As I wrote about here, Igor Danchenko, an analyst for the Brookings Institute and a native-born Russian, has been identified as the “Primary Sub-Source” for nearly every allegation in the “Steele Dossier” about collusion between Pres. Trump, the Trump Campaign, and Russian actors of one stripe or another.
Danchecko sat down with the FBI for a three-day interview in January 2017 after the FBI had uncovered his identity. The Steele memos containing information given to ex-MI5 Agent Christopher Steele by Danchenko had been released earlier in the month by Buzzfeed News, and according to Danchencko that was the first time he knew what it was Steele had attributed to him in his reports to the client that had paid Steele to dig up information on connections between Trump and Russia.
This first interview with Danchenko was memorialized in the form of a 57-page “Electronic Communication” (“EC”) which is an FBI document used for internal communication of significant case developments to others involved in an investigation, and also to document the interview in the case file. The EC was declassified, redacted, and authorized for public release by DOJ at the urging of Senator Lindsay Graham as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
From the DOJ Inspector General’s Report on the Four FISAs we know that former DOJ attorney David Laufman, then the Chief of the Export Control Section of the National Security Division, negotiated the terms of the interview with Danchencko’s attorney, and Laufman attended the first day of the interview.
On Saturday the NYT reported a typical “Chicken Little — The Sky is Falling” piece claiming that Danchencko has been promised confidentiality as a condition of his interview and that in declassifying and releasing the 57 page EC — even in its redacted form — Attorney General William Barr had left sufficient factual information unredacted such that internet “sleuths” had been able to identify Danchenko.
What is first noteworthy about the story is the headline — “The FBI Pledged To Keep A Source Anonymous. Trump Allies Aided His Unmasking.”
But when you read the 43 paragraph story, you see that the issue of “confidentiality” is addressed only in the first few paragraphs, and approximately 2/3 of the article discusses the problems with the accuracy and reliability of the allegations in the Steele memos considering the nature of the sourcing, and the misconduct of the FBI in pursuing various parts of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — most significantly the FISA warrant on Carter Page — relying on information from Steele’s memos. Most of the criticism that does have to do with the issue of “confidentiality” is the NYT airing of grievances by anti-Trump forces outside the government unhappy about the aggressive moves by Attorney General Barr to disclose more and more information as part of the “public’s right to know” that exposes what a farce the Russia Hoax investigation was from the start.
More importantly, the anti-Trump forces — former Obama DOJ and IC officials, and the media — are unhappy that the disclosure of the information to the public is building the case to be made that the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller lacked a factual basis from the start and that it went on for two years nonetheless is de facto evidence that it was always a political “hit job.”
As for the issue of “confidentiality” and whether the public release of the “EC” was inappropriate — I call “BS” on the notion advanced by the story.
The only reference in the story to there being a promise of confidentiality as a precondition to the interview is in the following:
The F.B.I. had approached the expert, a man named Igor Danchenko, as it vetted the dossier’s claims. He agreed to tell investigators what he knew with an important condition, people familiar with the matter said — that the F.B.I. keep his identity secret so he could protect himself, his sources and his family and friends in Russia.
When the NYT relies on anonymous sources who are current government officials, it normally appends an explanation that the person requested to maintain their anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter. No such explanation is provided here.
As I stated in my story yesterday, we know from the IG Report that two people negotiated the terms for the interview — former DOJ attorney David Laufman, and Mark Schamel, the attorney for Danchenko who is referenced in the story. Schamel is quoted several times in the story, but not one of his quotes contains a claim that DOJ has breached a promise of confidentiality made to his client.
Why would people that provide false information receive confidentiality? People that lie shouldn’t expect protections; they should expect to be discovered and exposed. That would help to stop people from lying.
Like the rest of the liberal media, the NYT wants to protect and defend liars, as long as they lie about their common enemy: the United States and those that protect her. Odd that those who so often participate in doxxing people should object to a person being exposed as the source of lies.