↓
 
Home » Danchenko found not guilty on all counts

Danchenko found not guilty on all counts

The New Neo Posted on by

The verdict on Danchenko is in: not guilty.

I would be shocked if it were otherwise, given the legal problems of the case as well as the venue. I’ve written about this many times before, but the main point is that it’s really really hard to convict someone of lying to people who are extremely eager to believe your lies and are collaborating in those lies, and have no interest in finding out the truth.

I concluded long ago that there would almost certainly be no way for any of the Russiagate perps to be found guilty, particularly in the left-leaning courts and communities where the trials would be held. Many of them are also lawyers or people who work with lawyers frequently, and before they started Russiagate I believe they were very careful to do things in such a way that convictions would be highly unlikely and very difficult to obtain – if anyone ever discovered what they’d done in the first place (which they didn’t think would happen, either, although it ultimately did).

Yesterday, prior to the Danchenko verdict, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote this:

The culmination of this collusive arrangement, one of the great political dirty tricks in American history, was the FBI peddling to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, under oath, the uncorroborated rumor, innuendo, and sheer fabrications of the Steele dossier. Not once, not twice, not thrice, but four separate times, over close to a year and for months into his presidency, agents depicted Trump as a clandestine agent of Moscow.

This is where Danchenko comes in. A cagey operator whom the FBI credibly suspected as a Russian asset a dozen years ago, he was the main source of “intelligence” — which is apparently Russian for “gossip among drinking buddies” — that Steele turned into the faux reports that comprised the dossier.

In his probe into the origins of the bureau’s Trump-Russia investigation (codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”), Durham discovered that, although Danchenko acknowledged that the Steele dossier was farcical, he also appeared to have misled the FBI regarding his sources. In particular, he made up a conversation with Sergie Millian — a loose Trump associate whom Danchenko doesn’t know and never actually communicated with. The result was the dossier claim that Trump and the Kremlin were in a “conspiracy of cooperation.”

That’s the background, which you probably already knew. But here’s the legal problem:

Durham charged Danchenko with four counts of lying about Millian… It is a tough case for Durham because it’s hard to expect a jury to convict someone for lying to the FBI about comparatively less serious matters when the FBI itself was blatantly and serially dishonest with a federal court — with apparent impunity…

Understandably, the more appalled the jury becomes over the FBI’s behavior, the less inclined it may be to convict Danchenko.

That is the heart of the matter, and it’s what occurred in the Sussman case as well, to the best of my recollection.

The Democrats and the MSM (a redundancy) will spin this as a big win for the Russiagate group. My sense is that most voters have moved on and are paying little attention at this point. Most people’s viewpoints on Russiagate and the FBI solidified a long time ago.

ADDENDUM:

I already wrote that I don’t think that the abomination known as Russiagate has any likely successful avenue for legal redress. I say that with a combination of regret and anger, but not every bad act has a legal solution. Our legal system is constructed – for good reasons – to make it difficult to prove guilt, in order to protect the innocent from being railroaded. That, unfortunately, is even true for those with great power who can do great damage and get off scot free.

One of the reasons this was almost inevitable in all the Durham cases has to do with venue. The Danchenko case was tried in Alexandria, Virginia, which is not only a deep blue area but one filled with members of the Deep State. I can’t even imagine how air-tight a case would have to be for someone like Danchenko to have been convicted in a venue such as that; I don’t even think such a thing would be humanly possible.

That’s why I don’t blame Durham overmuch.

Here’s part of what Durham said to the jury:

Durham was emphatic that in prosecuting Igor Danchenko for alleged lies about his sources for information that ended up in the bogus “Steele dossier,” the special counsel’s office was not defending the bureau. As reported by the Washington Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy, who is covering the trial, Durham concluded that “the FBI failed here,” observing that it “mishandled the investigation” and that its agents “didn’t do what they should have done.” Durham added that the explanation for the bureau’s appalling performance could be that it is “simply incompetent” or possibly that it was “working in coordination.” He does not appear to have stated with whom the FBI might have worked in coordination; the implication points to the Clinton campaign, which sponsored the dossier — opposition research based on which Hillary Clinton argued that Trump was a Putin puppet.

Something like that last contention – which I believe to be the case – simply does not have the sort of evidence that would have convinced this jury or any such jury in this venue, and I don’t think that Durham was wrong not to bring such a case.

Here’s the sort of thing Dachenko’s defense argued, just to give you some of the flavor of the thing:

…[T]here are four false-statements counts, all related to Danchenko’s alleged fabrication of a conversation with Sergei Millian, a loose associate of Trump’s with whom there is no evidence that Danchenko ever spoke. Danchenko’s lawyers are stressing that Millian did not testify and Durham could not disprove that a conversation may have taken place over an Internet app rather than a conventional phone — although they also insist that Danchenko never claimed to be sure that the person with whom he spoke was Millian.

That sort of “plausible” deniability was more than enough for this jury.

More here:

The special counsel [Durham] is using tried-and-true “lying to the feds” charges to unravel for the public the hoax—which on its face requires painting the FBI as dupes. Yet every filing and witness question is instead building Mr. Durham’s case of rank FBI malfeasance.

Mr. Danchenko pleaded not guilty, His trial—and prior to it Mr. Durham’s unsuccessful prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann—has by now yielded a scandalous portrait of an FBI willing to take nearly any step—and cut any corner—to harm Donald Trump…

While Mr. Durham presents evidence Mr. Danchenko lied to FBI handlers, there is as much evidence the FBI closed its eyes to glaring problems in his story…

Partisanship and incompetence aren’t crimes, so the FBI isn’t in the dock. But Mr. Durham is making the case for the public—and it’s as ugly as they come.

That was written on October 13, towards the beginning of the Dachenko trial. It foreshadowed the ending, which in my opinion was a foregone conclusion.

Comments

Danchenko found not guilty on all counts — 42 Comments

  1. The best historical analogy for any of these trials is the trials of slave runners and pro-slavery filibusterers arrested by the federal government in antebellum Southern courts.

    I do agree with the pundits who think that Durham’s true target is the FBI itself. I’d be really interested to see if might charge the agent(s) who signed the FISA affidavits with perjury, and possibly their supervisors with encouraging it.

  2. So why didn’t Durham and Barr directly take on the bad behavior of the FBI? Why weren’t agents and/or supervisors charged or at least indicted?

    I could be completely wrong but it appears to me that Durham has the exact same problem as Barr. Instead of accepting just how bad things have gotten at the FBI and DOJ and dealing with it, they decided to try some legal maneuvering and bank shots that might possibly have worked to “scare straight” the genuine wrongdoers. What they ultimately became is the father who threatens to “turn this car around and go home” but never does it.

    Mike

  3. The Special Counsel can recommend charges but the Attorney General must agree to charge defendants. Merrick Garland would not agree to charging anyone in the Department of Justice or the FBI. It’s that simple.

  4. Barr didnt even try durham at least brought two convictions the juries in these cases dont care how much damage they do as long as they think they can score against omb

  5. MBunge:

    Because there was nothing to charge them with and the cases would go nowhere if they charged them, due to the bias of the courts.

    Not all things are amenable to solutions in a law court. Not all very bad things are illegal, or fit nicely into a violation of a particular law. That’s what I meant when I wrote: ” I believe they were very careful to do things in such a way that convictions would be highly unlikely and very difficult to obtain – if anyone ever discovered what they’d done in the first place (which they didn’t think would happen, either, although it ultimately did).”

  6. So bannon is sent to prison for patently legal actions and sussman and danchenko can commit any fraud

    Same for all the parties who seized the ship of state through ballot stuffing and how the Courts ratifief it through indifference

  7. Miguel cervantes:

    Barr appointed Durham special counsel in late 2020, shortly before Barr left office. If I’m recalling correctly, not only was Barr on the way out, but he appointed Durham in order to deflect charges of partisanship if Barr himself handled it. It also takes a long time to build a case, and Durham took his time.

  10. They lie distort omit abetted vandalism and murder*and yet are not held to account.

    *see kamala harris

  12. The FBI didn’t believe Danchenko’s lies- they knew Danchenko was lying.

    One analysis I read suggested this as the problem with getting a conviction. How do you convict a guy for lying to the FBI when the FBI wants to believe the lie? I get that this is DC with likely homers for the bureaucracy on the jury, but how hard is it to sway reasonable and honest jurors with an argument, “the FBI doesn’t believe he was lying”. The way to solve this short of major protests is legislatively.

  14. “Not all things are amenable to solutions in a law court.”

    Uh…when we’re talking about misbehavior by law enforcement, what’s the alternative? Vigilantism?

    “Merrick Garland would not agree to charging anyone in the Department of Justice or the FBI.”

    Then resign in the most public and stink-raising way possible.

    I realize that for people like Durham, Barr, and Andy McCarthy, admitting the institutions to which they’ve devoted their lives and from which they garner a great deal of self-esteem are not only corrupt but became corrupt on their watch is a tough thing to accept. But that doesn’t mean we should make excuses for them.

    How many people would take this bet: $1,000 that if the GOP takes Congress and puts forth a serious plan to reform FBI/DOJ that two out of Durham, Barr, and McCarthy will oppose it because it’s too “radical” and “would hurt the good people who work at those agencies?”

    Mike

  15. MBunge

    I believe we have a dynamic building in this country that may see a return of vigilance committees. When the courts and the political institutions are so compromised, and, working to eliminate segments of the population, very bad things can happen.

  16. There is a connection between:
    a) the perfidy of the DOJ / FBI, and
    b) the treasonous business of the Biden family and many other senior politicos.

    If you can’t get at a) directly, b) may provide the way to get there, and it may ultimately be much more dangerous to a)!

    Those a) slimeballs were motivated by something, and chances are it involved $$$ from b)!

  17. We could have done this under AG Barr and at the time he more than likely would have gotten convictions even if they were overturned later. That’s exactly what Democrats do.

    Barr, though did not want to do anything. He had his marching orders. These orders were not from Trump.

    Maybe, to be charitable, he believed that not doing so was the best course for the nation. How did that work out?

    No one believes in the validity and authority of the federal government. Well, unless you are a Democrat right now and that will soon change as Republicans take power.

    Republicans, though, should stop being arsehats and hound every Democrat politician and political thought, notion, and law to the end. They should use any law and stretch that law against Democrats.

    If the Turtle et all have their way, they won’t.

  18. …the abomination known as Russiagate…

    Here’s another: the DC jury pool. I lived in and around the District for 10 years, interacting with them as clients, coworkers, fellow commuters, etc. They are the lowest lifeforms I’ve ever encountered.

  19. You will never see a lower form of scum and villainy’ i know some exceptions but the critical mass is borg

  20. Barr was worried about claims of partisanship?! Democrats never worry about such claims. Or even proof of partisanship. Or even proof of crimes, egregious violations of law, gross abuses of power, and wholesale violations of constitutional rights.

    Barr has done a great disservice to his nation and tarnished his name and his record for history. And all because he fumbled his humble. In the end, he failed the people because he thought he was better than they.

    The country desperately needs Republicans with the courage to speak the truth, uphold their oaths, and do their duty. If they don’t have enough courage to do those simple tasks, they shouldn’t take the job. We’ve had enough of weak, whiny worriers.

  21. Barr was worried about claims of partisanship?! Democrats never worry about such claims. Or even proof of partisanship. Or even proof of crimes, egregious violations of law, gross abuses of power, and wholesale violations of constitutional rights.

    Barr has done a great disservice to his nation and tarnished his name and his record for history. And all because he fumbled his humble. In the end, he failed the people because he thought he was better than they.

  22. So say well all stan

    The fact that he slaps himself on the hard so hard he breaks his hand

  23. So sussman and danchenko and ekias and co introduced a slow acting toxin into the body politic it caused the institution to seize up and become necrotic not all once it enablef the mueller and the jan 6th witchhunt and has led us to on the road to nuclear war

  24. I don’t know if the following is a crime. It should be.

    It appears that Sussman and Danchenko coordinated with employees of the FBI, who in turn lied to courts. This might be the “coordination” to which Durham referred.

  25. Section 13 of the fisa says one do due diligence in accepting data from sources section 14 says you must correct the record

  26. Barr tasked Durham with investigating the predicate of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Though many hoped and believed that investigation might lead to prosecutions, (I was one) it’s apparent that prosecuting a Democrat source or Democrat lawyer in the D.C. area is a fool’s errand.

    However, what Durham has exposed quite plainly is that there was no proper predicate for the investigation. The question then becomes one of what now? I believe it is a signal to and information for the Congress to begin serious oversight of the FBI and DOJ. Should the GOP win both houses, as I expect, they will be in a position to use Durham’s report to conduct hearings, craft legislation, and use the power of the purse to drive reform.

    Remember the Church Committee?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
    They shook things up (not always in a good way). But an example of how the Congress can rein in an executive agency if they put their minds to it.

    It’s not over, yet.

  27. “…[the FBI] mishandled the investigation…”

    “…mishandled…”, eh????

    (Might that be something like “…the FBI mishandled the Whitmer kidnapping…”? or “…the FBI mishandled the Jan. 6 frame-up…”???)

    File under: Entrapment ‘R US

  28. @ miguel > Fwiw —

    Julie Kelly: “Interesting developments in DOJ seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers. Govt witnesses keep contradicting the official narrative—and prosecutors posted sext messages btw on defendant and OK lawyer, totally irrelevant.”

    I didn’t know that this trial was on-going concurrently with Danchenko’s. It hasn’t shown up in the conservative outlets I usually read, and the first two pages of search results are all MSM (CNN, NPR, WaPo, NYT, etc.).
    Why is it not being covered on the right?

    The Hill covered the essentials earlier this month, FWIW.
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3671816-what-to-know-about-oath-keepers-trial/

    The trial against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four of his associates began on Monday as the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to convict them on the rarely used charge of seditious conspiracy in a Washington, D.C., court.

    In opening statements, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler told jurors that Rhodes and the Oath Keepers sought to capitalize on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    “Their goal was to stop by whatever means necessary the lawful transfer of presidential power, including by taking up arms against the United States government,” the attorney said, according to The Associated Press. “They concocted a plan for armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy.”

    Here’s what to know about the high-stakes trial, which could last several weeks.
    …
    While more than 900 rioters have been charged and hundreds convicted in the Capitol attacks, the DOJ is attempting to convict defendants of a seditious conspiracy charge for the first time in three decades. A seditious conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

    The last time the DOJ secured a seditious conspiracy conviction was in 1995, when Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman was convicted on the charge for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

    The DOJ alleges Rhodes began planning to stop the certification of the presidential election in December 2020.

    According to charging documents, on Nov. 5, 2020, two days after the presidential election, Rhodes sent a message to followers on Signal that “we aren’t getting through this without a civil war.”
    …
    Rhodes is expected to argue that on Jan. 6, he and the Oath Keepers were awaiting Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that authorizes the president to call up an armed militia or the military to quell a domestic rebellion.

    The defense will assert that Rhodes cannot be found guilty of seditious conspiracy because the actions he took were in preparation for Trump’s invocation of the law, although the orders never came.

    James Lee Bright, an attorney for Rhodes, told The Associated Press the legal defense is an “incredibly complicated defense of theory.”

    “I don’t think that it’s ever played out in this fashion in American jurisprudence,” he said.

    That’s an understatement.
    We’re only on Day 9 of the trial, so maybe it will get some more coverage now that the Durham investigation is over.

  29. “…maybe it will get some more coverage now that the Durham investigation is over.”

    Don’t count on it.

    (That is, that’s why we “have” that Ukraine/Putin/Nuklear-War thang; and “transitory” inflation; and the Iran “deal”; and the southern border, um, “issue”; and the energy extravaganza; and that supply-chain gang; and the fentanyl free-for-all; and China/Taiwan; and “Climate Ch-Ch-Ch-Change; and mega-urban crime; and CRT; and DEI/DIE; and “Biden”‘s ice-cream fetish; and that Israel-Palestine forever-fracas; and Afghanistan; and the housing crisis; and the food crisis; and [add your crisis of choice here]; and [add another…])

    (And if the Jan. 6 “Commission” DOES “get some more coverage”, just what kind of COVERAGE do you think it will get? I myself lean toward the “stuffed pillow” variety…)

    File under: Distraction (Inc.)—and its twin—Cover-Up (Ltd.)

  30. Oops!
    Leave it to me to forget the MAL (all-you-can-take) smorgasbord…and NYSAG Letitia James’s laughably lavish, licentious litigiousness….

  31. The Founders knew quite well that the capital district they created would become a company town devoted to the power of the central government and likely devoted to their own power.

    To balance that, they limited the power of the residents of what we now call the District of Columbia. No voting for local officials and no say in voting for members of the Electoral College.

    I guess they forgot to restrict residents from jury pools too.

    We changed the sections in the Constitution about DC voters by amendment. Maybe we should change it back and add in no jury pools from DC too.

  32. “…The defense will assert that Rhodes cannot be found guilty of seditious conspiracy because the actions he took were in preparation for Trump’s invocation of the law, although the orders never came….”

    HOW does the above jibe with the following (using duckduckgo to search for “fbi + no conspiracy + jan 6”):
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-january-6
    https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-finds-no-evidence-trump-153636457.html
    https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-reportedly-finds-no-evidence-jan-6-coordinated-attack-no-grand-scheme/
    etc. ??

  34. Heh!
    Coverup of Durham conclusions is REQUIRED!…
    For the GOOD of the nation.
    For the GOOD of the FBI….
    ‘Obama DOJ official says Attorney General Merrick Garland should put a “pause” on releasing John Durham’s report, warns findings may “unfairly tarnish” FBI officials and suggests prosecutor should not have the “final word.” ‘
    https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1582548062949740544?cxt=HHwWgMDQwYPFq_YrAAAA
    H/T Han Mahncke twitter feed.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-doj-official-durham-report-pause

  36. We will have to wait for the Durham report to see, but the two acquittals are also confirmation that the falsehoods communicated to the FBI were not “material” to the agency’s actions, but merely useful window-dressing for its false FISA applications. The aura of genuineness given to that investigation by the FISA “court” is what sustained the Russia-gate hoax. If juries were convinced that the FBI wanted to concoct a narrative of the type being offered, there was no crime in pleasing them and taking their money.

  38. Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, and General Flynn might say, “well, I guess it helps if you are lying with, or at least for, the FBI.”.

    I suspect that it would be virtually impossible to convict anyone in Alexandria, Va who was working against Trump. On the other hand.

    Alexandria is a bedroom community for the company; and the company is Big Government Bureaucracy inc.

  40. A handmade tale of a wicked solution that is socially solvent and lesser crimes. Nice. Throw another baby on the barbie, it’s over.

  41. MBunge on October 18, 2022 at 6:33 pm said:
    So why didn’t Durham and Barr directly take on the bad behavior of the FBI?

    Barr is to close to the deep state.

  42. Whitehall, also many now commute from northern VA to DC, etc. You really need to strip government workers of the vote.

    Or just go back to following the Constitution, which makes no provision for our massive government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑