United States of America v. Igor Danchenko: Day 1 #FWK
For immediate information: The Jury selection is complete. Out of a very large pool, 12 jurors were selected and 4 were selected as alternates.
For immediate information: The Jury selection is complete. Out of a very large pool, 12 jurors were selected and 4 were selected as alternates.
Unlike the last few trials, the process at this courthouse is different. They do not have each potential juror come up to the stand and question them.
Instead, they call the jurors to the box and then both parties review their information and decide whether to strike or confirm.
To describe the pool, purely off of visual representation: half of the pool were millennial to older white individuals. The other half were African American, Indian American, and other nationalities.
Durham dons a signature patterned red silk tie. His team entered the courtroom first, followed by Danchenko’s. At the beginning of the day, Durham addressed that the witness list was to be unsealed. The witness list has effectively been unsealed.
Durham addressed the motion in limine regarding Danchenko’s failure to provide certain documents. The question is raised as to whether the scope of testament would be dismissible.
Government Exhibit 109 is a series of articles ranging from May 2016 to August 2016. Defense attorney, Stuart Sears, argues that the information in these articles was publicly available and raises the issue of relevance.
If the articles are relevant, agrees to admit them into evidence. Sears also brings up the Amtrak records from July 25-28th which the government obtained; the Amtrak records prove that Danchenko was in New York.
On July 28, 2016, Danchenko sent a Facebook message to his then-wife of giraffes at the Zoo in New York coupled with a message reading: "Another meeting tonight."
On July 26, there was an exchange involving Sergei Milian.
On July 26, there was an exchange involving Sergei Milian.
Judge Trenga cuts the discussions short and asks if either party would want to strike any potential juror for cause based on the questionnaire they received. Defense attorney Sears objects to one juror who has a long-standing political history.
Special Counsel John Durham wishes to strike a potential juror for cause who verbatim said she, "Holds bias against Donald Trump which impacts [my] decision making.
Durham also wished to strike someone who indicated that she’d have a hard time staying off of social media. Both parties agreed that their opening statements would take between 25-30 minutes each.
Special Counsel John Durham raises the issue of testimony with respect to counterintelligence. Judge Trenga says the court has already made a preliminary ruling.
Durham states that a previous investigation on Danchenko was closed due to the defendant’s departure from the country; Durham insists that this investigation was unresolved.
Sears counters that the issue was resolved and that the investigation occurred 10 years prior to the current allegations.
Durham insists that the government went to introduce the previous allegations because it brings relevant information to the floor since Igor was Christopher Steele’s sub source for the Steele dossier.
Durham describes the prior investigation—it was opened in 2009 and closed in September of 2010. In January of 2017, the FBI interviewed Danchenko regarding the Trump campaign.
Special Counsel John Durham brings up Exhibit 109 and the Steele dossier report. Questions are raises as to which portions of the report should be admitted.
In the report, the date of August 29, 2016 is referenced and it notes a "separate source with direct knowledge." There’s a bullet that associates Trump with the Kremlin (Putin). Durham discusses plausible deniability.
There are portions of the report that cite Wikileaks. The government is agreeable to redact portions of the summary that are irrelevant or inappropriate.
QUICK INFO 🚨 En route home. Will update once I can transcribe. Special Counsel John Durham ended day examining first witness, FBI analyst and supervisor Brian Auten, however he feels he needs about 90 minutes more. We will begin again tomorrow morning at 9 AM. #DanchenkoTrial
Continuing where I left off posting before lunch; the following text was noted prior to our lunch break but I did not have time to type it:
In reference to mentions of Wikileaks in the report, this is all related to "Source E."
In reference to mentions of Wikileaks in the report, this is all related to "Source E."
Defense attorney Sears laments that this is a "recurring problem" that the government is trying to argue that Danchenko obtained all of his information from Source E; the information *may or may not* have come from Sergei Milian…
…and defense is suggesting that the government is purporting a "false impression" from phone calls the government argues Danchenko "never had."
Durham’s rebuttal: "Judge, you can read in the report that Danchenko said he had numerous calls with Sergei Milian." Durham asserts that it’s quite clear and admissible.
The prosecution references evidences that, "leaves little doubt" that the information in this report was attributed by Danchenko to Mr. Milian.
The government wants to address the motion in limine regarding email evidence in this case: communications (1st set) between Danchenko and Sergei Milian and (2nd set) between Danchenko and Charles Dolan, Jr.
Government also brings up the January 2017 interview between FBI employees and Danchenko. It was abundantly clear that these two FBI agents were asking and seeking any and all Danchenko had regarding the Steele dossier.
Government argues it’s absolutely clear that Igor knew what he was being asked to provide.
Judge Trenga: This [evidence] relates to Milian but does it relate to Charles Dolan as well?
Judge Trenga: This [evidence] relates to Milian but does it relate to Charles Dolan as well?
The prosecution brings up August 19-August 20, 2016 communications that Danchenko had with Charles Dolan. Durham says that evidence will relate to the Dolan emails. The FBI made it clear they were looking for information on sources of the Steele dossier.
Durham references June 15, 2017 for context regarding Charles Dolan’s relation to Crossfire Hurricane. "Crossfire Hurricane divergent to Mueller. They asked [FBI agent [Helsan?]] if he knew Charles Dolan."
Prosecution insists Igor knew Dolan and did have communications, however he did not turn over these communications; Durham says the emails became a matter of whether "Danchenko was being truthful or not."
Defense attorney Sears is concerned the jury will convict Igor for what he didn’t provide, not what he did provide. Defense argues Danchenko was not asked for these communications and that this context is unfair.
Sears admits the emails are relevant but they’re concerned that the jury will see that Danchenko did not hand over communications and find him guilty on THIS, not on his alleged false statement to the FBI.
Durham says the government does not intend to use this evidence to argue in the latter manner that Sears described. Durham insists the evidence will be used to prove that Danchenko knowingly and willingly made false statements to the FBI.
The prosecution then informs the court that they received emails at 12:01 AM last night (or early this morning, October 11, 2022). These emails were in Russian; allegedly between Sidorov(?) and Sergei Milian.
Durham requests that before they’re used in any way as an exhibit or in cross examination, there ought to be some basis established on the record.
Defense responds that the information proffered is an issue of materiality; suggests that none of it is to prove there is truth for issues. Judge Trenga says he will rule on the counterintelligence issue before opening statements.
After being moved into an overflow room where we watched the main courtroom being broadcast on a TV screen, the jury pool entered the courtroom and jury selection began.
Jury selection was completed in the morning session, as I wrote earlier. I will write the next portion beginning with opening statements.
Returning from lunch; it’s 1 PM. Court is back in session.
Judge Trenga brings the jury in. Trenga instructs: "An indictment is simply a charge; Danchenko contends that he is not guilty.
Judge Trenga brings the jury in. Trenga instructs: "An indictment is simply a charge; Danchenko contends that he is not guilty.
The government must prove the crime charged counts (1-5) including: Danchenko made a false or fictitious statement to the FBI, in making the statement, Danchenko was willful…
His statements were made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, and his statement was material to the FBI, meaning it had the natural tendency to influence."
Government Opening Statement:
Michael Keilty opens. "This is a false statement case that Danchenko told to the FBI about [alleged] Russia collusion which the FBI would use in investigating alleged wiretaps.
Michael Keilty opens. "This is a false statement case that Danchenko told to the FBI about [alleged] Russia collusion which the FBI would use in investigating alleged wiretaps.
Christopher Steele’s report alleged that Trump and his campaign were communicating with Russians. Danchenko’s lies played a role in the surveillance against an American citizen, [Carter Page].
The evidence will show that Danchenko was the primary source for the Steele dossier. Instead of telling the FBI the truth, he lied by fabricating a source and concealing a source. He claims he had a phone call that he believed was Sergei Milian; despite having no contact.
He claimed Sergei said that Trump’s campaign and Russian officials were communicating. These lies ended up in a surveillance warrant against a U.S. citizen., which was signed by a federal judge. Danchenko was Christopher Steele’s primary source.
In January 2017, FBI interviewed Danchenko; he was provided with an immunity agreement. The only requirement of agreement was that Danchenko (1) tell the truth, (2) not withhold information, and (3) not protect anyone in his interview. Note: Danchenko spoke excellent English.
The FBI’s goal was to identify the defendant’s sources for the Steele dossier and corroborate or refute the information in the dossier. One item in particular, Source E, ended up in four surveillance warrants against a U.S. citizen.
The defendant told FBI he reached out to Milian on 2 different occasions. Despite getting no response, he claimed that he received a 10-15 minute call in July of 2016 from an anon Russian male, who Danchenko claimed was Sergei Milian. The gov’t will prove there was never a call.
Milian allegedly told Danchenko that Paul Manafort & Carter Page were involved in this "[scheme]," and that Kremlin (Vladimir Putin) would help get Trump elected. During this purported call with Sergei Milian in late July of 2016. Danchenko was paid by FBI to provide info.
Danchenko repeated these lies [multiple times]: he never received a call from Sergei Milian, never received a 10-15 minute call from an anonymous caller.
Between July and August 2016, emails and phone records will show that Danchenko never received a call from Sergei Milian nor did the 10-15 minute call from an anonymous individual in late July of 2016 ever occur.
FBI agent [Helsan(?)], the "handling agent," conducted interviews with Danchenko. FBI agent James will show when Danchenko wanted someone to call them he’d tell them exactly which phone app to use.
The information that Danchenko lied about led to a surveillance warrant against Carter Page. FISA, which stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, is the exact term.
Using this tool, the FBI can monitor calls and emails in real time of individuals who are believed to work for foreign governments. Mr. Page was never charged with any crime.
The FBI has an obligation to inform the court of anything that may be wrong or misrepresented in FISA warrants. The government and the FBI surveilled Carter Page for nearly a year. Danchenko’s lies about Milian affected counts 2-5 of the indictment.
On June 15, 2017, Danchenko concealed the source of his info and denied speaking to Charles Dolan. However, his communications tell another story. On August 19, 2026, Danchenko asked Dolan to give him anything he had on Paul Manafort.
Then the info that Dolan provided ended up in Steele’s report two days later. Why was Danchenko’s lie about Charles Dolan important? Dolan was the only current U.S.-based source of the Steele dossier.
On June 15, 2017, Danchenko lied to FBI special agent Helsan and said that he did not speak to Dolan about anything specific that was in the dossier. However, on two separate occasions in June and October of 2016, Charles Dolan was with Danchenko in Moscow.
Dolan maintained a relationship with many Russian officials while he worked in public relations as a longtime DNC operative, from Jimmy Carter’s administration to the present day.
You will hear testimony from four FBI agents. What were Dolan’s connections for the dossier? FBI employee Brittany [Herzog(?)] who prepared a lengthy report, Danchenko and Dolan’s connections with Russian sources, Kevin Helsan, his handling agent.
The FBI never interviewed Charles Dolan despite Helsan wanting to interview Dolan.
The FBI relies on human sources, and when they lie it affects the investigation. The FBI should have taken certain actions but they also may have covered up the defendants lies. The jury [must decide] whether Danchenko lied to the FBI and whether those lies were protected.
[END OF GOV’T OPENING STATEMENT]
Loading suggestions...