October 4, 2022 – Bobulinski: I haven’t heard from FBI since before 2020 election despite promises of follow-up

“During an interview aired on Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski stated that if Facebook, Twitter, or anyone else had reached out to him to verify the authenticity of emails sent to him in The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, he would have produced the email, with the metadata, within minutes, but no one did.

Bobulinski said, “I went to the second debate in Nashville between President Trump and Joe Biden. That night, I flew to D.C., and the next morning, there was a big debate. Do I voluntarily walk into the FBI or do I go sit down with Sen. Johnson (R-WI) and Sen. Grassley (R-IA)? My lawyers decided it was better that I voluntarily go in to sit and provide these facts. And so, on the morning of October 23, the morning after the debate, I spent five-plus hours sitting in a room with, at one point, I think as [many] as six federal agents, walking through all the facts of my knowledge of the Biden family, how I got involved in this, the trips around the world, CEFC, Chairman Ye, and stuff like that. At the end of that meeting, and remember, I voluntarily went there, so they were happy to take any information I provided to them. I wish I had pictures of the faces of the two main agents that were interviewing me. Because I would say something and you could just see the shock in their face and they would say, let’s take a minute, they’d get up and walk out of the room, and the agents would sort of convene and then come back and restart the interview. Because these facts are just for the sake of our country, for national security, at that point, he was candidate Joe Biden, now he’s the sitting President of the United States, the most powerful person in the free world, and daunting.”

He continued, “So, at the end of that five-plus hour interview, the head of station told my lawyers, listen, an individual named Tim Thibault is going to run point on all of this. We’re definitely going to have Tony come back in for a follow-up interview. It could be as early as next week. Some of the people that were in the room weren’t well-versed on all these facts, we may want to have people come in from Baltimore or Delaware. And I was ready to sit down with anybody that needed me to or travel wherever I wanted to. And so the head of station gave my lawyers Tim Thibault’s cell phone number. Tim was not there that day. … But my lawyers had an hour, hour-and-a-half call with him that Friday night, October 23. And subsequent calls through the weekend and the following week, when I was then coming on your show to provide the facts to the American people. And they were supposed to be working [on] a follow-up interview. And Tim Thibault, in his last discussion with my legal counsel [said], listen, we know Tony’s cooperating. We appreciate all the information he’s provided. We will follow up with you. We’re definitely going to have him come in for a follow-up interview or spend some more time on this. And I haven’t heard from them since.”

Bobulinski also said that his lawyers haven’t heard anything since. (Read more: Breitbart, 10/4/2020) (Archive)

October 6, 2022 – Huma Abedin says Hillary Clinton ‘faced impossible standards’ as a woman in politics

“Former campaign vice chair for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, Huma Abedin, told “The View” hosts on Thursday that Clinton faced “impossible standards” as a woman in politics.

Co-host Ana Navarro said “politics have become a personality contest” and asked Abedin about Vice President Kamala Harris being “judged” by the same “phantom ideal woman” as Clinton.

“I know the challenge and you know this well that Hillary had to face just as a woman in politics,” Abedin said. “All these impossible standards, you know, she needs to be taller, shorter, talk this way. This is annoying, you know, she looks angry when she speaks. It was almost like you couldn’t win no matter what you said.”

Abedin said Clinton was never the “personality candidate” and said no one ever questioned whether she was “qualified.” (Read more: Fox News, 10/6/2022)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: Our timeline suggests the “impossible standards” that Hillary “faced” and had a hard time living up to, are the basic moral standards most people try to live by every day.)

October 6, 2022 – What of Charles Dolan and the Clinton Campaign in the upcoming Danchenko trial?

(…) Expect Charles Dolan to testify to his conversations with Danchenko and others relating to the dossier allegations at the trial. He’s already testified before a grand jury. For background, Dolan is described in the Danchenko indictment as having “maintained historical and ongoing involvement in Democratic politics.” His history includes serving as chairman of a national Democratic political organization, being a state chairman of Bill Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, and an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Based on his ties with the Clintons, one would think that the Clinton Campaign would have known about Dolan’s contacts with Danchenko. However, the Danchenko indictment states “individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign did not direct, and were not aware of, [Dolan’s] meetings with Danchenko and other Russian nationals.”

That statement concerns Dolan’s lack of interactions with the Clinton Campaign. It still leaves unanswered the question of whether Danchenko had any contacts with the Clinton campaign, and whether the Clinton campaign was aware of Danchenko’s activities.

Two theories on that. It’s possible that the Clinton campaign received updates on the opposition research but otherwise isolated itself from these matters, preferring its lawyers at Perkins Coie and its contractors at Fusion GPS (and their sources) get their hands dirty. That would be consistent with what we saw in the Michael Sussmann trial, a real-time demonstration of how the Clinton machine uses the attorney-client and work-product privileges to manipulate the press, spread false accusations, and hide a number of sins.

It is also possible that the Clinton campaign had more knowledge about Danchenko than has been made publicly available. I bring that up because back in December, we discussed a curious filing by Durham, which confirmed that the Clinton campaign and “multiple former employees of that campaign” were subject to “matters before the Special Counsel.” In that filing, Durham discussed the potential conflict of interest of Danchenko’s lawyers, whose firm also represented the Clinton campaign and those former campaign employees.

Specifically, Durham raised these areas of inquiry that may become issues at the Danchenko trial:

• The Clinton Campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information in the dossiers sourced by Danchenko;
• The Clinton Campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness of Danchenko’s collection methods and sub-sources;
• Meetings or communications between and among the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele regarding or involving Danchenko;
• Danchenko’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton Campaign’s role in the activities surrounding the Steele Dossier; and
• The extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled Danchenko’s activities.

All of those points are important, but that last one is particularly compelling and is worth repeating: “The extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled Danchenko’s activities.”

That implies the Clinton Campaign’s awareness of Danchenko and contacts with Danchenko. (After all, if the answer was “no,” then there would be no conflict.) Thus the potential conflict described by Durham:

“the Clinton Campaign and [Danchenko] each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI.”

All this reminds us of a question we have previously asked. If the Clinton Campaign was being informed of the work by Fusion GPS, what of the likelihood that the Clinton Campaign was informing the work of Fusion GPS?

And here’s a follow-up question: from whom did Danchenko get the name Sergei Millian?

Furthermore, one has to ask whether those Clinton Campaign/Danchenko contacts, if they existed, stopped after the election – or whether they continued through Danchenko’s 2017 interviews with the FBI.

Will these issues be raised, and will we get answers on the Clinton Campaign’s ties to Danchenko (or Danchenko’s “sources”)? As outside observers, we can’t – and won’t – make guarantees. There’s danger in false promises just like there’s danger in false hope. Durham, however, has suggested the possibility of former representatives of the Clinton Campaign testifying at trial, stating:

“in the event that one or more former representatives of the Clinton Campaign are called to testify” at trial, Danchenko and the witness “would be represented by the same law firm, resulting in a potential conflict.”

(Read more: The Reactionary/Techno Fog, 10/6/2022)  (Archive)

October 6, 2022 – FBI team involved in censorship of Hunter Biden laptop story identified

“The FBI team that was in communication with Facebook before the social media company censored the original Hunter Biden laptop story has been identified, according to a new court filing.

Meta, Facebook’s parent company, identified the team as the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), according to an updated complaint entered late on Oct. 6.

Meta named the team after receiving a subpoena in a case alleging the federal government pressured Big Tech firms to censor users.

“Pursuant to the third-party subpoena, Meta has identified the FBI’s FITF, as supervised by Laura Dehmlow, and Elvis Chan as involved in the communications between the FBI and Meta that led to Facebook’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story,” the updated complaint states.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, said in August that Facebook reduced the reach of posts about Hunter Biden’s laptop in response to advice from the FBI.

(…) Laura Dehmlow is a supervisor of FITF. She has been named as a defendant in the case along with Elvis Chan, a special agent who manages the cyber branch at the FBI’s San Francisco Field Office.

According to new documents produced by the government as part of discovery in the case, Dehmlow briefed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Cybersecurity Advisory Committee on March 1, 2022. Minutes of the meeting show Dehmlow telling members that the FITF actually started in 2016 and has since grown to 80 workers.

Asked about goals for approaching mal-, mis-, and disinformation, Dehmlow said that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable; we need to early educate the populace; and that today, critical thinking seems to be a problem currently,” according to the minutes.

Chan, meanwhile, bragged on a recent podcast that the San Francisco office “was very involved in helping to protect the US elections in 2020” by working with private companies and election officials. He also indicated he works closely with CISA Director Jen Easterly, who has been revealed to have taken part in pressuring Big Tech companies to crack down on alleged misinformation.

“We talked with all of these entities I mentioned regularly, at least on a monthly basis. And right before the election, probably on a weekly basis. If they were seeing anything unusual, if we were seeing anything unusual, sharing intelligence with technology companies, with social media companies, so that they could protect their own platforms. That’s where the FBI and the US government can actually help companies,” Chan said.  (Read more: The Epoch Times, 10/07/2022)  (Archive)

October 11, 2022 – Danchenko Trial-Day 1: Transcripts show FBI’s million dollar offer to Christopher Steele; Sergei Millian was a prior FBI source

“We have the transcripts from day 1 of the Igor Danchenko trial. Pretrial matters and jury selection took up all of yesterday morning; openings and the prosecution’s case-in-chief, led by Special Counsel Durham, started in the afternoon.

Let’s dig in and start with the opening statements.

Special Counsel Prosecutor Michael Keilty opened with explanations of Danchenko’s lies to the FBI and discussed some FBI misconduct:

 

(…) Auten was also present for the FBI’s interview of Steele in October 2016, just weeks before the first FISA application was submitted.’

Q: When you and Mr. Varacalli, and Mr. Gaeta, and Mr. Guessford met with Christopher Steele in early October of 2016, did Christopher Steele provide any corroborative information for the information that was contained in his reports, in the dossier reports?

A: Not for the allegations, no.

( ) …Durham asked about the FBI offer to pay Steele to corroborate his information – what we might call the “million dollar” question. Here is Auten’s testimony on that matter:

As to Steele’s sources, Auten admitted Steele didn’t provide the FBI with the names of any sources back in October 2016.

Q:        So you talked to Mr. Steele about sourcing. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Steele, in early October of 2016 provided you or your colleagues with the names of any of the sources?

A:        Sources, no.

(…) Durham also asked Auten about Sergei Millian, whose name had been discussed in the October 2016 Steele interview. Auten stated that Millian had previously been a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office.

Q:        And what was that relationship?

A:        Mr. Millian, at one time, had been a source.
Q:        When you say “source,” that’s the same thing as confidential human source, correct?

A:        That is correct.

Q:        In common parlance, might be known as an informant?

A:        In common parlance, yes.

Q:        And do you remember for how long Mr. Millian had been a confidential human source for the FBI?

A:        I don’t recall that.

Q:        Do you recall or do you know in German what the nature of the assistance was that Millian provided?

A:        I know where he had provided the assistance. I don’t know exactly what type of assistance it had been.

Q:        Okay. So you know that he has helped as a CHS?

A:        Correct.

Q:        For a period of time?

A:        Correct.

Q:        And you said you knew where he was providing that information?

A:        Correct.

Q:        And where was that?

A:        I believe it was the Atlanta — the Atlanta field office.

Q:        Okay. Do you know, again, personal knowledge, do you know whether or not at some point in time Millian’s status as a CHS ended, he was closed?

A:        Yes.

Q:        And why was it closed, if you know?

A:        I believe it was closed because he moved out of the area of responsibility for the Atlanta field office.

Q:        Now, with respect to Mr. Millian, you heard about Millian from Steele, you knew he had a relationship with the bureau, correct?

A:        Correct.

As an aside, let’s briefly discuss the importance of Millian’s prior relationship with the FBI. Most significantly, it put the FBI on notice that Millian would be willing to corroborate any Steele/Danchenko allegations. The FBI never took advantage of that prior relationship. Again, here we have the FBI failing to follow-up on leads because it knew such steps would blow-up its investigation.

Back to the transcript. Auten said the FBI opened an investigation on Millian after the October 2016 interview of Christopher Steele. He admitted the FBI found no evidence Millian had “assisted in the interference” of the 2016 presidential election.

Q:        Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether or not — again, to your personal knowledge – whether or not the bureau opened some file on Mr. Millian?

A:        Yes.

Q:        And was that a matter investigated by the Bureau?

A:        Yes.

Q:        And to your personal knowledge, was it at some point closed?

A:        Yes.

Q:        Were any charges brought against Millian?

A:        No.

Q:        Was there any wrongdoing in terms of him assisting in the interference in some way with the 2016 presidential election?

A:        No.

However, the Millian allegations – which arose from Danchenko’s claims to Steele – were still included in original FISA application and all subsequent renewals:

(Read more: Techno Fog/The Reactionary, 10/12/2022)  (Archive)

October 12, 2022 – The FBI asks for more time to release Seth Rich laptop documents

“Yesterday the government asked for more time to respond to U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant’s September 29, 2022 order directing the FBI to produce all records related to Seth Rich’s laptop. Somewhat relatedly, the FBI is withholding three reports produced by CrowdStrike in August of 2016 regarding the purported hack of the Democratic National Committee.

The order itself is pretty straightforward, at least with respect to Seth’s personal laptop, because it directs the FBI to “produce the information it possesses related to Seth Rich’s laptop and responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests within 14 days of this Order.” On the other hand, the order does not discuss Seth’s work laptop, which is also in the possession of the FBI.

I’m waiting for the FBI to explain what it thinks needs to be clarified, then I may be filing my own motion for clarification. Meanwhile, the FBI has cited only one narrow basis for withholding the records related to Seth’s laptop, namely his privacy. I’m not sure why it takes four weeks and an appellate lawyer to figure out why the judge did or didn’t get that issue right.

In any event, I’m reminded of something that I learned almost thirty years ago when I was a newspaper reporter: people with nothing to hide don’t try to hide nothing. (Read more: Lawflog, 10/13/2022)  (Archive)

October 12, 2022 – Danchenko Trial Day 2: Brian Auten reveals he is the “subject” of an investigation

(   ) …During the IG’s investigation, Auten had given “a number of positive statements regarding Mr. Danchenko.” He had also made positive statements to Congress about Danchenko – testimony Auten still stands by (if only because he’s dug himself into a hole):

“I believe the primary sub-source was being truthful about who his sub-sources were. I don’t think he was fabricating sub-sources.”

However, after Durham was appointed, Auten became – and apparently remains – a subject of the investigation:

Danchenko’s defense was effective when asking about Auten’s impression of Danchenko at the time of the interview. Auten thought Danchenko was “trying to help.” And Auten admitted that he and Stephen Somma didn’t necessarily want to conduct a thorough interview of Danchenko at the time, thus explaining why they didn’t demand documents or ask about every allegation in the Steele Dossier. They also laid the groundwork for the defense that Dolan wasn’t necessarily a “source” for Danchenko, in that Dolan relied on some open source articles when relaying information on the Trump campaign.

The defense also spent a good deal of time discussing Millian’s various phone numbers and the possibility that he (or the person Danchenko “thought” was Millian) used an App like Skype, WhatsApp, Wickr, or Telegram to contact Danchenko. The flaw? Danchenko’s e-mails to Millian requesting to speak over the phone or meet – after the alleged call.

Redirect by Durham

Durham again focused on Auten and the Crossfire Hurricane Team’s efforts to corroborate Danchenko’s statements. Auten’s testimony was an admission of how little they did, ignoring both travel records and phone records.

There were further details on Auten being a “subject” of an “inquiry.” The investigation into Auten – who is a subject, not a target – has to do with the Danchenko matter and also Crossfire Hurricane and the Carter Page FISAs:

(Read more: The Reactionary/Techno Fog, 10/12/2022)  (Archive)

October 13, 2022 – Danchenko Trial Day 3: Charles Dolan and Danchenko handling agent, Kevin Helson testimonies; FBI paid Danchenko $200,000

Charles Dolan Jr. is the first witness on the stand. Kielty will be examining for the government.

Dolan goes through his background. Involved in the 1980 presidential campaign for President Jimmy Carter.

Dolan also worked as a political consultant for Congressional campaigns and the Democratic Governors Association. He has joined a government relations firm and served as a liaison between lobbying operations and public affairs communications operations.

He reportedly worked for DC-based PR unit Powell Tate as well as Ketchum Inc. in early 2000s for 4-5 years. Beyond Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, Dolan says that he has worked as a paid advisor or a volunteer for every DNC campaign since Carter’s besides Obama campaign.

While working for Ketchum, Dolan worked closely with Russia because Ketchum represented the Russian federation. His role at Ketchum was to attract foreign investment. Dolan had regular conference calls with Dmitry Peskov, who is the press secretary for Russian President Putin.

Dolan had meetings with Russian ambassadors and people at embassy as well as various ministers. As far as Dolan’s personal interactions with Peskov, the 2 men met 1-2x per year. When Kielty asks what Dolan talked about w Peskov, Dolan stutters & says: “Things we were working on.”

While working with Ketchum, Dolan traveled to Russia 1-2 times per year, and through this work with the Russian Federation he was also involved in the G20 summit. Dolan also worked with Walt Disney in Russia helping to get their cable TV network and broadcast underway.

Around 2015 Dolan was employed at KGlobal, a PR firm in D.C. Danchenko met Dolan through Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institute who, per the Brookings Institute website: “[is] a senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings.

She recently served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.

From 2006 to 2009, she served as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at The National Intelligence Council.” Fiona Hill had previously been appointed by Trump as deputy assistant to the president and senior director…for European and Russian affairs on his National Security Council staff. Hill left the White House on July 15, 2019.

Back to how Dolan and Danchenko met.

Danchenko was trying to help his former schoolmate Olga Galkina find a PR firm. During March or April of 2016, she met with Dolan in the company of Danchenko. Dolan says he met with Galkina to discuss KGlobal doing business with the company she worked for.

Dolan also mentioned Gregg Hartley, a Republican lobbyist. Dolan said that his communications with Danchenko occurred over email and phone, plus having breakfast and lunch together at times.

Dolan said that he would communicate with Danchenko to check on Olga Galkina. Dolan understood that Danchenko was working as a political risk operative in London, where Orbis is based.

Dolan learned of Christopher Steele and Christopher Borrows of Orbis through Danchenko, who said in an email that Dolan would meet Steele and Borrows at some point if he was in London or if Steele and Borrows came to Washington, D.C.

Government Exhibit 702 is an email from Danchenko to Dolan dated April 29, 2016. Danchenko thanks Dolan for lunch and says he forwarded Dolan’s letter to Steele and Borrows.

He makes the point that he’ll introduce the 3 men if they ever are in London or D.C., respectively.
Danchenko says he didn’t get his new passport this month so he would be available for breakfast on May 20 or 13; he also said he’d be in Russia the first half of June. Mentions the Hotel Peter across the street from the Central Bank…

Dolan says he never met Christopher Steele in person and didn’t work with Orbis Business Intelligence which is Steele’s company.

Keilty* brings up Government Exhibit 703, an email dated April 29, 2016, from Danchenko to Dolan with an attachment and subject line is: Business Intelligence.

The email roughly read: “FYI, sample byproduct of my due diligence practice. Confidential: We don’t post these projects online.” The attachment is an Orbis document prepared by Danchenko; Dolan says he didn’t know what the document was about.

Note mentioned in the middle of this information: In May of 2016, Dolan finalized a trip to Cyprus to meet with Olga Galkina and make a presentation to her boss. Dolan’s PR firm, KGlobal, signed a contract with Galkina’s company.

Dolan says he kept communicating with Danchenko, and was approached by the Young Presidents’ Organization (YPO) to set up a conference in Moscow. Dolan felt that Danchenko would be useful.

YPO, according to Dolan, is an organization that sets up networking events to connect CEOs of various companies. Dolan mentions his relations with Steven Kupka, a D.C. attorney who was involved in YPO. Kupka wanted to organize a visit to Moscow.

The YPO conference scheduled for October 2016 was to be called “Inside the Kremlin.” Dolan was to be involved due to his extensive experience in Russia. The conference purpose was to introduce business people to Russian government officials.

Dolan approached Danchenko because he’s fluent in Russian and knows English well. At one point, they scouted hotels and venues in Moscow for the attendees to gather.

Dolan recalls meeting with Danchenko in Moscow in June 2016 and having lunch together. He reiterates their communications involved emails, phone calls, lunch, and breakfast, and would both attend the YPO conference. In fact, Danchenko was a speaker there.

In July 2016, when Dolan went to Cyprus for 3-5 days to meet w Danchenko’s friend Galkina for purported business with her company, Dolan confirms to Keilty he did “superficially” discuss upcoming US Presidential election with Galkina. Dolan specifically says they spoke about HRC.

After his visit in Cyprus, Dolan returned to the U.S., continuing to be in contact with Danchenko and planning the YPO conference.

Government Exhibit 712A is an email dated August 19, 2016 at 1:08 PM from Danchenko to Dolan. Danchenko says:

“Hi Chuck,

“Here are the bios of two of four. Who were the others?” This is referring to the people speaking at the YPO conference.

Danchenko then writes: “Could you please ask someone to comment on Paul Manafort’s resignation and anything on the Trump campaign? Off the record of course! Any thought, rumor, allegation. I am working on a related project against Trump.

I asked Gregg three months ago but he didn’t say much although shared a couple insights.

Thanks a lot!

Best,

Igor”

The “Gregg” that Danchenko is referring to is the aforementioned Gregg Hartley, Republican D.C. lobbyist.

Next, Keilty shares Dolan’s response. It roughly says: “Let me dig around on Manafort. Pretty sure the new team wanted him gone asap and used the recent NYT story to drive a stake in his heart.”

There an add’l reply after from Dolan to Danchenko that includes:

“Hi Igor,

I had a drink w a GOP friend of mine who knows [some things]. . . Corey Lewandowski who hates Manafort and still speaks to Trump & regularly played a role. He is said to be doing a happy dance for it.”
There was also a following paragraph that said “a number of people wanted Manafort out.”

At the end of the email, Dolan attached a Politico article about Paul Manafort.

On the stand, Dolan testifies under oath to Keilty that he actually never met this “GOP friend,” but got his story from cable news.

Dolan says he felt like embellishing the story because he knew Danchenko was working in political risk and inferred that Danchenko had helped him before so he was trying to return the favor.

Government Exhibit 713B is Danchenko’s response email to Dolan regarding the Manafort information.

Dated August 20, 2016, Danchenko wrote: “Our goals clearly coincide.” He adds that any additional insights from Dolan would be greatly appreciated.

Dolan’s ultimate response to Danchenko asking for more information was, “Thanks, I’ll let you know if I hear anything else.” Dolan testifies that he did not provide more insights on Manafort.

Dolan says that he probably would’ve been involved in the Clinton campaign but at that time was not.

Despite Danchenko writing to Dolan that he was working on an important project, Dolan did not know if Danchenko was working for anyone in particular.

Dolan makes it a point to note that this email exchange was one of 50 emails he had received from various people and didn’t put too much thought into it.

Dolan met with the Special Counsel on numerous occasions. He claims that he knew about the Steele dossier because his client at the time of its publishing, Galkina’s company, was named in the report.

Government Exhibit 112, a page from the dossier, dated August 22, 2016, Paragraph 3 reads: “Speaking separately, also in late July 2016, an American political figure associated with Trump and his campaign outlined the reason behind Manafort’s recent demise. . .”

The paragraph cites nearly verbatim what Charles Dolan wrote in his email to Danchenko about Paul Manafort. Coincidentally, Dolan’s email with the Manafort information was sent to Danchenko on August 20, 2016. So two days later, the information ended up in the Steele dossier.

There’s more discussion of Dolan describing his relationship with Danchenko. Dolan mentions a time that he saw Danchenko was at a park near his house with his daughter, so he went to go meet with him. Note: Dolan casually mentions picking up over the counter drugs for Danchenko.

Keilty brings up Government Exhibit 1202, the January 10, 2017, Buzzfeed article all about Trump’s “alleged” ties to Russia with the Steele dossier attached to it.

Conversation under seal.

Morning after Buzzfeed article published, on Jan 11, 2017, Dolan testifies he received many calls from # of people. Keilty asked if Dolan spoke with Danchenko that day. Dolan, stuttering on the stand, says he called Danchenko because he, “Was curious where the article came from.”

Keilty asked if Galkina was involved in the Steele dossier, to which Dolan responds that he isn’t sure but, “heard she was.”

In the January 11, 2017 phone call between Dolan and Danchenko, Dolan says that Danchenko told him that he would find out where the Steele dossier came from, but never got back to Dolan.

No further questions.

Sears begins cross-examining Dolan. Sears asks, “Besides Fiona Hill, how did you meet Danchenko?” Dolan says maybe through the Brookings Institute.

Regarding Dolan’s relationship with Olga Galkina, Dolan says he spoke to Galkina without Danchenko for most of their relationship, which began in D.C. in March 2016.

Sears probes that the YPO October 2016 conference was not always held in Russia? Dolan confirms that the conference was regularly held in various capitals around the world; just so happened to occur in Moscow at that time.

Dolan says that he and Danchenko were together at the October 2016 conference in Moscow and that Danchenko was a speaker there.

During cross examination, Dolan claims that the first time he ever saw the Steele dossier was in the January 10, 2017 Buzzfeed article, and that he was unaware Danchenko was working on the project.

Regarding Dolan’s October 31, 2021 meeting with the Special Counsel, Dolan says he doesn’t recall if he told the Special Counsel at the time that he didn’t think anything in the Steele dossier was from him.

Defense Exhibit 250 is shown. In August of 2021, Dolan still didn’t see anything in the Steele dossier that was from him.

On September 7, 2021, Dolan brought emails he had to the Special Counsel interview. Sears asks if they pressured Dolan to say that information in the dossier came from him? Dolan agreed that the information in the dossier was “very similar.”

Dolan doesn’t recall that he was being told by the Special Counsel that he was the subject of this investigation. Sears suggests that Dolan was upset upon finding out; Dolan still seems confused and says he’s not familiar with these terms, but hesitantly says, “Yes.”

Dolan says that the government reminded him that he needed to tell the truth. Dolan agreed that he had zero insider knowledge about Paul Manafort; he simply read articles and consumed news.

Dolan says that he had “no phone calls” about specific issues [related to the Steele dossier) or anything about the Trump campaign’s alleged connections to Russia.

Sears asks: “Wasn’t it your understanding Danchenko was writing a book?”

Dolan doesn’t agree and clarified that his understanding was that Danchenko was a political risk analyst and simply responded, and per Sears’ rhetoric, “threw [Danchenko] a bone” with the Manafort story.

Dolan reiterates that the specific email exchange with Danchenko was “1 of 50 that he had” with various individuals that day.

Sears asks Dolan if he’s aware that the government issued subpoenas for most of Dolan’s communications. Dolan testifies under oath that he never communicated with Danchenko about anything that was in the Steele dossier.

[END OF CROSS-EXAMINATION]

Keilty begins his redirect of Dolan and brings up the August 20, 2016 email where Dolan talked about “having a drink with his GOP friend” who Dolan alleged had dirt that could be useful for Danchenko, followed by the Manafort story.

Keilty makes it a point to tell Dolan that he said nothing about cable news in that email, only the GOP friend. This email was a response to Danchenko’s August 19, 2016 email asking Dolan for any “truth, rumor, etc.” about Manafort.

Keilty: “You think Danchenko was after you for open source research?”

The government retracts question just as the defense objects.

A few short reiterations of previously stated queries.

No further questions.

Kevin Helson, Danchenko’s handling agent, is called to the stand.

Helson has worked for the FBI for 20 years. He has a bachelors degree in chemistry and microbiology. He worked at the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation until 2002 before signing on to the FBI.

“Russia” is Helson’s assigned area within the FBI. Helson says his job is to identify individuals who are in U.S. under false pretenses or are acting against U.S.

In 2016, Helson worked in Washington, D.C. field office. He was asked to join Crossfire Hurricane, Helson declined.

Durham asks if Helson was aware in mid-September 2016, there was a Yahoo News article that the FBI was investigating Carter Page, or anything about Christopher Steele. Helson says that he was later aware but not part of the project.

At the end of January 2017, Helson was approached by people from Crossfire Hurricane (Steve Somma* and supervisory intelligence analyst Crossfire Hurricane). For context, Helson confirms to Durham that Auten worked out of headquarters but that Helson worked in the D.C. field office.

Helson’s supervisor gave him a task to meet with Igor Danchenko and eventually bring him on as a confidential human source (CHS). Auten and others related to Crossfire Hurricane were reportedly concerned about follow-up questions from the Steele dossier…

…that merged with Helson’s own projects out of the D.C. office, since Helson’s assigned focus area is matters of intelligence related to Russia.

In late Feb or early March 2017, Kevin Helson, Steve Somma, and Jason Ruehle (Danchenko’s co-handling agent to Helson) had initial meeting with Danchenko to set stage for future meetings & discuss questions regarding the Steele dossier. Helson says this lasted less than an hour.

Durham asks Helson if he had any trouble understanding Danchenko, to which Helson says that Danchenko spoke fluent English and that he had no difficulty communicating with him.
Helson says he didn’t know much about the Steele dossier, and if he wanted to know anything, other people involved in the project had to provide him with the information. Helson makes it a point to note that Crossfire Hurricane later became known as the Mueller investigation.

In conversing with Durham during the examination, Helson discusses his own methods of assessing whether a subject is lying or not based on the idea that, “It’s harder to keep a lie straight during multiple times of telling the same story.”

Durham asks how Helson first became familiar with the names Sergei Milian and Chuck Dolan. Helson somehow found out about them and needed to look it up.

Helson says during his working relationship with Danchenko, his goal was to obtain any new information that could corroborate the Steele dossier. Helson says Danchenko didn’t provide corroborating information.

Durham asks Helson if he’s aware how much of the Steele dossier was attributed to Danchenko. Off the top of his head, Helson says 80%.

Special Counsel John Durham pulls Government Exhibit 1502, which is the LinkedIn message from Igor Danchenko to Anastasia Gnezditskaia where he says he was responsible for 80% of the raw intelligence & 50% of the analysis. Helson says he had no reason to doubt that this is true.

Durham: “Do you recall if Danchenko was to be a paid CHS or not?”

Helson: “[That was dependent upon] what information he gave.” Helson said he probably would become paid over time.

Helson recalls that Danchenko was not paid during their initial meeting in the Alexandria, Virginia, field office, and that when Danchenko was paid for the first time it was less than $3,000.

Helson expected, given that he was eventually paid, that Danchenko would be giving full disclosure, truthful, and as forthright as possible.

Durham shows Government Exhibit 118 paragraph #1. Which reads: “Your client agrees to supply complete and truthful info and testimony to all persons in this matter, as well as other proceedings, etc. …
and that the client must not withhold any info or attempt to protect any person or entity through false info or false implication.”

Helson discusses with Durham his process of collecting information during meetings with Danchenko—by getting record of what was being said and for nuanced things, needed a recording. Helson tells Durham that Danchenko was unaware he was being recorded.

Government Exhibit 151 is a recording; G.E. 151T is the transcript. There was some information in the recording related to the Steele dossier, Helson says, but not all of it.

Government Exhibit 118-11 is a stipulation for the aforementioned recording and translation, wherein both parties agreed that both were a true and accurate copy of a meeting between Danchenko, Helson, and Ruehle. This is one recording among numerous.

Trenga instructs the jury that if there’s any discrepancy while looking at the transcript and the recording to go by the recording.

Durham asks if Danchenko had a copy of the dossier in front of him in each instance that the Steele dossier was discussed. Helson says yes.

Per the FBI recording of the meeting recorded in G.E. 151 and G.E. 151T, Durham asks Helson if it’s relevant that Danchenko said he himself would “record things when speaking with people in case he ever needed them.” Helson concurs this is relevant and [odd].

Durham asks Helson if or when Sergei Milian came up. Helson says that Milian came up at one of his first meetings with Danchenko. Durham asks if Helson is familiar with Report 2016/95; Helson says he looked at this during trial prep.

Helson adds that in March of 2017, Brian Auten raised an issue about Milian, saying there were discrepancies in the information about him.

Government Exhibit 152 and 152T are a recording and transcript.

Durham: “Was there any record that could corroborate that Danchenko received [the] anonymous phone call?”

Helson: “That would have requiring looking at phone records.” Helson says that they had asked Danchenko to provide any phone communication records, which he says would include apps, but Danchenko produced nothing.

Durham: “Was it then your job to get the records?”

Helson said that he wasn’t allowed to legally obtain the phone records of Danchenko since Danchenko was voluntarily providing the FBI information. Helson said to obtain the records legally, they would have needed a predicated investigation and they didn’t have that.

Back to Government Exhibit 152 and 152T; in the recording, Danchenko mentions that he uses WhatsApp.

In this recording, it’s also the first time that Helson says he inquired about Milian’s part of the dossier.
Durham asks if Helson ever recorded Danchenko in conversations outdoors. Helson says it’s difficult to record outdoors because of picking up outside noise but also because the FBI seeks to limit outdoor communications [with brevity].

Durham asks Helson about the electronic Dropbox where Danchenko was supposed to provide documents to the FBI. Helson says that Danchenko provided a “wide depth” of information, and that himself and Ruehle were in “receive mode” during their meetings with Danchenko.

Helson says they allowed the intelligence team to analyze the information.

Durham asks if Danchenko provided corroborating info for the Steele dossier. Helson says no.

Helson says that the information he received depended upon what was received from the Crossfire Hurricane team and later the Mueller investigation. Helson says that eventually the Steele dossier talk “faded off” as a topic they discussed.

Durham asks Helson if Danchenko ever provided supporting documents about the alleged anonymous call from Milian or communications.

Durham pulls Government Exhibit 164 and 164T. In this recording, Helson asks Danchenko about his relationship with Milian. Helson: “There was an email and I think there was a call with a guy up in New York who you thought was Milian?”

Danchenko responds that he doesn’t have Milian’s number; doesn’t remember. Danchenko says, “He never showed up in NY.”

Danchenko provides the email to Helson: “sergio@russianamericanchamber.com”

Durham asks Helson if he ever found out how Danchenko obtained these email addresses. Helson says: “No.”

Back to the recording. Danchenko provides Helson with a phone number that he says is one of Milian’s with a Georgia area code.

It’s very evident in this recording that Danchenko was avoiding having a conversation.

Durham: “It would’ve been helpful to know how Danchenko got Milian’s email addresses and for the dossier, right?”

Helson agrees.

Prior to dealing with Danchenko, Helson says he was unaware of Milian’s prior history with FBI.

Durham shows G.E. 204; it’s an email from Danchenko to MilianGroup July 21, 2016. The subject is “Question about Trump + China”.

Helson says Danchenko never provided him this email.

Durham: “Seeing this email would’ve been important to the investigation, yes?” Since Milian is an alleged sub source of the Steele dossier.

Helson agrees with Durham.

Durham then shows Government Exhibit 205 and 205T; the translation is there because this email was originally written in Russian. It’s from Sergei Milian to Dmitri Zlodorev. Dated July 26, 2016. Milian is asking Zlodorev “Who is Igor?” After receiving an email from him.

Helson does not know if Crossfire Hurricane team ever had a record of whether Milian was in fact even in the U.S. during July 2016. This is relevant because of the allegations that Danchenko said he was supposed to meet with Milian toward the end of July and he “never showed up.”

Government Exhibit 206 and 206T is Zlodorev’s response to Sergei.

Government Exhibit 207 and 207T is an email from Danchenko to MilianGroup dated August 18, 2016.

It opens with:

“Hello Sergey,

I wrote to you several weeks ago. We are contacts on LinkedIn.”

Later in the email Danchenko wrote: “If there’s any opportunity let’s meet.” Zero reference to phone app or anything that Milian never showed up to a meeting.

Helson says that any communications between Danchenko and Sergei would’ve been relevant.

Durham asks if Helson had these communications, would it have changed the investigation? Helson says yes.

On July 21, 2016, Danchenko wrote an email asking Milian about a construction company from Switzerland. To Helson’s knowledge, Danchenko was not in business with this construction company.

Durham asks Helson if he has knowledge of the communications between Danchenko and Milian between July 21, 2016 and August 18, 2016.

Helson says he expected he would’ve been provided those but he was not.

Helson believed documents Danchenko provided that he would say how he was communicating (either thru regular phone calls or thru phone apps).

Durham brings up Government Exhibit 610 & 610T. It’s a Facebook exchange that was originally in Russian between Galkina and Danchenko.

Galkina: “Call me in exactly 15 minutes. It’s regarding Chuck and me.”

Danchenko: “I will try. If I can get thru directly. Possibly Viber or WhatsApp.”

Gov Exhibit 611 is a Facebook message from Igor asking recipient if they have Signal after he referred to something as a “Delicate topic.” According to Helson, Signal is an “encrypted app in which parties can communicate back and forth. The conversations erase when you’re done.”

Government Exhibit 102. On October 24, 2017, there was an in-person meeting with Danchenko in Alexandria, Virginia. Helson raised questions about Danchenko’s communications with the alleged anonymous caller that Danchenko believed was Milian.

His reasoning for believing that the caller was Milian was because he listened to a YouTube video of Sergei Milian speech and in his opinion it sounded just like him. Danchenko said he has no in-person meeting with Milian.

The FBI confronted this because it didn’t line up with what Steele said. Danchenko refuted Steele’s take but never corrected him. Danchenko told FBI he never met with Milian in person. However, Danchenko claimed he spoke on the phone a few times with who he believed was Milian.

Durham: “How confident are you (Helson) that on October 24, 2017, Danchenko said he spoke to Milian on the phone a couple times?

Helson: “Very confident.”

G.E. 103 confirms on November 2, 2017, Helson and Danchenko had an in-person meeting and they discussed Milian again.

Durham: “Why did you have to go back to the Milian piece?”

Helson: “Brian Auten said there were inconsistencies between what Danchenko said regarding his contact with Milian versus what Steele said.”

Durham: “Going off of what Danchenko told Steele, right?”

Helson: “Steele thought Danchenko and Milian met in-person but Danchenko never corrected him.”

Durham: “Based on your interactions with Danchenko, was there ever any indication that there was other information besides what came from Steele? Did Charles Dolan ever come up?”

Helson: “Yes. I didn’t know of Dolan until I found out through Crossfire Hurricane.” Helson said that Danchenko never brought up Charles Dolan to him.

Durham probes: “Isn’t it the goal to corroborate what’s in the Steele dossier?”

Helson: “Yes, to identify the source.”

Durham: “Would it have been helpful to have a U.S. citizen whose info was in the dossier?”

Helson: “Yes. Much easier.”

Government Exhibit 171T. June 15, 2017. The third recorded conversation between Helson, Danchenko, and Ruehle.

Eventually after Helson was Danchenko’s handler, he learned of the emails between Danchenko and Dolan.

Durham shows email G.E. 712A August 19, 2016 from Danchenko to Dolan asking him about info on Paul Manafort and how Danchenko said he was working on a project on Trump. As well as Dolan’s reply to Danchenko G.E. 712B with the “Drink w GOP friend of mine & Paul Manafort” info.

Prior to June 15, 2017, Helson said he had not seen these emails; he said no one on Crossfire Hurricane gave this to him.

Durham: “With respect to his email, wouldn’t it have been good to know this during June of 2017 and prior?”

Helson: “Yes.”

Durham pulls up G.E. 714, the dossier report 216/105. Paragraph 3 is the paragraph that is nearly identical (with superfluous language to polish it up) language that was in Dolan’s email to Danchenko about Paul Manafort.

While looking at this, Durham is asking Helson questions about how he gathered information to corroborate the dossier. Helson, with the request of Mueller’s investigative team, obtained questions to ask Danchenko by Brian Auten and Amy Anderson.

G.E. 171 & 171T is recording & transcript from June 15, 2017 between Helson & Danchenko.

Helson: “For whatever reason, they’re either missing you? Or they’re not finding . . . We’re trying to figure out. . You said something to Steele. . . Do you know Chuck Dolan?”

(Long pause)

Danchenko: “Yes. I’ve known [of] Chuck for 12 years… a couple years [close].” Danchenko says Dolan was always in Russia,

Helson: “You never talked to him about anything shown in the dossier, right?”

Danchenko: “No.”

Helson asks when was last time Danchenko saw Dolan. He replies September of last year in Moscow, but then pulls an exact time.

Helson: “I wasn’t expecting an exact time!” He then asks if Dolan is close to the Kremlin.

Danchenko suggests Dolan is close to Putin professionally.

Durham asks Helson what Danchenko’s demeanor was during this interaction and Helson responds: “A bit of hesitation and a noticeable pause.”

Durham: “Did Danchenko ever mention immediately after the Steele dossier was published in Buzzfeed on January 10, 2017, that Dolan reached out to Danchenko on January 11, 2017?”

Helson: “No.”

Durham: “You would’ve wanted to know that, right?”

Helson: “Yes.”

Durham and Helson briefly talk about the FBI interview with Olga Galkina in D.C.

Helson’s intent was to obtain any knowledge he could find to corroborate the dossier.

Durham asks about how Danchenko referenced his communications in forms (apps, etc.) how he would send screenshots of conversations to Helson.

Helson: “Yes.”

Durham brings up how on New Year’s Day in 2017, Danchenko met with Dolan in a park. “What was your impression of this?”

Helson found it to be interesting. Helson was under the impression that Danchenko introduced Galkina to Dolan.

When Helson asked Danchenko if Dolan would know Steele, he replied: “I think he would.” However, Danchenko did not mention business interactions with either to Helson.

Durham: “Would you learn of Dolan’s connections to Dmitry Peskov?” (Putin’s press secretary)

Helson: “Yes.”

Government Exhibit is a May 17, 2017 2-page report with 3 screenshots of a conversation between Galkina and Danchenko. On bullet point 4, there’s a note that “Galkina claims she can’t travel til September but [Danchenko] made a good pitch.”

G.E. 120 mostly redacted doc. There’s a part discussing Danchenko speaking on social media and another portion. “At this point the development . . . Trump collusion and the gov’t . . . ”

“All of Danchenko’s info was obtained through conversations with colleagues and friends.”
Durham: “Do you recall that Danchenko discussed Dolan’s relationship to Peskov?”

Durham and Helson are talking about “Russian disinformation” in relation to Peskov’s role as Putin’s press secretary.

It’s noted that even as a paid informant, Danchenko did not get Helson any information on Dolan [to corroborate the dossier].

Government Exhibit 605 is a picture of Danchenko and Dolan together in Russia from June 14, 2016. This had been posted to Facebook.

The day the photo was posted to Danchenko’s profile, Galkina tried to arrange a [vicinity?] for Danchenko.

In March 2017, Helson said he first asked Danchenko about Dolan. Danchenko said Dolan was, “A nice guy, a friend.”

Then on September 22, 2017, Danchenko’s story changed and he told Helson that Dolan “has dubious connections in Russia.”

Helson attributed this to the fact that he was simply asking Danchenko about people around him who could be a security risk.

Durham makes a point to conclude that a well-coordinated conspiracy, Report 95 was used on a FISA application, unvetted, against an American citizen.

No further questions.

During cross-examination, Sears probes that, “Wasn’t Danchenko SHOCKED at how Steele presented what he said in the dossier?” Helson agreed. The two men agree that Danchenko never vouched for the information.

Defense Exhibit 100 discusses what the motivations were for Danchenko to become a confidential human source. Helson said: “Patriotism.” Both Helson and Danchenko had concerns for his safety.

Sears states that Helson and Danchenko had a working relationship from March 2017 to October 2020.

Sears asks Helson about the “one time” that Danchenko allegedly acted erratic.

He supposedly walked into an in-person meeting and demanded more money, jumping up and down and very upset.

Sears says that Danchenko later apologized for this and it was revealed that his wife and lawyer had been telling him he should be asking for more money due to his having children and being at risk. Helson confirms this.

Sears reminds Helson he testified to OIG that Danchenko was “gold” as human source following “single erratic behavior incident” because Helson would have known going forward if there was a time that Danchenko was lying. According to Helson, Danchenko never acted like that again.

Helson also said that the Crossfire Hurricane team never raised an issue about information Danchenko had provided Helson. However, Helson says that there were times Danchenko couldn’t recall where something or someone came from source-wise in the dossier.

Sears is pushing that Danchenko, as far as Helson was aware, had never known about or seen the Steele dossier until it was published in Buzzfeed on January 10, 2017.

During this interaction, Helson says he legally wouldn’t have been able to obtain all of Danchenko’s communications unless he had voluntarily provided them himself. Danchenko would later tell Crossfire Hurricane that he deleted nearly all of his communications.

Helson reportedly TOLD Danchenko to scrub his phone. He says following the January 2017 FBI interview, Danchenko was instructed on multiple occasions to scrub his phone because he’d be, “A target to Russians.”

Sears asks Helson about Danchenko’s relationship with Dolan. The two men agree that Danchenko said he approximately knew Dolan for 10 years based on Russia connections.

Danchenko knew that Dolan worked for Ketchum, who did PR for the Kremlin. According to Helson, Danchenko reportedly said Dolan was “naive to Russia.”

In reference to Danchenko saying in October 2017 that Dolan had dubious connections to Russia, Sears and Helson agree that Danchenko then provided the FBI with the names of the “dubious Russia contacts.”

It’s noted that Steele did not contain Danchenko’s identity as the primary source of the dossier, but that Danchenko concealed his own identity.

During Helson’s testimony to the OIG, Sears reminds him that he said Danchenko never struck him as “someone who would lie.”

Danchenko never told Helson that he lied to Steele about his meeting Milian; Danchenko simply never corrected Steele.

About 10 months after Danchenko met with FBI, he told them that he was going to meet with Steele. The FBI was having Danchenko fish information from Steele.

Sears asks Helson if he was trying to drive a wedge between Danchenko and Steele; he replies, “Yes.”

According to Sears & Helson, Danchenko had concerns about giving more info to Steele because he supposedly embellished info Danchenko originally gave to him for the dossier.

Items that Danchenko said were rumors, Steele wrote as fact. Sears is animatedly suggesting that according to Danchenko, Steele was obsessed with “proving the dossier to be true” and that Danchenko eventually “expressed concern about Dolan and Galkina’s relationship.”

Sears: “Danchenko is charged with lying, saying he never spoke to Dolan about anything in the Steele report.”

Helson: “Correct.”

Defense Exhibit 102 is debrief notes from the June 15, 2017 recorded meeting between Helson and Danchenko. Helson’s wrote in a note that Danchenko had known Dolan for “2 years more closer.”

Helson had asked how long it had been since Danchenko had spoken to Dolan. He mentioned the Moscow trip in 2016 and then the January 1, 2017 meeting in the park.

Defense Exhibit 103. Helson does not know if Danchenko ever saw Report 105, which was all about Dolan.
Auten also did not ask Danchenko about it. No one apparently ever focused Helson’s attention on

Paragraph 3 of the dossier report that was all about Paul Manafort; nearly verbatim to what Dolan had written in his reply email to Danchenko.

Government Exhibit 120 is very redacted but begins w/: “At this point in the development source understands the priority is to obtain any and all info that would indicate collusion between Trump’s campaign, administration, & the Russian government or any of its representatives.”

It continues: “Speaking on social media. He keeps asking when I am visiting. On good terms. Asking him about Romeo and Juliet setting.”

In reference to the anonymous phone call with Milian, Danchenko told Auten he emailed Milian after the alleged scheduled meeting that Milian never showed up for, but he did not tell Helson or show him that email.

The issue is again raised that there was contradictory information about Danchenko’s meeting with Milian due to what Steele said, which is why Helson had an October 24, 2017 meeting with Danchenko and then another on November 2, 2017.

Sears: “Did you believe Danchenko knew what Steele told the FBI about his communications with Milian?”

Helson: “I don’t recall.”

Testifying to OIG on Oct 21, 2019, Helson states Danchenko said Steele was completely wrong about his relationship w/ Milian & that Danchenko was not happy w/ Steele about what he put in dossier. Sears insists that Danchenko lying about this could compromise relationship w/ FBI.

Referring to how Danchenko’s August 2016 email to Milian read that the two men never met, Sears argues that if Danchenko had written in the email that they had talked a few weeks back (alluding to the purported anonymous 10-15 call…

…that Danchenko believed to be Milian), Milian may have never called him again if he was trying to remain anonymous.

Sears brings up the Amtrak records of Danchenko going to New York and that Milian was supposedly flying into JFK airport on July 27, 2016.

Helson was unaware of late July FB message from Danchenko to his wife about the giraffes at the Bronx zoo that said “Another meeting later.”

Sears also raises Milian reached out to @GeorgePapa19 around same time that Danchenko believed he received an anonymous call from Milian.

In two of Helson’s Field Office Annual Source Reports, he wrote that any inconsistencies in Danchenko’s report were minor. Steele’s motivations came into question. Helson testified to the OIG that Danchenko’s had “real information” that was helpful to the FBI.

Defense Exhobit 109 stated that Danchenko reported critical reporting that added in a top FBI investigation. It also said that some of Danchenko’s reporting has been added to 25 IRs. An IR is an intelligence report.

Defense Exhibit 110 is a payment amount of $10,000 for the confidential human source, Danchenko, for reporting he provided during January of 2018. He was involved in 5 separate investigations, and his information…

…led to recognizing cyber actors [affecting] the 2016 election, according to the FBI. Danchenko reportedly assisted in uncovering “ongoing-maligned influence.”

Notes that former AG Bill Barr was launching an investigation into how the FBI handled Carter Page. Helson was concerned that the publishing of the redacted January 2017 interview would damage Danchenko.

Helson wrote a memo in July of 2020 that he disagreed with the move to release this. “Internet detectives” figured out who had been interviewed.

On October 21, 2020, Helson drafted an electronic communication to give a lump sum payment of $346,000 to Danchenko, since he would now have safety issues and had provided information for at least 25 FBI investigations.

The lump sum payment request was denied. Danchenko’s total lifetime payments would have been around $565,000 if he had actually received the $346,000.

Sears argued that the FBI didn’t have as much information until Danchenko, which Helson agrees with.

Helson says that they never thought Danchenko was partisan because said some of the things Danchenko brought to FBI were items that would negatively affect Trump. In other words, they’re inferring Danchenko tried to prevent those things from occurring.

No further questions.

In redirect, Durham calls out Helson, because he said there was no derogatory info on Danchenko in reports, but this wasn’t true. Durham raises that there is an open espionage case on Danchenko at that time.

References 65/8, a counterintelligence report. Durham asks if Helson bothered to obtain access to the report and see what it was about. Helson says that he spoke with Laura Pino about it and she said it was hearsay.

Durham: “Did you read the underlying documents? Is it not true that Human Validation recommended that Helson read the file.”

Again, Helson claiming he didn’t have access. Despite his knowledge that there was a witness, Helson said someone countered the witness.

Durham: “Danchenko’s Visa had expired. Did you know whether or not he stayed in the country anyway?” Durham raises the need to determine whether or not there was fraud committed with his immigration status in the states.

Durham: “Did Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, or ANYONE do what was recommended?”

Conversation under seal.

Helson said he only checked Danchenko’s travel records going forward at that point, not backward.
Durham: “Did you check his financials to find unsolicited reporting that would have [indicated] the FBI might NOT be the primary audience for his reporting?”

Helson: “No.”

Durham: “Did you look into anything regarding his Visa or immigration status?!”

Helson: “No.”

Durham: “Did you polygraph? He could’ve been tasted by a foreign government entity to get intelligence?”

Helson: “No.”

Durham is pissed.

Sears cuts in and tries to say it that Helson disagreed with people trying to invalidate Danchenko as a human source.

“Did you know this woman from Human Validation Unit was an army counterintelligence officer in Europe.”

Helson says this doesn’t make her an expert on Russian intelligence officers in U.S.

Durham probes that Helson maybe opposed this being a 65A case instead of 105.

Durham: “Do you recall any of you or any of your colleagues attempting to corroborate the report? Did you do ANYTHING when the FBI mistakenly thought Danchenko left the country.”

Helson said it was never resolved.

[END OF DAY 3]

(@realtoriabrooke/Twitter, 10/13/2022)   (Archive)

October 14, 2022 – Danchenko Trial Day 4: the FBI ordered Danchenko to scrub his phones and erase all incriminating evidence

(…) The purposes of making Danchenko a CHS should be quite clear. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was plagued with problems from the outset. The reasons for opening the investigation were bunk. Those problems continued as the investigation went on, with claims of Trump/Russia collusion proven unverified or outright false. (Thus the targeting of Flynn for a Logan Act violation.)

Those problems continued with the Carter Page FISA applications, first submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in October 2016, and which relied substantially on the Steele Dossiers (aka Steele Reports). The FISA applications were renewed three times – more on that later. Each application had its own problems, from FBI lawyers lying about Carter Page to the Court being generally misled.

Realizing its own misconduct, the FBI made Danchenko a paid CHS in March 2017 – just before the third FISA warrant was submitted in April 2017. This would allow Comey’s FBI to work directly with Danchenko in support of its counter-intelligence investigation against President Trump.

Danchenko being a CHS also served another purpose: it protected the Bureau and the Mueller Special Counsel from revealing their “sources and methods.” How do you hide misconduct? Bury the witness. (Techno Fog, 9/13/2022) (Archive)

On Friday, October 14th, we learned the FBI directed Igor Danchenko to scrub his phones and erase all incriminating evidence:

We’ve known since last week that the FBI made Danchenko a confidential human source so as to hide him from Nunes’ and other inquiries into the Russiagate scam. Now we find out that an added benefit was that Danchenko could legally dispose of evidence of the Russiagate scam. Ufb. pic.twitter.com/fHQoLp2Pfv

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 14, 2022

October 14, 2022 – Danchenko Trial Day 4: Judge dismisses one count in Danchenko trial on allegedly lying to FBI

“The judge in Special Counsel John Durham’s trial on Igor Danchenko on Friday dismissed one of the five federal counts the Russian intelligence expert was facing for allegedly lying to the FBI, after the defense team made the request, arguing prosecutors has failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The count – one of five – was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in a federal court in northern Virginia.

The count alleged Danchenko lied to FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson when he said he had not “talked” to longtime Democratic operative and PR executive Charles Dolan about information that went into the so-called Steele dossier to which Danchenko provided 80% of its information.” (Read more:  JusttheNews, 10/14/2022)  (Archive)

October 14, 2022 – Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction

“On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham finished presenting evidence in the Igor Danchenko trial.

The most damning part of the day, if not the trial? Testimony that FBI supervisors within the Mueller Special Counsel refused requests to interview a source for the Steele Dossier: longtime Democrat activist Charles Dolan.

But first we start with the redirect examination of a witness from Thursday afternoon – FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson – who handled Danchenko when he was a confidential human source. (Our prior article discussed Helson’s investigative failures at length.)

Durham questioned Helson about efforts to determine the Danchenko-Dolan connection in the summer of 2017. By that time, the Mueller Special Counsel had been ongoing since May 2017 and had, on its own, taken part in the last Carter Page FISA renewal. And if you recall from our last articles, Danchenko had been an FBI CHS since March 2017. Once Mueller was appointed, Helson was the go-between, asking Danchenko questions posed by the then-Special Counsel’s team.

By June 2017, the Mueller Special Counsel had developed information that Democrat Charles Dolan may have been a source of the Steele Dossier. They passed questions about Dolan to Agent Helson:

Q         Who did those [Dolan] questions come from?

A         It came from the Mueller investigative team, particularly Ms. [Amy] Anderson.

Durham also cleaned-up Helson’s sloppiness. The previous day, Helson testified that Danchenko didn’t know the Steele Dossier was going to the FBI. Helson admitted he didn’t have any evidence to support his own conclusion.

Q         You were asked a question yesterday that you adopted — you were asked a question about, well, the defendant didn’t know that Steele’s reports were going to the FBI, and you said yes. Do you have any independent knowledge of that?

A         No.

Q         That’s just what the defendant told you, right?

A         Yeah.

Q         So when you told the jury that he, Mr. Danchenko, didn’t know that they were going to the FBI, you don’t know that to be the case?

A         I had no other knowledge that suggested that, no.

Q         Right. There’s no independent evidence of any sort, correct?

A         Yes, correct.

Helson was also asked about Danchenko’s lack of complete honesty with respect to his interactions with Charles Dolan and his travels to Moscow. As you’ll see, Helson’s answers also implicate his own failure to fully investigate his source.

Q         Did Mr. Danchenko tell you about his having been in Moscow in June of 2016?

A         No, he did not tell me that.

Q         Did he tell you anything about his having met with or seen Mr. Dolan in Moscow in June of 2016?

A         No, sir.

Q         Do you recall, sir, whether or not you ever learned the dates on which Mr. Danchenko was in Moscow in June of 2016?

A         I learned of it later.

Q         And do you remember: When you learned at a later point in time he had been in Moscow in June of 2016, did you talk to him about that?

A         No.

Danchenko’s June 2016 Moscow trip, where he met with Dolan, has significant timing because Danchenko flew from Moscow to London to give “a report”. Who was in London? Christopher Steele.

Durham also inquired about Helson’s October 24, 2017 interview of Danchenko. Helson described the purposes of that meeting:

“This meeting was — in part, it was a direction from the Mueller investigative team bringing up the discrepancies in the Sergei Millian matter, and they wanted me to go back specifically to ask the questions and get his response.”

Just so we’re clear – by October 24, 2017, the Mueller Team knew there were issues with Danchenko’s allegations about Sergei Millian. At a minimum, they were aware of the discrepancies in Danchenko’s claims about Millian. And how did Danchenko respond? By changing his story.

The importance is two-fold. First, it confirms to the Mueller Special Counsel that there are even more problems with Danchenko’s story. Second, it catches Danchenko in a lie that would, 4+ years later, be part of his own indictment. (Read more: Techno Fog/The Reactionary, 10/15/2022)  (Archive)

October 14, 2022 – Danchenko Trial Day 4: The testimony of former FBI intelligence analyst Brittany Hertzog

“Hertzog was with the FBI from 2008 through 2019 as an intelligence analyst with a primary focus on Russian counterintelligence. She described her role as an analyst who “looks at information and tries to identify trends, patterns, and investigative next steps.” She was assigned to the Directorate of Intelligence at FBI Headquarters.

Hertzog was assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s Office in July 2017.  She described her role and chain of command with the Mueller Team:

Q         And what, generally, was your role with the Special Counsel Mueller’s team?

A         I was primarily initially to focus on looking into  reports that the FBI had received on Russian matters.

Q         All right. Did those reports have a particular name?

A         We referred to them typically as the Steele dossier.

Q         Now, as a member of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, was there a chain of command?

A         Yes.

Q         Can you describe the chain of command that you worked with?

A         I reported directly to SIA Brian Auten. Above him was Special Counsel Mueller. There were horizontal chains of reporting as well. So there was an attorney, a supervisory special agent, and then head of FBI personnel.

Q         Okay. So you had occasion to work with special agents as well, correct?

A         Correct.

Q         And who were some of the special agents that you worked with Special Counsel Mueller?

A         I worked with Supervisory Special Agent Amy Anderson and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Nelson.

Hertzog became familiar with the Steele Dossier, and with the parties involved in the Steele Dossier, once she joined the Mueller Team:

Q         And how did you become familiar with Mr. Steele?

A         When I reported [July 2017] to the Special Counsel’s Office, SCO, I had received background information on the investigation up until that point.

It was her job to “look into the Steele Dossier.” She described this as “trying to identify the sourcing for the claims in the dossier and, specifically, the national security threat with regards to the Russian influence piece.” Hertzog explains:

Q         And a lot of names appeared in those dossier reports?

A         Correct.

Q         Did you learn that there were a number of different sources that the defendant relied on?

A         Yes.

Q         Did you have a particular focus on any of those sources?

A         There were a number of sub-sources that were identified for investigative next steps.

Q         Okay. And did you have a particular individual that you focused on?

A         Yes. There was an individual named Olga Galkina who was — when I was assigned to SCO, was my primary focus initially.

Compare Hertzog’s testimony to the words of Robert Mueller:

How do we not conclude that Mueller lied to Congress?

Unless his own team kept him in the dark about their own investigation of the Steele Dossier?

The title of this post references “obstruction” by the Mueller Special Counsel. Just to clarify, we’re not saying that there will be charges of obstruction of justice from anyone on the Mueller Team. (We’re not going to predict what comes next.) By obstruction we mean obstructing the truth, or obstructing the efforts to determine the truth. We plan to dive deeper into this Mueller issue in the near future.

Back to Hertzog. She took investigative steps to look into the Steele Dossier. She investigated Olga Galkina. She also looked into Charles Dolan:

Q         And what’s your understanding of who Mr. Dolan is?

A         Mr. Dolan, to my understanding, having reviewed FBI databases, had connectivity to both Mr. Danchenko and Ms. Galkina.

Q         So your testimony is that you learned about Mr. Dolan through the various FBI databases?

A         I believe information was provided to me as background when I on boarded with SCO, and I became aware of more information as I researched.

In fact, Hertzog connected Dolan to Olga Galkina, and also to those who had worked in the Russian government (such as Putin ally and confidant Dmitry Peskov). She checked Dolan’s travel records, finding he had traveled to Cyprus (where Galkina was located) and also to Russia. She found Dolan’s link to Galkina, a “sub-source for the Steele Dossier” of particular importance.” (Read more: Techno Fog/The Reactionary, 10/15/2022)  (Archive)

October 14, 2022 – CIA director’s former think tank hired experts from nonprofits controlled by Chinese spy agencies

“An elite Washington, D.C., think tank has employed individuals who’ve worked for front groups controlled by Chinese spy agencies, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has employed over a dozen individuals who’ve worked in a range of capacities at China-based nonprofits set up or co-opted by Chinese intelligence agencies, including the Ministry of State Security (MSS) and the intel arm of the People’s Liberation Army.

These individuals have served as experts in various policy areas, including international relations, American politics and nuclear policy while working at both the think tank’s D.C. headquarters and at its Tsinghua University center in Beijing. Moreover, not only did Carnegie employ the majority of these experts while current CIA Director William Burns was president of the think tank, but, according to the nonprofit’s current records, Carnegie still employs individuals working for Chinese intelligence front groups.

Carnegie, the CIA and Director Burns did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the DCNF.

The DCNF was able to identify Carnegie staff who’ve worked for Chinese spy fronts by cross-referencing publicly available employment information with a new book on Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intel and influence operations written by Alex Joske, a former analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

The book, called “Spies and Lies,” details Chinese intelligence agents’ efforts to infiltrate and influence Western institutions. Joske reveals a front set up by China’s version of the CIA began courting Carnegie in the early 2000s — a relationship the DCNF discovered has persisted to this day. (Read more: Daily Caller, 11/11/2022)  (Archive)

October 14, 2022 – Danchenko Trial: An FBI amendment to Carter Page’s FISA application was much worse than using the uncorroborated Steele dossier

(…) The FBI’s use of the uncorroborated Steele dossier was not the FBI’s worst offense, however. Worse still was the Crossfire Hurricane team’s last-minute amendment to the FISA application that misleadingly framed Steele’s source network as one established during his time as an MI6 agent, when, in fact, neither Danchenko nor any of Steele’s other dossier sources had been sources during his time with British intelligence.

While Steele would later confirm for the inspector general that his source network did not involve sources from his time with MI6, but “was developed entirely in the period after he retired from government service,” from Auten’s detailed trial testimony, we now know that the Crossfire Hurricane team either knew Steele’s source network was not connected to British intelligence or knew that it could not, in good faith, make that representation to the FISA court.

For two days, Durham elicited testimony from Auten of the FBI’s attempts to ascertain Steele’s source network, including during a trip to Europe in early October, but Steele refused to identify his sources. Auten’s testimony in this regard proves significant when considered together with details previously revealed in the Office of Inspector General’s report on FISA abuse.

In discussing the process the FBI undertook to obtain the first FISA warrant on Page, the OIG explained that the day before the FISA court granted the surveillance order, the government submitted a “read copy” of the FISA application to the FISA court’s legal adviser for a preliminary assessment of any issues. The FISA court’s legal adviser asked the attorney working with the FBI on the application “how it was that Steele had a network of subsources?”

The government lawyer “provided additional information to him regarding Steele’s past employment history,” the OIG report explained; that response implied Steele’s source network came from his time with MI6. Significantly, the FISA court’s legal adviser then indicated the additional detail of Steele’s prior work with British intelligence should be included in the official FISA application to the court.

“That the legal advisor not only raised the question about Steele’s access to a network of sources, but then insisted that the FISA application be updated to include information concerning Steele’s prior government position, shows the FISA court placed great significance on Steele’s previous British intelligence work for purposes of assessing the reliability of his source network.” And with that misleading information added, the next day, Oct. 21, 2016, the FISA court issued the first of four orders authorizing the surveillance of Page’s phone and email accounts.

Given the importance the legal adviser placed on understanding Steele’s source network, it seems unlikely the FISA court would have authorized the surveillance of Page had the FBI either acknowledged that Steele’s source network came from his private work with Orbis or conceded that Steele had refused to reveal his sources. It was this final deception, then, and not merely the FBI’s reliance on the uncorroborated Steele dossier, that led to the illegal surveillance of Page. And, here, those involved in adding the last-minute, credibility-boosting footnote reference to Steele’s MI6 work knew full well that misrepresentation would score the bureau a surveillance warrant, making it an even worse transgression.” (Read more: The Federalist, 10/14/2022)  (Archive) 

October 18, 2022 – Marco Polo: Hunter Biden laptop report

There are, at the very least, 459 documented violations of state and federal laws and regulations on the infamous device.

For the past thirteen months, Marco Polo—a nonprofit research group comprised of six men from across the U.S. dedicated to exposing corruption and blackmail—has been writing a comprehensive Report on the Biden Laptop and the crimes thereon. Our motives and budget were transparent; thousands of Americans financed its production. We neither sought nor received any institutional/corporate backing. We were delayed for various reasons, but finished the dossier for 35k under budget.

At long last, the Report is complete. It has been sent to members of the U.S. House & U.S. Senate, U.S. attorneys for the jurisdictions in which the Bidens and their associates committed crimes, state and local law enforcement, and—for good measure—every contact on the Biden Laptop, which includes all of Hunter’s classmates at Archmere Academy and a portion of the current White House staff.

It is simple but dense: 630 pages. 2,020 footnotes. Broken up neatly into seven sections with the biggest focus being Business-Related Crimes. We believe that it is the deepest digital colonoscopy ever performed on a sitting U.S. first family.

To read & download the Report click here.

We will have much more to say about this in the coming days & weeks (and months).

Press coverage of the Report (so far) can be found at the following links:

The U.S. Sun (10/19/2022)

Kanekoa News (10/19/2022)

The Daily Wire (10/20/2022)

The Post Millennial (10/20/2022)

Sputnik News (10/20/2022)

Timcast (10/20/2022)

World Tribune (10/20/2022)

Just the News (10/20/2022)

Kanekoa News (10/21/2022)

Daily Mail (10/21/2022)

Valiant News (10/21/2022)

Law Officer (10/21/2022)

Newsmax (10/21/2022)

One America News (10/22/2022)

Blitz (10/24/2022)

Daily Mail (10/24/2022)

National File (10/24/2022)

World Tribune (10/25/2022)

American Wire (10/25/2022)

UncoverDC (10/26/2022)

The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson (10/26/2022)

Law Enforcement Today (10/26/2022)

New York Post (10/26/2022)

–Garrett Ziegler, Founder

(MarcoPoloUSA, 10/18/2022)  (Archive)

October 18, 2022 – Hillary Clinton served on the board of company prosecuted for providing material support to Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria

Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton, Lafarge, ISIS, the law firm Paul | Weiss and Corporations paying “fines” for “Conspiring to Provide Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organizations” ⚖️💥🎻

From 1985-1992, HRC made $31,000 per year as a board member of Lafarge Corporation 🧵 pic.twitter.com/sAGodpNN5A

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

DAG Lisa Monaco oversaw the charges.

Monaco worked as a summer associate for the law firm Hogan and Hartson, LLP.

(Sullivan & Cromwell)

Monaco has connections to Latham & Watkins’ Kathryn Ruemmler – who defended Michael Sussman and Susan Rice.https://t.co/jzZx6Gk0n5 pic.twitter.com/ZZkuN9CUyV

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

In 2001, Loretta Lynch signed off as Commissioner of the Telcordia Technologies, Inc. > NeuStar, Inc. transfer 22 days before 9/11.https://t.co/zofZuPZRvO

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

“We need to make sure that those who get the benefit of such an arrangement comply with their responsibility.” said John Carlin, a senior member of the deputy attorney general’s office. “If not, you should expect to see serious repercussions.”https://t.co/eKuD1Bv1Na

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

So, John Carlin signed off on the Carter Page FISA warrant on September 26th, 2016.

Now he’s overseeing Ericsson’s FCPA case as a Partner at Paul | Weiss.

The Obama Admin were well aware of Ericsson’s corruption since at least 2009… 👀⚖️💥https://t.co/xXOaqr1Bgz pic.twitter.com/tMlIZLoGpQ

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Andrew Weissmann… who refused to investigate the Clinton Foundation 👀

In June 2017, he was appointed to a management role on the 2017 special counsel team headed by Robert Mueller.

To assume that position, Weissmann took a leave from his Department of Justice post. pic.twitter.com/dRC95FuRg5

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Guess who oversaw the deal?

Paul, Weiss was advising Neustar in its $3.1 billion sale to TransUnion… Coincidentally, announced just THREE DAYS before the Sussman Indictment is unsealed.https://t.co/Pwo5IJ1Jpy pic.twitter.com/HU2rVOqyRp

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia <=> Hogan Lovells <=> Neustar <=> Rodney Joffe <=> Perkins Coie <=> John Podesta <=> Michael Sussman <=> Hillary for America <=> Steptoe & Johnson | Hogan Lovells | Kirkland & Ellis ALL DONATED to HFA.

[McGuireWoods] ⚖️🪃🎻 pic.twitter.com/oBdo8Y85EK

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Cheryl Mills worked as an associate at the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

Mills has been a Director of the Clinton Foundation while receiving Donations from Hogan & Lovells.

Mills was also mixed up in Vince Foster’s “suicide” & the Whitewater scandal… pic.twitter.com/xYz8GLoV5s

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for the Clintons’ 2004 + 2007-14 joint tax returns – which were prepared by Hogan & Hartson/Hogan Lovells.

Hogan & Hartson employed Gold Star Father Khizr Khan, there he worked on the EB5 travel visa program. pic.twitter.com/cyRhV4kJIZ

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 💥

President Barack Obama nominates Mark Brzezinski to be ambassador to Sweden, specializing in anti-corruption law.

(McGuireWoods Partner – HFA Donation)

Brzezinski was an associate at what was then Hogan & Hartson from 1996-1999.https://t.co/fuijqmJphy pic.twitter.com/evUei39nTX

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

SWEDISH TELECOM GIANT LM ERICSSON & ITS U.S. DIVISION ERICSSON INC. SUED BY 862 AMERICANS FOR ALLEGED PROTECTION MONEY PAYMENTS TO AQ, AQ-IN-IRAQ & ISLAMIC STATE

Plaintiffs are 862 Americans, comprised of 286 GOLD STAR FAMILIEShttps://t.co/Z3LZJbjS3G

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

Tying all people, Law Firms & Twitter together:https://t.co/i1pGKwRNYX

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

https://t.co/PT4PdTsNmthttps://t.co/g8D3wl523A

H/t: @1foreverseeking https://t.co/1qw2XYFZEO

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) March 26, 2023

(Working archived link for The Canary article above)

October 27, 2022 – Whitney Webb: The Greatest Epstein Deep Dive Ever (Video)

That Alex Jones is a nationally detested villain for getting a story incorrect (despite apologizing and retracting countless times, something I’ve yet to see CNN, MSNB anchors do for Rittenhouse) and yet most people couldn’t have cared less about Epstein – a man who trafficked thousands of children, purportedly helped to found the Clinton Foundation, and was suicided in the most painfully obvious manner possible – says a lot about banal and shallow values of our culture and how easily our attention can be diverted to meaningless noise.

It’s like…

On the one hand, you have something that’s kind of bad. Grieving parents get weird voicemails and messages calling them liars (and in one case the n-word despite being white)… OK sure, that’s bad. Did Alex tell them to do that? No. Did Alex apologize and rescind his theory? Yes. OK great, let’s stop talking about this!

Then on the other hand you have a pedophile with his own island and more powerful connections than you can count – many of those connections holding legal positions of authority over your life including PRESIDENTS. The trafficking alone is infinitely worse than a couple of parents being harassed, not to mention the implications of a compromised government that’s complicit in the trafficking (who are willing to murder to cover their tracks). Can we discuss this rather than demonize the guy who’s been screaming about it since 2008?!?!?

Anyways… God bless Whitney Webb for sticking to true journalism. The entire interview is worth a watch:

(Zero Hedge, 11/3/2022)

October 28, 2022 – The FBI asks court to reverse its order or to allow for 67 years to produce Seth Rich laptop information

“The FBI is asking a U.S. court to reverse its order that it produce information from Seth Rich’s laptop computer.

If the court does not, the bureau wants 66 years to produce the information.

(…) In the new filing, government lawyers said the FBI never extracted the data, which it revealed as originating with a law enforcement agency. They said the information is on a compact disc containing images of the laptop.

“The FBI did not open an investigation into the murder of Seth Rich, nor did it provide investigative or technical assistance to any investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. As a result, the FBI has never extracted the data from the compact disc and never processed the information contained on the disc,” they said.

To produce the information, the FBI would have to convert information on the disc into pages and then review the pages to redact information per FOIA, according to the government.

If Mazzant upholds his order, the FBI wants a lengthy period of time to perform the work—66 years, or 500 pages a month.

“If the court overrules the FBI’s motion, the FBI wants to produce records at a rate of 500 pages per month. At that rate, it will take almost 67 years just to produce the documents, never mind the images and other files,” Ty Clevenger, a lawyer representing Huddleston, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“After dealing with the FBI for five years, I now assume that the FBI is lying to me unless and until it proves otherwise. The FBI is desperately trying to hide records about Seth Rich, and that begs the question of why.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 10/28/2022)  (Archive)