The widespread use of the term “roadmap” is telling. Let’s review the story of the Steele Dossier and ask whether clear-thinking unbiased persons in media or government would have taken the charges in the Dossier so seriously as to use it as the roadmap to Russian government officials’ purported alliance with Trump employees and campaign aides to help his election. The only “verified” information that Horowitz found was available from public sources. He found that the Dossier was compiled from hearsay and third-hand gossip from two low-level sources and that they denied the testimony attributed to them. Inspector General Michael Horowitz drove the final stake through its heart. We now know that the Steele Dossier is bogus. They were a knowing and willing part of the Democratic and media smear of a presidential contender, and then president, that paralyzed U.S. That our most sophisticated government officials acted as if the Dossier were legitimate leads to only one conclusion. Any residual doubt would have vanished after learning that its author, Christopher Steele, was an opposition researcher paid by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump.
But in doing so, he said it was "an extremely close call" and said jurors may well be persuaded by Danchenko's defense.ĭanchenko's lawyers have called the case an example of prosecutorial overreach and have said that the answers Danchenko gave to the FBI were all technically true, even if they weren't particularly illuminating.Īlso in Tuesday's ruling, Trenga denied - at least for now - a request from the government that Danchenko be barred from arguing to jurors or presenting evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated.A cursory examination of the Steele Dossier should have convinced the CIA or the FBI that it was fake news.
The ruling is another setback for Durham's case.Īt a hearing last week, Trenga rejected a motion from Danchenko's lawyers to toss out the case entirely. as they are substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion and unfair prejudice," Trenga wrote. "Given the low probative value of these allegations, they are not admissible. Specifically, he said the testimony the government planned to introduce wouldn't actually prove Danchenko lied. District Judge Anthony Trenga agreed with the defense. They say the testimony would be highly prejudicial and would confuse the jury.
#Steel dossier trial
Still, prosecutors wanted to present testimony at trial that they said would have shown that Danchenko lied about his sourcing for those allegations just as he lied about other aspects of his sourcing.ĭanchenko's lawyers objected. The five specific counts in the indictment don't charge Danchenko with lying about his sourcing for the sex allegations. Trump had called the dossier fake news and evidence of a political witch hunt against him. The dossier includes allegations that Trump engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel that was purportedly bugged by Russian intelligence - raising the possibility that Russians had information they could use to blackmail Trump.
Prosecutors say the FBI would have been able to judge the veracity of the dossier more accurately if Danchenko had admitted his primary source was a Clinton supporter. The indictment states that Danchenko's primary source of information was actually a Democratic operative named Charles Dolan, a public relations executive who volunteered for Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. Special Counsel John Durham claims Danchenko was a primary source of information in a dossier about Trump prepared by British spy Christopher Steele at the request of Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. District Court in Alexandria on charges of lying to the FBI. Igor Danchenko is scheduled to go on trial next week in U.S. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that prosecutors cannot present evidence to a jury about the most salacious parts of a flawed dossier alleging connections between former President Donald Trump and Russia at an upcoming trial of an analyst who served as a primary source for that report.
0 kommentar(er)
