Special counsel John Durham explained in his recently released report that the FBI did not give due consideration to the possibility that the Steele Dossier, used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page, was Russian disinformation.
Igor Danchenko was the primary sub-source of the Steele Dossier, himself admitting he was responsible for 80 percent of the “intel” and 50 percent of the analysis in the report alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The report was later debunked by special counsel Robert Mueller. However, the FBI glided over key information about Danchenko’s past and inconsistencies when it applied for the FISA warrant in front of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
“Our review found no indication that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators ever attempted to resolve the prior Danchenko espionage matter before opening him as a paid [confidential human source]. Moreover, our investigation found no indication that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators disclosed the existence of Danchenko’s unresolved counterintelligence investigation to the Department attorneys who were responsible for drafting the FISA renewal applications targeting Carter Page,” wrote Durham.
“As a result, the FISC was never advised of information that very well may have affected the FISC’s view of Steele’s primary sub-source’s (and Steele’s) reliability and trustworthiness,” Durham added.
Danchenko had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011. In late 2008, while Danchenko was employed by the Brookings Institution, a think tank, he engaged two fellow employees about whether one of them might be willing or able in the future to provide classified information in exchange for money. Danchenko thought the employee was entering the Obama administration. The employee, concerned about the request, reached out to the FBI, and the agency launched an inquiry into Danchenko once it learned other problematic information about him. He had been identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects and had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers. Danchenko had also repeatedly asked another colleague about that person’s knowledge of a specific Russian military matter.
The FBI requested to use FISA authorities against Danchenko but then suddenly dropped the matter after incorrectly concluding that Danchenko had left the country and returned to Russia.
“In not resolving Danchenko’s status vis-a-vis the Russian intelligence services, it appears the FBI never gave appropriate consideration to the possibility that the intelligence Danchenko was providing to Steele — which, again, according to Danchenko himself, made up a significant majority of the information in the Steele Dossier reports — was, in whole or in part, Russian disinformation,” concluded Durham.
The special counsel also explained that many of the problems arising out of Danchenko’s interviews were also hidden from the FISC.
Danchenko was “unable to provide any corroborating evidence to support the Steele allegations, and further, described his interactions with his sub-sources as ‘rumor and speculation’ and conversations of a casual nature.” Significant portions of the testimony were also inconsistent with what Christopher Steele, an ex-intelligence officer who authored the dossier, told the FBI.
“At no time, however, was the FISC informed of these inconsistencies. Moreover, notwithstanding the repeated assertions in the Page FISA applications that Steele’s primary sub-source was based in Russia, Danchenko for many years had lived in the Washington, D.C., area. After learning that Danchenko continued to live in the Washington area and had not left except for domestic and foreign travel, the FBI never corrected this assertion in the three subsequent Page FISA renewal applications,” Durham wrote.
Durham brought a false-statement case against Danchenko last year, but the Steele Dossier source was acquitted. The special counsel sought to establish that the FBI was aware of the inconsistencies when it asked for the FISA warrant of Page. Durham also argued that the FBI was aware that Steele compiled the dossier as opposition research for the Clinton campaign.
In his 306-page report released Monday, the special counsel asserted more generally that the Department of Justice and the FBI did not have “any actual evidence of collusion” between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and began their Crossfire Hurricane probe of Trump’s campaign based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.”
Durham also suggested reforms to prevent future abuses, one of which would involve the appointment of a special official whose sole task would be to challenge “the steps taken” in high-profile political investigations that “pose partisan risk,” to ensure that all relevant procedures are followed.