The FBI's botched investigation of anti-Trump dossier

 Washington Examiner:

New details on how the FBI botched a counterintelligence investigation into the source for the infamous anti-Trump dossier have been revealed.

The information has come to light ahead of the trial of Igor Danchenko, a Russian lawyer charged with lying to the FBI. Special counsel John Durham is leading the case against Danchenko.

Durham prosecutor Michael Keilty revealed the new information this week, saying that “the FBI closed the investigation because they mistakenly believed” that Danchenko had left the United States, “but it wasn’t because they hadn’t found anything on Mr. Danchenko.”

Keilty argued the counterintelligence investigation’s findings are relevant because of the bureau’s later need to determine if the Democratic-funded dossier was true, adding that “there was a huge fear in the FBI that this was Russian disinformation.”

The Durham prosecutor revealed that “there was a lot of miscommunication between the agents in Baltimore” who apparently led the counterintelligence investigation “and the handling agent” for Danchenko “about what happened with that investigation.”

Keilty said Danchenko’s handling agent “will testify that he was under a misimpression” about why the investigation was closed. Keilty also said a Baltimore FBI agent will say he thought the Danchenko counterintelligence investigation was “incredibly important” but it was not properly communicated to Danchenko’s handler.

The prosecutor summarized his argument by saying the FBI was concerned about Russian disinformation in the dossier, Danchenko made false statements about the sourcing of the dossier’s claims, and knowing the truth could have led the FBI back to the prior counterintelligence investigation.

Judge Anthony Trenga repeatedly pressed Keilty on this, and the prosecutor said the counterintelligence investigation’s findings would help highlight the materiality of the false statements Danchenko later made to the FBI about the dossier.

Trenga is weighing whether evidence about the prior counterintelligence investigation should be allowed in this case.
...

These look like excuses.  I think they should also be questioning them about the anti-Trump bias at the FBI.  It was a bias that appears to have been top down. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more