstructionist deflector. What was that about every complaint being a projection, again? 

Can anyone name one person associated with POOTWH whose reputation isn’t complete shit? Anyone?

Fucking schmucks.

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=EdJ4epnosNKmAMR6RNQSVVOKSv76ZJBYeVPN7soF7MsGVv9P0ec1Nq_uGdmtBdHuJb8MNM6tQWvSc7OczMdv0S_ckJqTOk9g6tNNZrQft0pRQOe3Sz2A3hqhIF-AByfn0lp6eo8pfbdyDBDlKTqsef03X5Ds6uPsa6sK6r0jSMxqGdOjyqizV4P8frdCfJNzTUwUIHgs9ISTOwKSk7rqLnUUCkAmqJqVVwHZHuyt-sjCNtDRQBDUl7-b7ci1NKsZtdq6sf_IGSyypoAA0VzcSkPokQLZtl0mw4owboHU5UZ7YghAeq-MQVOkMf3tvjxm2-6pAbHAo-PrvwCm3WZOtrTCqdgJjg

 

WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

continues.....

Well, well, well, talk about fruit from the poisonous tree and everything touched turning to shit. Fucking hilarious. Bill DISbarred should be subpoenaed before a senate investigory committee to testify about the criminal information provided by the Italians and the subsequent investigation or lack thereof. He should also be grilled on his pre-emptive obstruction of the Team Mueller and IG Horowitz reports. It’s clear as day that Billy DISbarred is a walking obstructionist deflector. What was that about every complaint being a projection, again? 

Can anyone name one person associated with POOTWH whose reputation isn’t complete shit? Anyone?

Fucking schmucks.

he seems to be out on a redemption tour as of late as well. guess maher pushed back pretty good.  havent seen it but thats the talk.