Recap of Last Week's Filings in the Danchenko Case

The Defendant had a “common plan” and “intent” to deceive the FBI.

Apologies for being absent over the past several days. I was sick, but have now recovered and there’s Durham news to cover. Instead of saving it for my next stream, I thought I would pull it all together into a substack article. Enjoy.

USA v. DANCHENKO

There were filings last week, here’s what I got out of them.

First, there is some issue with getting all of the requested declassified documents over to Danchenko's team. Only a portion has been turned over, and summaries have been provided for what remains. This issue of getting classified/declassified materials, redactions, and distributions to the Special Counsel and the Defendant has come up repeatedly in this case, and while it is expected to be resolved in time for the trial, it's something to watch. One, because “something” is holding this effort up (what could that be?); two, Danchenko's lawyers may make further CIPA Section 5 filings; and three, if the materials are not supplied in time for the trial, it could become a larger issue.

Link to filing here.

---

Next, there was a filing by Durham to extend a Response/Reply deadline by one day.

It was granted.

A new attorney has been added to Danchenko’s team, Noah Cherry.

Cherry has been with Schertler, Onorato, Mead & Sears in some capacity since 2020.

The attorneys who seem to be the leads for the Defense team are Danny Onorato and Stuart Sears. Looks like Mr. Cherry is going to back them up.

---

Then, there is a new filing from Danchenko’s team, a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss.

As in the Motion itself, Danchenko’s team argues that he gave literally true answers to ambiguous questions from the FBI and therefore Count One must be dismissed. They then argue that Counts Two through Five must be dismissed because Danchenko “believed,” “assumed,” and “thought” he was talking to Sergei Millian on the anonymous call. Defense argues that such statements are “equivocal and speculative” and that Danchenko cannot be charged with making a false statement based on such statements.

Finally, they again argue that Danchenko’s alleged false statements were not material to any government decision, but admit this is something typically left to the jury to decide. And it will be.

Here is an interesting paragraph, more confirmation that Danchenko was informing on Dolan and that “the FBI actually recommended opening a full investigation in Dolan” based on that information. Boom!

This continues to be a massively underreported story. Danchenko was FLIPPED in the Spring of 2017, became a paid information, and began feeding the FBI intel on Charles Dolan, Jr., a Clintonista—someone who had been working with and for the Clintons since the early 90’s. Worked on their Presidential campaigns as well as on Gore’s and Kerry’s. This is HUGE!

Why is it not a bigger story?

And now, Dolan is going to be testifying AGAINST Danchenko at trial! These people are turning on each other!

It reminds me of Mook testifying during the Sussmann trial that Hillary approved the Alfa Bank hoax. Since Dolan is testifying, we can assume he has been interviewed by Durham more than once and has probably appeared before a grand jury. Like Elias and Mook, Durham knows what answers Dolan will give to what questions, and those answers will be constrained by what he has previously testified to under oath.

---

The last filing to cover is Durham's Reply to Danchenko's Opposition to Durham's Motions in Limine. He often drops filings on a Friday, I’ve noticed.

Durham is moving to have three instances of uncharged conduct admitted into evidence and be presented at trial under Rule 404(b).

Durham intends to show that Danchenko lied about his meeting with the hotel managers from the Ritz Carlton in Moscow.

Durham will do this, at least in part, with the testimony of one of the senior managers from the hotel, Bernd Kuhlen.

Always read the footnotes.

Three really good questions from Durham.

Footnote.

This is getting REALLY interesting.

That language there from Durham: “[Dolan] was an important fact witness who should have been of significant interest to the FBI’s understanding of these matters.” It’s tempting to infer some things from that line. Plainly, you can take it as “Danchenko should have told them,” but that message would be more easily understood as such if Durham typed out “would” instead of “should.”

I am wondering if this line as a jab at the FBI. Dolan should have been of significant interest to the FBI. Obviously Dolan would become of interest to the FBI over the course of 2017 and in December an investigative referral was made thanks to the information Danchenko provided them. Early on though, during those interviews in January 2017 and through June 2017, Danchenko hid Dolan from the FBI. Why?

And when the FBI did become aware of him, how then did they proceed?

Not for the first time, I am catching a hint of there being parallel investigations at work here.

It’s inescapable that Danchenko’s lies were material. Dolan was highly relevant to their investigation of the Reports.

This line right here, “common plan” and “intent to deceive.”

Next, Durham lays on a four punch combo that wrecks the Defense’s argument against introducing Danchenko’s false statements regarding his work for Orbis and Christopher Steele.

Question: If Danchenko informed on Dolan, and Dolan flipped on Danchenko and will testify against him, and BOTH worked for/with Steele… did either of them or BOTH flip on Steele?

Previews of evidence Durham will submit at trial.

Alright, now here is a paragraph that has sent the black pilled pundits into a cynical, narrow minded, tail spin.

Some folks have gone apoplectic over such sentences, such ideas that the FBI was deceived. This where much of the “Durham is a coverup for the DOJ/FBI and Deep State!” reactions are coming from. People cannot accept that the FBI was deceived on any level. Whether they were, and I believe at certain points certain people in the FBI were, is inconsequential to this case. What is consequential is that the defendant, Igor Danchenko, “engaged in an over-arching ‘plan’ to deceive the FBI.”

Almost as if to rhyme with the earlier ‘should’ line I zeroed in on above, Durham writes that had the FBI known, “it is highly likely [they] would have…”

The next section deals with Danchenko’s email to Cenk Sidar. Notice this “plan” comes up again. Reminds me of the “joint venture conspiracy” phrase which kep coming up in the Sussmann case/trial.

On page 10 Durham dunks on the defense over the issue of Sergie Millian’s emails.

The last issue Durham addresses is that of what information regarding the prior counter intelligence investigation of Danchenko, the one from 2010-2011, should be admitted. Defense wants only the good parts, of course, Durham wants most if not all, apparently.

On this page are a few nuggets that I think point to where things are headed, what revelations and major developments are ahead of us in this trial and after.

We can infer that the prior investigation was not closed due to lack of evidence AND that there is more to it than we know. I expect we will learn some interesting facts about that case during this trial.

There’s that ‘would’ / ‘should’ interplay in regards to FBI being deceived, but this time it is “would have (or should have).”

I get the sense that Durham has some FBI agents on his naughty list.

Trial starts in two weeks…

---

If you enjoyed this recap, let me know in the comments or by hitting the ‘heart’ button.