United States of America v. Igor Danchenko: Day 2 #FWK
Government reviewed a number of defense exhibits, email messages from Brian Auten to Mr. Moffa and Peter Strzok. Durham doesn’t believe they’re admissible in this case because they’re irrelevant.
Government reviewed a number of defense exhibits, email messages from Brian Auten to Mr. Moffa and Peter Strzok. Durham doesn’t believe they’re admissible in this case because they’re irrelevant.
There’s a communication that was already referenced yesterday regarding the Bronx Zoo in late July of 2016 where Danchenko mentioned that he was going to have a meeting.
Durham argues that the witness Brian Auten was not involved in these communications and therefore there is a foundational problem for the defense.
There are other exhibits raised that are not admissible, Michael Cohen and the Trump organization are subject matters, as well as communications between Milian and George Papodopoulos about real estate transactions.
Durham suggests that the defense would have to attempt to make an adverse inference by introducing these communications as evidence.
Defense attorney Onorato brings up defense exhibit 472T, a July 15, 2015 communication that Milian sent; not for the purpose of showing the contents of the email or who it was to,…
…but purely for the purpose of articulating that Milian’s U.S. phone provider contract was voluntarily ended on July 14, 2015, so he had to have contact via alternate methods.
Defense raises that Milian was on the government’s radar prior to these specific allegations, and cites tactical targeting package as a supporting basis for introducing this communication as materiality.
Defense also talks about Milian’s email to Michael Cohen in reference to his "insider knowledge" about Trump’s campaign. Judge says that it’s clearly hearsay to assume that Milian used phone apps.
Defense merely wants to raise this to show that Milian’s access was limited. Durham still believes that this is irrelevant.
The defense alleges that the government is concealing evidence. Judge Trenga understands Onorato’s theory. Defense argues "present state of mind" is an exception to the hearsay rule 803-3.
Judge responds that hearsay does not overrule exculpatory evidence since there is no witness here (Milian). Durham says that Milian is unwilling to come back to the U.S. due to safety concerns, however the prosecution has discussed doing some type of deposition.
Durham insists that Milian is cooperative and willing to talk and that the team has communicated to Milian via his counsel.
Mr. Auten is back on the stand; Durham picks up right where he left off in his examination last night.
Mr. Auten is back on the stand; Durham picks up right where he left off in his examination last night.
Durham reminds the court of the January 2017 FBI interview that Brian Auten had with Soma and Danchenko—and how Auten noted Danchenko’s story had changed from the first day of interviews to the second.
Danchenko originally said on day 1 that he made two emails to Milian prior to the alleged 10-15 minute anonymous phone call. Danchenko’s story changed the second day to saying he only sent Milian one email prior to the alleged anonymous call.
Auten says that he does not recall whether Danchenko said whether it was a regular call or phone app call. Once again, Report 95 is mentioned.
Conversation under seal.
Conversation under seal.
Auten says during April/May/June period of 2017 that FBI analysts sent emails to Mr. Helsan regarding Source E & Milian. In purported anon phone call, to Auten’s recollection, Danchenko said he received info from an anon male who he believed to be Milian about Trump and Russia.
He did not specifically say whether it was a well-developed conspiracy but it was along those lines. Auten says that Danchenko only provided one chain of emails regarding his communications with Milian, a back and forth exchange that was written in Russian.
It was not until preparation for this trial that Auten received more email communications between Danchenko and Milian.
Durham asks for two stipulations to be admitted into evidence, Government Exhibits 1801 and 1802, which state that the emails to be shown are authentic business records from Google, LLC. and that the emails are trustworthy and authentic.
The stipulations also state that they had an interpreter translate the Russian to English, and both parties agree that it is a true and accurate translation.
These emails reveal that while Danchenko reached out to Milian a few times, Danchenko also wrote an email to Dmitri Zlodorev* insisting that he "doesn’t understand why [Milian] never responds."
In one of the emails to Milian, Danchenko wrote that there ha[d] "been speculation for months now about Trump and his connection to Russia and links to Asia." While Danchenko insists that this is confidential information he says he has "connections."
Danchenko also told Milian that he wanted to meet in New York City because he was ALREADY going to be in New York; negating previous evidence and claims by the defense that Danchenko’s communications about the giraffe at the zoo and "I have a meeting soon" to his wife…
…did not confirm that Danchenko had said he was going to NY [for the purpose of] meeting with Milian. Other email exchanges from Danchenko to the Milian Group were about real estate developments.
Durham asks if it would’ve been significant for Auten to know the translations of the emails as well as the fact that Danchenko said he was "already going to be in New York" prior to proposing an alleged meeting with Milian. Auten agrees.
Regarding the translation, Auten says: "The translation would’ve helped." To which Durham responds, nearly laughing, "It would’ve been important, wouldn’t it!"
Auten: "It would’ve possibly affected the investigation."
Durham: "Possibly?!"
Auten: "It would’ve possibly affected the investigation."
Durham: "Possibly?!"
BOMBSHELL 🚨 In cross exam, it’s stated that Danchenko deleted most of his communication records besides few with Zlodorev. FBI Supervisor Auten concurs. In Durham’s re-direct, he uses this to point to FBI’s lack of thoroughness via failure to look into Danchenko’s phone records.
I will write the rest of the full write up once I’m home.
Starting where I left off around lunchtime.
Durham brings up the communications with Charles Dolan. Defense is objecting on basis of hearsay. Judge Trenga asks Durham to rephrase the question.
Durham brings up the communications with Charles Dolan. Defense is objecting on basis of hearsay. Judge Trenga asks Durham to rephrase the question.
In relation to Mr. Dolan, Durham directs Mr. Auten to not mention anything about what Steele said.
Auten: "I received some characterizations regarding the sources of the Steele dossier." Steele gave Charles Dolan as a name.
Auten: "I received some characterizations regarding the sources of the Steele dossier." Steele gave Charles Dolan as a name.
Durham reiterates to Mr. Auten that Danchenko said that he himself was responsible for a sizeable amount of the intel for the Steele dossier: 80% of the raw intelligence and 50% of the analysis.
Durham is raising this to infer there may be a reason Danchenko left out Dolan, as Auten says Danchenko never brought up Dolan’s name. Durham asks Auten, given Dolan’s connection to Crossfire Hurricane, that if his name had been mentioned, he would remember, right? Auten agrees.
Danchenko did not provide records to the FBI regarding himself and Mr. Dolan. Auten says that in January 2017 prior to Danchenko’s FBI interview, the Bureau was only concerned with Dolan on a preliminary investigation level.
Following Danchenko’s interview, the Bureau began to dig more extensively during the months of April, May, and June of 2017.
Durham asks if Auten was told about Danchenko’s meeting in Moscow during the January 2017 interview.
Durham asks if Auten was told about Danchenko’s meeting in Moscow during the January 2017 interview.
Auten says yes; during Durham’s examination it’s revealed that Danchenko did not make any mention of meeting in Moscow having to do w/ Dolan. In early October of 2016, Danchenko & Dolan attended meeting in Moscow together, as well as separate meeting in Moscow later in June ‘17.
Durham: "Did the FBI press Danchenko to disclose any sources regarding the Steele dossier?"
Auten: "Yes, we asked if Danchenko could provide additional sources; Dolan’s name was not brought up."
Auten: "Yes, we asked if Danchenko could provide additional sources; Dolan’s name was not brought up."
Durham introduces stipulations regarding number of gov’t exhibits, incl 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, etc. a number of emails from Mr. Dolan. The stipulation confirms that these emails are trustworthy for sake of review. Note Charles Dolan worked for KGlobal, a consultant firm.
Defense asks judge to approach.
Conversation under seal.
Conversation under seal.
On August 19, 2016, Danchenko emailed Charles.Dolan@kglobal.com with subject: "Kozachev & Prizadio (sp?)"
The email reads: "Please ask anyone about Paul Manafort’s resignation and the Trump campaign, off the record of course!"
"I am working on a project against Trump…"
The email reads: "Please ask anyone about Paul Manafort’s resignation and the Trump campaign, off the record of course!"
"I am working on a project against Trump…"
Durham questions if handling agent Helsan saw any of this information that Danchenko had not shared in his January 2017 interview with Auten and Soma. Durham asks: "Were these conversations with Dolan not shared?"
Auten: "Correct."
Auten: "Correct."
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Charles Dolan replies to Danchenko’s email: "Let me dig around on Manafort."
Durham: "Would Mr. Dolan’s response have been relevant?"
Auten: "Yes, it should have been given."
Durham: "Would Mr. Dolan’s response have been relevant?"
Auten: "Yes, it should have been given."
Charles Dolan also sent an email to Danchenko on August 20, 2016, at 10:43 AM that said (paraphrased):
"I had a drink w/ GOP friend of mine who has info." Corey Lewandowski, according to Dolan, had "info on Manafort." Dolan included link to Politico article about Paul Manafort.
"I had a drink w/ GOP friend of mine who has info." Corey Lewandowski, according to Dolan, had "info on Manafort." Dolan included link to Politico article about Paul Manafort.
Returning from a short break, there’s a question from the jury about the slight difference in name listed in the emails they’ve been presented. Some say "Sergei" others say "Sergio."
Judge Trenga confirms this is in fact the same person, however he is going to address counsel as to whether the difference in name changes based on familiarity with who is addressing him (formal versus friend, close connection, etc.)
Government Exhibit 713A and B are more emails between Danchenko and Charles Dolan.
On Sat, August 20, 2016, Danchenko sends response to Dolan which includes text saying:
"Dear Chuck,
Thank you for this. Any additional [info] will be appreciated. I am following the Trump-Russia trail; it is there . . . [it is] an important project for me.
Cheers,
Danchenko"
"Dear Chuck,
Thank you for this. Any additional [info] will be appreciated. I am following the Trump-Russia trail; it is there . . . [it is] an important project for me.
Cheers,
Danchenko"
Durham: "Did Danchenko indicate work he was doing for Christopher Steele was important?"
Auten: "He just said he was busy with it."
Auten: "He just said he was busy with it."
Durham: "Wouldn’t it have been helpful to know that Igor Danchenko and Charles Dolan’s goals were the same working on the same projects?"
Defense: "Objection!"
Judge Trenga: "Rephrase."
Defense: "Objection!"
Judge Trenga: "Rephrase."
Durham: "Wouldn’t it be important to know that Danchenko’s goals coincided with Dolan’s?"
Auten: "Yes."
Auten: "Yes."
Durham: "Could you determine whether or not Dolan had a partisan persuasion?"
Auten: "Yes, Democrat. . . He worked for various aspects of the DNC over the years going a while back."
Auten: "Yes, Democrat. . . He worked for various aspects of the DNC over the years going a while back."
Durham: "Wouldn’t this information be valuable for you to know that Danchenko’s goals coincided with Dolan’s?"
Auten: "For corroborating the Steele report, yes."
Auten: "For corroborating the Steele report, yes."
Durham: "After January 2017, did you continue to involve yourself personally with Danchenko and sources?"
Auten: "Yes."
Auten: "Yes."
Durham mentions a Ms. Galkina. Auten and other FBI employees traveled to Cyprus to interview Galkina to find out if the information she provided was consistent with what Danchenko had shared about her in relation to Crossfire Hurricane.
Durham: "Do you recall which questions you posed about Danchenko?"
Auten said that he asked about Mr. Dolan and other aspects that the FBI needed clarification on, but he does not remember the exact questions and answers from Galkina.
Auten said that he asked about Mr. Dolan and other aspects that the FBI needed clarification on, but he does not remember the exact questions and answers from Galkina.
Auten said she gave very vague information about Dolan; she seemed hesitant.
No further questions from the government.
The defense begins their cross-examination of Auten.
No further questions from the government.
The defense begins their cross-examination of Auten.
Auten met with the Office of Inspector General to discuss the FBI’s use of confidential human sources. Auten apparently gave positive statements under oath about Danchenko on multiple occasions.
Onorato: "These statements are true, yes?"
Auten: "Yes."
Onorato: "These statements are true, yes?"
Auten: "Yes."
Auten even prepared a 100-page written affidavit for the FBI’s Office of Internal Affairs.
Onorato begins running through significant dates and a timeline. On July 26, 2021, Auten met with Durham and his team for the first time.
Onorato begins running through significant dates and a timeline. On July 26, 2021, Auten met with Durham and his team for the first time.
Auten would subsequently become a subject in the federal investigation. Mr. Auten and Durham’s team met 3-4 times prior to the trial and 2 times last week with Durham.
The defense loosely discusses Auten’s knowledge of Russian language, the Politico article about Paul Manafort being open source, and more.
Onorato brings up raw intelligence, which Auten defines as "exactly what you receive from a source; it’s not necessarily information that has been processed or corroborated."
Onorato: "Is it fair to say sometimes you get conflicting info on data?"
Auten: "Yes."
Onorato then discusses George Papadopoulos falsely indicating Russians would help damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These interactions occurred prior to the FBI receiving the Steele dossier.
Auten: "Yes."
Onorato then discusses George Papadopoulos falsely indicating Russians would help damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These interactions occurred prior to the FBI receiving the Steele dossier.
The basis of Crossfire Hurricane, according to Auten, was to determine whether there was collusion between Trump and Russia. Mr. Moffa instructed Auten to lead the Crossfire Hurricane team. Before then, Auten had received a director award from the FBI.
Auten is asked by the defense to define a finished intel report. He says it’s an evaluated and assessed report that is published in some standardized format.
Auten was told the information on Crossfire Hurricane would not produce a finished Intel report.
Auten was told the information on Crossfire Hurricane would not produce a finished Intel report.
The defense wants to address that prior to the FBI knowing of Danchenko’s connection to the Steele dossier, Sergei Milian was already on the Bureau’s radar, as he had reportedly been spotted meeting with an individual of interest.
Onorato is trying to argue that it was open source information that Milian bragged about business relationships with Trump. The defense worth notes that Milian was formerly the President of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.
Conversation under seal.
Defense Exhibit 481:
On July 15, 2016, there was an email sent from Sergei Milian to BridgeUSA@aol.com right around the time that Danchenko supposedly received an anonymous phone call.
On July 15, 2016, there was an email sent from Sergei Milian to BridgeUSA@aol.com right around the time that Danchenko supposedly received an anonymous phone call.
The email contents read that Milian was going to be meeting with people from the Trump campaign, and Milian assumed [they would] discuss Russia.
This is the first time Auten says he’s seen this document.
This is the first time Auten says he’s seen this document.
There’s further discussion about the umbrella investigations under Crossfire Hurricane including Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. Onorato says in his descriptions that 3 out of 4 were convicted.
Durham cuts in and asks that Judge Trenga give the jury instruction. Judge Trenga speaks to the jury and says, paraphrased, that the defense is only showing these communications but doesn’t mean everything said is true.
According to Auten, in his October 2016 meeting with Christopher Steele, Steele did not provide more information about the dossier in part because he was "concerned for Danchenko’s safety."
The defense tries to get Auten to agree with the theory that Steele was more concerned about Danchenko’s safety than about receiving up to $1 million from the FBI for information about the dossier.
Auten disagrees and says that it was not articulated in their conversation that Danchenko’s safety superseded the money. However, according to Auten, Steele did not provide enough information to be given $1 million.
Auten says in his testimony in the IG Report, there were "3 buckets" of information to be discussed with Mr. Steele to determine if he was to receive compensation.
Since Steele did not give up the primary sub source, it’s inferred that this is part of the reason he did not receive $1 million.
In Auten’s affidavit to the FBI, he said they considered converting Danchenko to a confidential human source in an operations plan.
In Auten’s affidavit to the FBI, he said they considered converting Danchenko to a confidential human source in an operations plan.
Back from lunch.
The defense raises the issue again to Judge Trenga about the matter of Danchenko’s July 2016 email about being in New York. The argument of "present state of mind" as an exception to the hearsay rule is once again brought up.
The defense raises the issue again to Judge Trenga about the matter of Danchenko’s July 2016 email about being in New York. The argument of "present state of mind" as an exception to the hearsay rule is once again brought up.
The government argues that simply being in New York says nothing about Danchenko’s intent (as in if he was meeting with anyone or not).
Durham: "The email doesn’t say who is supposed to be at this meeting. The defendant is trying to infer something that doesn’t add up. Unless Danchenko testified, this evidence is not admissible…
…Per 803-3 with hearsay, this email [does not demonstrate] motive, intent, or plan. It’s [unclear] whether this meeting has anything to do with New York or Washington, D.C."
Judge Trenga agrees that the email is not sufficient. As the defense is trying to argue in support of introducing the email, Durham counters: "Auten did not have direct involvement in these communications…
…Auten did have involvement in investigations [related to] other conversations that the defense has introduced."
Onorato says he does not want to say that it was truthful that Danchenko [in fact] had a meeting because he didn’t end up having a meeting and would later leave New York that night on July 28, 2016.
Durham argues this is speculation and inappropriate.
Durham argues this is speculation and inappropriate.
The defense again argues state of mind and that they are trying to illustrate Danchenko’s intent.
Judge Trenga (paraphrased) will allow Onorato to ask Auten if he’s ever seen the email without getting into its context.
Judge Trenga (paraphrased) will allow Onorato to ask Auten if he’s ever seen the email without getting into its context.
Auten is back on the stand. The defense reminds where we left off that it’s true that FBI was trying to get Danchenko as a confidential human source.
Onorato asks Auten if Special Counsel gave instructions on how to answer questions. Auten says only w/ respect to being truthful.
Onorato asks Auten if Special Counsel gave instructions on how to answer questions. Auten says only w/ respect to being truthful.
There’s conversation around October 29, 2020, when Auten interviewed with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Auten makes it a point to say that Danchenko never said with 100% certainty that the anonymous caller was Milian.
Onorato: "Do you understand that Danchenko was trying to help you by saying that he was not 100% certain the caller was Milian?"
Auten understands.
Auten understands.
More emails are discussed in regard to Charles Dolan, who said that Corey Lewandowski hated Paul Manafort. The defense references a Daily Beast article but Judge Trenga asks why there is no publication date. Onorato says he’ll have his paralegal get it to the judge.
The defense continues to argue semantics about who liked who in Trump’s campaign.
In Government Exhibit 100, on page 20, middle of the last paragraph, there is language stating that Danchenko had conversation either on a regular phone call or on a phone app.
In Government Exhibit 100, on page 20, middle of the last paragraph, there is language stating that Danchenko had conversation either on a regular phone call or on a phone app.
The defense argues that the government is concealing evidence because Danchenko did in fact mention a phone app. Later, Onorato cites Auten’s notes from the January 2017 meeting with Danchenko wherein Auten himself underlined "app."
Onorato is trying to infer that Auten underlined app because it held significance, but Auten disagrees.
Danchenko’s travel records including the purchase of Amtrak train passes to New York is discussed.
Danchenko’s travel records including the purchase of Amtrak train passes to New York is discussed.
Onorato points out the irony that Sergei Milian just so happened to be arriving in New York the Friday that Danchenko was supposed to be there, suggesting theory that Milian had plenty of time between mid-July and August to make an anonymous call via regular call or mobile app.
The defense hardcore pushes the fact that Danchenko may have been using phone apps to communicate with Milian.
Defense: "Did the Special Counsel ever talk to the FBI about how many phone numbers Milian had? Would it be material to know that Milian had a foreign phone number?"
The defense trails on a tangent and adds: "Are you aware in August of 2016 that the FBI took other steps regarding Papadopoulos’ communications with Milian?"
Defense Exhibit 403 is referenced. It’s a copy of an intelligence memo, (105-262). There are two paragraphs where Milian and Papadopoulos are discussing energy.
Durham cuts in and notes that it was KNOWN that Milian was involved in the energy sector. Papadopoulos also wanted to get involved in the energy sector in the Middle East. Both men were involved in real estate and energy.
Onorato gets testy and says: "I’m glad Durham took 5 minutes out of my cross examination," complaining about the contents that Durham discussed.
In reference to July 15, 2016, when Milian sent a LinkedIn message to George Papadopoulos via iPad, after his U.S. phone carrier contract was voluntarily suspended, the defense asks Auten: "Were you aware that Milian had an iPad?"
Auten was not.
Auten was not.
The message read: "Please do not hesitate to contact me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Please leave a voicemail." He said voicemail because he was going to be traveling out of the country.
The defense notes that Milian had also set up Skype calls in the future. Auten says he did not discuss Milian’s alternate phone number or the fact that he had an iPad.
On October 29, 2020, when Auten testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said [at the time] that he had no basis not to believe Danchenko about the Steele dossier.
Because Auten could not recall exactly what he said from memory, Onorato had him look at the text to refresh. Durham cut in and said Auten is supposed to be going off recollection, not by notes.
The defense argues it had been 3.5 years since Auten had his January 2017 interview with Danchenko. Still, Auten says he stands by his testimony.
There’s discussion about the Russian journalists who reportedly connected Danchenko to Zlodorev, which is how Danchenko claimed he was ultimately introduced to Milian. However, Danchenko said he never actually met with Zlodorev.
Onorato shows Amtrak records allegedly purchased by Danchenko on July 25, 2016. Ironically, according to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection document, Milian was planning to fly into JFK in NYC from outside the country between July 27 and July 28 of 2016, but not definite plan.
Onorato again brings up a Facebook post Danchenko had made on July 28, 2016 at 8:23 PM UTC that said, "Another meeting tonight."
Government Exhibit 1810 is introduced, which is a stipulation that both parties agreed records of a cellular telephone company may have data of calls, but regarding calls via phone apps including WhatsApp, Viber, etc. cellular companies do not necessarily have those.
Back to the Facebook post. Despite the text, Danchenko departed NYC at approximately 10:05 PM. Danchenko had said he never had the alleged meeting. Auten agrees with the defense that everything Danchenko said about himself and Milian’s communications was corroborated.
🚨 Danchenko deleted all communications except a few to Zlodorev.
According to Auten’s OIG testimony, "One of the best things to come out of Crossfire Hurricane was working with Danchenko."
[END OF DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION]
According to Auten’s OIG testimony, "One of the best things to come out of Crossfire Hurricane was working with Danchenko."
[END OF DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION]
And so begins Durham’s redirect of Mr. Auten.
Durham asks if, to Auten’s recollection, they did not pull the travel or phone records. Auten says they didn’t.
Durham asks if, to Auten’s recollection, they did not pull the travel or phone records. Auten says they didn’t.
Durham is pissed. He essentially says to Auten: "You weren’t surprised that you weren’t shown things that you weren’t provided that were deleted?"
Auten is visibly flustered.
Durham: "You were part of it!"
Auten is visibly flustered.
Durham: "You were part of it!"
Durham says Crossfire Hurricane was under close scrutiny by Inspector General’s Office & talks about Auten’s poor conduct in respect to larger picture, including moments characterized in investigation on Carter Page, which Durham says has caused Auten "issues" within the FBI.
Durham says to Auten: "Is it true you were pending possible suspension for conduct?"
Durham asserts that Auten didn’t only become a subject of the investigation because of being involved with Crossfire Hurricane, but because of his conduct in handling the investigation on Carter Page and other matters.
Durham is on fire.
Durham is on fire.
Durham makes sure to refer back to Onorato’s mention of @GeorgePapa19 since there was an investigation on GP under Crossfire Hurricane.
Durham says: "In 2016, Papadopoulos was 28 years old. Was he such a "high level" advisor to Trump that he STILL HAD "Student UN Panel" on his resume?"
At this point, Durham is rhetorically ripping Auten to shreds!
At this point, Durham is rhetorically ripping Auten to shreds!
Durham: "George Papadopoulos was at ONE meeting. A photo op at the end of March. The FBI was more interested in George Papadopoulos' relation to the Middle East, not Russia."
The June or July communication wherein it was noted a "friendly foreign government" said Papadopoulos received a suggestion that Russia could help damage the Clinton campaign is to raised into question.
Durham: "In August 2016, it was known that Milian was a Trump-supporter, correct? Did you know?"
Auten: "Yes."
Auten: "Yes."
Durham: "Odd that he’d be contacting someone he’d never met about the Trump campaign."
Auten: "That is peculiar."
Durham: "Almost UNBELIEVABLE wouldn’t you say?"
Auten: "Wouldn’t say unbelievable, but…" (unclear)
Auten: "That is peculiar."
Durham: "Almost UNBELIEVABLE wouldn’t you say?"
Auten: "Wouldn’t say unbelievable, but…" (unclear)
Durham successfully makes a mockery out of the whole story, highlighting how dense the FBI is in handling their investigations.
Durham references Defense Exhibit 482, the July 15, 2016 email from Milian to Zlodorev. This email has already been referenced, and in previous parts of this trial, the defense was deceiving about its contents.
The email roughly read:
"Good Day!
At the beginning of August, I’m meeting with the Trump campaign. I can assume we’ll discuss Russia." And yet, the email said NOTHING BAD about Trump.
"Good Day!
At the beginning of August, I’m meeting with the Trump campaign. I can assume we’ll discuss Russia." And yet, the email said NOTHING BAD about Trump.
Durham makes it a point to mention that the maximum contingent compensation amount for Steele, if he offered dossier information, didn’t specifically say $1 million, but 7 figures. Auten conveniently "can’t recall."
Durham brings up Danchenko saying that the information in the Steele dossier report 2016/95 he supposedly obtained from Milian.
Conversation under seal.
Conversation under seal.
Durham goes back to the Steele dossier report 2016/95 re: the Carter Page FISA warrant application. Auten says that it was, "unclear at that point where the information came from, but Danchenko believed it to be Milian" based on the alleged 10-15 minute anonymous phone call.
Durham brings up the information in the 100-page affidavit that Auten prepared.
Defense objects.
Judge Trenga overrules.
Defense objects.
Judge Trenga overrules.
Auten responds to Durham’s probes calling out Auten for his direct involvement, says: "As an analyst I did not put together things for Carter Page FISA."
Durham: "You yourself elicited info about Report 95, and then the FBI/your colleagues used this info."
Durham is going off.
Durham: "You yourself elicited info about Report 95, and then the FBI/your colleagues used this info."
Durham is going off.
Referencing page 37 of Government Exhibit 100, 2nd full paragraph, Durham essentially mocks Auten and addresses the preposterous notion that Auten could accept it as sound fact that Danchenko thought [Milian] "sounds like" Source E based on the short conversation.
Regarding the FISA, Durham reiterates: "You, to some degree, participated in preparing the sworn affidavit. . ." Durham goes on to say that Auten merely went off of what Danchenko told him [about Milian].
The defense objects and Judge Trenga sustains.
The defense objects and Judge Trenga sustains.
Durham: "WHY WOULD an experienced FBI personnel NOT investigate phone records?"
Auten continues to hold up his metaphorical shield that he is an analyst.
Durham: "You think the jury would believe that analysts are not involved in decision making during an investigation?!"
Auten continues to hold up his metaphorical shield that he is an analyst.
Durham: "You think the jury would believe that analysts are not involved in decision making during an investigation?!"
Durham says: "You had NO corroborative evidence. Steele [also] did not provide information. YOU believed what Danchenko said was accurate!"
With respect to the Politico article that Charles Dolan included in his email to Danchenko that Onorato argued was "open source," Durham asserts that the significance of this article was NOT that it was about Paul Manafort,…
…it was about the fact that it was an American political figure associated with Trump that was outlined in this information. The person provided by this information was Charles Dolan, but Dolan was not this "American political figure associated with the Trump campaign."
Durham calls out that Dolan is a longtime DNC operative (which we learned in the Government’s opening statement that Dolan has been a DNC operative since Jimmy Carter).
Durham’s fiery energy is palpable in the room.
Durham’s fiery energy is palpable in the room.
Referencing page 20 of Government Exhibit 100, Durham makes sure to say that Auten WAS ASKED in the direct about whether or not he recalled if Danchenko mentioned whether his alleged 10-15 minute anonymous phone call occurred on an app, as well as the question of his use of apps.
During the direct, Auten didn’t say anything about his knowledge of Danchenko’s use of phone apps, only in the cross-examination.
On July 21, 2016, in Danchenko’s email to Milian, he never mentioned a phone app.
On July 21, 2016, in Danchenko’s email to Milian, he never mentioned a phone app.
Auten: "I don’t recall Crossfire Hurricane examining Danchenko’s phone app practices."
Durham gives Auten a look similar to the famous Trump facial expression, the one that speaks without speaking that says: "You had one job!"
Durham gives Auten a look similar to the famous Trump facial expression, the one that speaks without speaking that says: "You had one job!"
Durham references Defense Exhibit 497 (067270) which are Auten’s own notes from the January 2017 interview. Toward the bottom there’s a note that says, "Look back on phone."
Durham asks: "What did this mean?"
Durham asks: "What did this mean?"
Auten suggests it meant Danchenko was supposed to go back through his phone & produce anything that he had not given that he was supposed to, however Auten concurs that he is aware that Danchenko never followed through with that. In other words, Danchenko never produced anything.
Durham poses the question that counsel had asked Auten about Danchenko providing Auten source information. Durham insists: "It would’ve been helpful if Danchenko provided the Dolan information, right? It would’ve been important…
He didn’t provide the emails he sent to Milian either, did he?"
There was nothing in the August email that Danchenko did not show the FBI that said anything about the fact that he "never saw Milian in New York" on the alleged day they were supposed to meet.
There was nothing in the August email that Danchenko did not show the FBI that said anything about the fact that he "never saw Milian in New York" on the alleged day they were supposed to meet.
Danchenko actually said in the August email, "I wrote to you several weeks ago."
Auten agrees that there is [oddly] no reference there.
Auten agrees that there is [oddly] no reference there.
Durham reiterates Danchenko writing in an email to Zlodorev that Milian was not answering him. Durham also reiterates that there was no mention of any phone apps in any of these emails, including in Danchenko’s signature.
Once again, Durham pulls up the email from Danchenko to Milian that proves Danchenko ALREADY HAD plans to go to New York. In other words, there’s no proof that Danchenko made plans to go to New York for the sole purpose to meet with Milian.
Government Exhibit 204T is the email from July 21, 2016; from Danchenko to Milian that said Danchenko would be in New York next week and could meet him there.
Government Exhibit 901 dated July 18, 2016 corroborates the notion that Danchenko did not go to New York for the sole purpose to meet Milian; he already had plans.
The email is sent from Danchenko to a man named Cenk Sidar, with the subject line "?" and it reads: "I may have to go to NYC so let’s play it by ear. If I don’t let’s meet then." The purported anonymous phone call would not come until late July.
Auten does not know if this email exchange between Danchenko and Cenk Sidar was ever explored by Crossfire Hurricane.
[WITNESS EXCUSED. END OF DAY 2.]
[WITNESS EXCUSED. END OF DAY 2.]
Loading suggestions...