By
November 9, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/critic-durham-indictment-bad-news-for-dossier-believers/
Danchenko, a Russian citizen living in Virginia, is accused of lying to the FBI regarding his sources — one of whom turned out to be a PR executive with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Danchenko helped Steele compile the dossier, which put forth several outrageous allegations — including that Russian security services possessed a tape of Donald Trump in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes who were urinating on a bed where then-President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had previously stayed.
On Monday, Wemple said the indictment revealed that the sourcing behind the file was “threadbare in the most charitable of depictions,” as were initial media reports about the dossier’s contents.
One example Wemple cited was reporting by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and ABC News in 2017 alleging that the most headline-grabbing claims in the dossier — including the supposed existence of the “pee tape” — came from Sergei Millian, former president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.
However, Danchenko’s recent indictment claims that while Danchenko “never spoke” to Millian, Steele believed Danchenko had “direct contact” with Millian.
“News organizations may face a mismatch as they place their reporting alongside the indictment,” he wrote. “Where the indictment relies on emails, interviews and other powerful investigative tools, the Journal’s initial scoop cited a single anonymous source. The sourcing for the Post’s reporting about Millian’s alleged conversation is unclear, while ABC News attributes its primary assertion to ‘a person familiar with the raw intelligence provided to the FBI.’
“These news outlets now face a steep journalistic challenge — that of returning to their source(s) in an effort to back up the original claims that Millian was an unwitting source for the dossier,” Wemple added. “If that effort doesn’t produce enough evidence to surmount the allegations in the indictment, there’s only one option: Retract the stories. Allowing one version of events to sit awkwardly alongside another — and leaving it to the reader to decide — won’t cut it.”
The media critic also called out MSNBC host Rachel Maddow after she suggested that Durham was trying to, as she put it, “discredit the whole Russia investigation by arresting various sources for that investigation, to discredit the Steele dossier because so many people have been led to think that was the reason for the investigation.”
“Just as Durham can’t use the dossier to deflect from the larger Trump-Russia tableau, however, people such as Maddow and others can’t use the larger Trump-Russia tableau to deflect from their coverage of the dossier,” Wemple concluded. “A reckoning is years overdue.”
Over the weekend, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said he is expecting “many indictments” from Durham’s investigation and argued that everyone involved in creating the dossier is in “jeopardy.”
“What happened with the Steele dossier, a grand jury is saying, was criminal in nature and I expect that all of the folks that are involved with creating it and peddling it falsely would be in jeopardy,” Ratcliffe told Fox News, “and I know that that’s what John Durham is looking at, and as I talked about, this goes to the highest levels of our government and government agencies involved.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/08/steele-dossier-msnbc-cnn-danchenko-durham/
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow in December 2017 aired a special report on the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. That document, claimed Maddow, relied on information coming from Steele’s “deep cover sources inside Russia.”
A federal indictment unsealed Thursday has something to say about the quality of those “sources.”
It charges Igor Danchenko, the dossier’s primary intelligence collector, with making false statements to the FBI about his interactions with sources consulted for the dossier. Danchenko isn’t a deep-cover type; he’s a Russian national living in the United States and a former Brookings Institution analyst who “focused on analyzing business and political risks in Russia,” as the New York Times put it.
The charges against Danchenko are the work of John Durham, the Justice Department special counsel whose mandate is to investigate the investigation into Donald Trump and Russia. He has been on the case for 2½ years.
The Danchenko indictment doubles as a critique of several media outlets that covered Steele’s reports in 2016 and after its publication by BuzzFeed in January 2017. As discussed in this series, CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, the McClatchy newspaper chain and various pundits showered credibility upon the dossier without corroboration — and found other topics to cover when a forceful debunking arrived in December 2019 via a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
The indictment provides further insight into why the FBI had concluded that the dossier was mostly a jumble of claims that were inaccurate, unconfirmed or already publicly reported. Sourcing for the dossier was threadbare in the most charitable of depictions.
For example: According to the indictment, Danchenko denied to the FBI that he’d discussed dossier material with a person described in the document as “PR Executive-1,” since identified as Charles Dolan Jr., a longtime Democratic operative who volunteered for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign. The indictment traces at least one allegation in the dossier directly to exchanges that Danchenko had with Dolan. “Any thought, rumor, allegation. I am working on a related project against Trump,” wrote Danchenko in an email to Dolan.
The timing for this interaction was August 2016, when Paul Manafort resigned from his position as Trump campaign chairman. According to the indictment, Danchenko asked Dolan for information about the campaign’s shakeup, and Dolan responded that he’d had drinks with a “GOP friend” who said people on the campaign wanted Manafort out. The dossier revised the wording here and there, but provided a report that was “substantially the same” as what Dolan had passed along, in the words of the indictment. Talk about circular logic: The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee — via research group Fusion GPS — yet here was a career Democrat feeding information to its primary collector.
It gets more embarrassing: The indictment alleges that Dolan never actually had drinks with a Republican pal; instead, he “fabricated the fact of the meeting,” in the words of the indictment, and pieced together the gossip from news sources. That looks pretty bad, especially alongside Steele’s recent defense of the dossier to ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. “I stand by the work we did, the sources that we had and the professionalism which we applied to it,” Steele said, speculating there would be more revelations down the road.
Another key claim in the indictment relates to an alleged dossier source identified as “Chamber President-1,” also known as Sergei Millian, former president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. In January 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that “key claims” from the dossier originated from Millian, although not directly; they were “relayed by at least one third party to the British ex-spy who prepared the dossier." ABC News published a similar story a week later.
The Washington Post in March 2017 reported on a conversation in which Millian “shared some tantalizing claims about Donald Trump” — namely, that “Trump had a long-standing relationship with Russian officials … and those officials were now feeding Trump damaging information about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.” Another claim that purportedly came in part from Millian was the dossier’s most infamous — about Trump allegedly participating in activity at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton with prostitutes.
The Danchenko indictment, however, challenges the idea that Millian fed information to Steele’s project, wittingly or unwittingly. It claims that Danchenko “never spoke” to Millian, and that his claims of a phone call were fabricated. That’s particularly troublesome to fans of the dossier, because Steele believed that Danchenko had “direct contact” with Millian, according to the indictment. Danchenko “never corrected [Steele] about that erroneous belief,” the indictment states.
The Wall Street Journal on Friday published a story noting that the indictment contradicted the newspaper’s original reporting on Millian. "We will continue to follow the Danchenko case closely and report updates as they develop,” a Journal spokesperson said in a statement. We asked the Journal if it intended to add an editor’s note/correction/retraction to the January 2017 story. A spokesperson declined to elaborate.
The Post also covered the indictment’s implications for its previous story. Executive Editor Sally Buzbee said in a statement: “The indictment raises new questions about whether Sergei Millian was a source for the Steele dossier, as The Post reported in 2017. We are continuing to report on the origins and ramifications of the document.” In a follow-up inquiry, we asked whether The Post is reviewing its previous work on Millian and whether it would publish its findings. A spokesperson for the newspaper declined to comment beyond Buzbee’s statement.
ABC News issued this statement: “We are reviewing this in light of new developments.”
News organizations may face a mismatch as they place their reporting alongside the indictment. Where the indictment relies on emails, interviews and other powerful investigative tools, the Journal’s initial scoop cited a single anonymous source. The sourcing for the The Post’s reporting about Millian’s alleged conversation is unclear, while ABC News attributes its primary assertion to “a person familiar with the raw intelligence provided to the FBI.”
These news outlets now face a steep journalistic challenge — that of returning to their source(s) in an effort to back up the original claims that Millian was an unwitting source for the dossier. If that effort doesn’t produce enough evidence to surmount the allegations in the indictment, there’s only one option: Retract the stories. Allowing one version of events to sit awkwardly alongside another — and leaving it to the reader to decide — won’t cut it.
On her Thursday night program, Maddow cast the Danchenko indictment in political terms, wondering whether the goal of Durham’s work is to “try to discredit the whole Russia investigation by arresting various sources for that investigation, to discredit the Steele dossier because so many people have been led to think that was the reason for the investigation.”
There is, indeed, far more to Russia-Trump than the dossier. Just spend some time with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report, a nearly 1,000-page document that lays out the whole mess. “The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary,” noted the New York Times in its summary.
Just as Durham can’t use the dossier to deflect from the larger Trump-Russia tableau, however, people such as Maddow and others can’t use the larger Trump-Russia tableau to deflect from their coverage of the dossier. A reckoning is years overdue.
The infamous Christopher Steele dossier’s low credibility took another blow last week, but news organizations and pundits who routinely used it to push the narrative that Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia don’t appear in a rush to correct the record or give back awards anytime soon.
Last week, Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, charged Steele sub-source Igor Danchenko with making false statements to the FBI. The indictment shed light on Danchenko's ties to Democrats, casting doubt on the validity of the media's past coverage of the dossier, which CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and so many others spent years salivating over.
"If these outlets had credibility to lose it would cause their credibility to go down, but because they have none it just cements they are not to be paid attention to in any way, shape, or form," The Federalist senior editor Mollie Hemingway told Fox News Digital.
Durham is known as a methodical, apolitical and unrelenting prosecutor. Thus far, his work seems to betray a belief that the FBI got played by the Clinton campaign to investigate the Trump team. The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the figurative tail if he can get the whole dog — a question that now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham’s indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.
Danchenko’s indictment on five counts of lying to the FBI serves two obvious purposes. First, these counts — with a possible five years in prison on each — are enough to concentrate the mind of any defendant about possibly flipping for the prosecution. Second, indicting Danchenko “hoists the wretch” for potential targets to see and consider that there but for the grace of God — and Durham — go they.
The background details of Durham’s three indictments so far have assembled an impressive list of “great Democrats” who contributed directly or indirectly to the creation of the Russia collusion scandal. Indeed, the collusion case increasingly is taking on a type of “Murder on the Orient Express” feel, in which all of the suspects may turn out to be culprits. While the statute of limitations may protect some, Durham has shown that he can use the crime of lying to federal investigators (18 U.S.C. 1001) as a handy alternative. Targets must admit to prior misconduct or face a new charge.
Thus, Durham clearly seems to be making a meticulous case that the Steele dossier was a political hit job orchestrated by Clinton operatives. His latest indictment connects Danchenko to several intriguing figures and groups that, in turn, relate to the Clinton campaign.
I'm sure nobody minds having these links repeated again to previous threads/discussions here related to this HUGE deal:
John Durham Grand Jury Indicts Lawyer Whose Firm Represented Democrats in 2016
Started by metmike - Sept. 16, 2021, 8:37 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75018/
More Mueller corruption!
Started by metmike - Sept. 11, 2020, 6:44 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59031/
FISA report: DOJ watchdog releases findings on Russia probe surveillance Started by metmike - Dec. 9, 2019, 1:12 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44076/
IG testimony today
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 11, 2019, 5:09 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44129/
Alan Dershowitz: Stone indictment follows concerning Mueller pattern
This is exactly like what Mueller did for 3 years!
More Mueller corruption!
Started by metmike - Sept. 11, 2020, 6:44 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59031/
Re: Re: Pardon for Michael Flynn
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/61735/#61805
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60589/#60599
Reviewing Muellers corruption with facts:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/55925/#55961
They got away with this one too:
June 2016: Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24146/#24224
And today, The Clinton Foundation issued this memo.
"We deeply regret the suicide of Mr Durham next Tuesday".
That the article is calling this bad news for MSM is startling. There are people with a LOT more skin in the game risking a great deal more than credibility. AT least in a just world, or one that at least pretends to be.
I've got even money on nothing at all coming of this, particularly from the MSM. WHen HIllary skated on her server, I was pretty sure it was over. With the current "invulnarability" of the Biden crime family, I am nearly certain.
Fox will cover it and be pillaried for it.
I hope and pray I am wrong.
Tim, don't you get the feeling like I do that this is mostly distraction? This is the magician getting you to focus on his left hand so you don't look at what his right hand is doing?
Sundance is now saying openly what I've been saying for a long time.
Against catastrophic outcomes, we have been pointing out how the people within the Biden administration are not incompetent; they know exactly what they are doing, and they are destroying the U.S. economic system on purpose. All of their economic damage is by design, it’s a feature – not a flaw.
Joe Biden is a disposable front man for the people organizing the objective, so they don’t have to worry about political damage. The Biden term was designed for a single set of four-year rapid advancements for the Democrat Socialist agenda. The Biden poll ratings and favorability, or lack therein, do not factor into the plan of action; those issues are irrelevant.
Oh, the damage to this country can't be an accident.
But the Durham report? Might be a remnant of the last "rogue" admin that has not yet been squashed.
Just a question I don't have an answer
Do other western democracies have as much corruption as the USA???
I know we all have our corrupt politicians etc but golly why is the USA in the headlines so much, for so much??
Do other western democracies have as much corruption as the USA???
I know we all have our corrupt politicians etc but golly why is the USA in the headlines so much, for so much??
As I've said, I think it is because of a couple of things. First, because of all the money that flows through Washington, it is probably the most corrupt city on earth. Second, I think it is just the phase of the cycle. The US is coming off of the part of the cycle where we were the undisputed "king of the world." As with bull and bear markets, we should expect that the bear will be proportional to the bull. Simple human nature, I think.
Wayne, I wanted to say because we have so many dumb voters, but then I thought that you guys still have Fidel, Jr. for PM. (BG)
Maybe I am biased but IMHO our PM has a lot of stupid and some corruption
Not sure which is the worst
Wayne, my referring to him as Fidel, jr might have been a puzzle. You might enjoy this. A Canadian thought it was a joke, but after investigating it, he isn't so sure anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtXmeWqkVuA&t=573s&ab_channel=TheCanNews
Oh, it might start up well into the video, so you might have to restart it at the beginning.