Nathan News

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A Trump-era special prosecutor and defense attorney expressed sharply opposing views Monday during closing arguments on the motives of Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who has been a key contributor to the so -called Steele file.

A jury will now decide whether Mr. Danchenko is guilty of lying to the FBI about one of his sources of information in the Steele dossier, a collection of unsubstantiated claims that Donald J. Trump and his 2016 campaign were in league with Russia.

The case is a major test for special counsel John H. Durham, who was appointed in 2019 to investigate the origins of the FBI’s probe into the nature of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. An earlier indictment brought by Mr Durham ended in an acquittal in May, and the trial appears to be his last chance to secure a conviction in a case he developed.

In closing arguments, a prosecutor working for Mr Durham claimed that Mr Danchenko had clearly lied to the FBI and that his false claims had material effect. He pointed to part of the file the FBI cited to bolster wiretap requests from a former Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia.

“The lies of this defendant have provoked intense surveillance of a US citizen,” said Michael Keilty, an assistant special counsel.

In his own remarks, Mr Durham sought to expand the case, telling jurors the ‘whole house of cards in the case is collapsing’ under the weight of the evidence.

But the defense said the government’s own evidence showed Mr Danchenko did not lie. The attorney, Stuart A. Sears, called Mr. Danchenko a valuable and honest asset to the FBI who unwittingly became embroiled in a politically charged investigation. Mr Durham, he said, intended to prove the crimes “at all costs” and presumed Mr Danchenko guilty from the start.

“He’s trying to help the FBI, and now they’re charging him for it,” Mr Sears said.

After BuzzFeed published the dossier in 2017, public suspicion of Mr. Trump grew, but it has since been discredited — in part because Mr. Danchenko told the FBI that its author, the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, had exaggerated rumors that Mr Danchenko had gathered for him.

Mr. Trump and his supporters falsely sought to confuse the dossier with the official investigation into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia, but the FBI did not open the investigation based on the dossier and the final report of special counsel, Robert S. Mueller. III, cites nothing there as proof.

The FBI pointed to part of the case by requesting that the former Trump campaign adviser be wiretapped. An inspector general’s investigation found the office continued to do so after speaking to Mr Danchenko without telling a supervisory court that there was reason to doubt the credibility of the case.

The dossier was political opposition research indirectly funded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They paid a law firm, which paid a research firm, which in turn subcontracted to a company run by Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele hired Mr. Danchenko to solicit contacts in Russia and Europe about Mr. Trump’s business dealings in Russia.

Mr. Danchenko verbally passed on rumors that Mr. Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia and that Russia had a blackmail tape of Mr. Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. But in an interview with the FBI, Mr Danchenko said he first saw the dossier when BuzzFeed published it and Mr Steele exaggerated his statements, describing the gossip and unsubstantiated speculation. like facts.

The FBI made Mr. Danchenko a paid confidential source and he disclosed his source for the rumours. Although he did not provide information supporting the case, the lawsuit showed that the bureau found his network of contacts valuable in identifying Russian influence operations unrelated to the United States.

But in November 2021, Mr Durham accused Mr Danchenko of making false statements to the FBI about two of his sources for allegations in the case.

The special counsel said Mr. Danchenko lied when he said he never “spoke” to Charles Dolan, a Democratic lobbyist, about anything in the case, even though Mr. Dolan told him had emailed information about a minor complaint about office politics in the Trump campaign that was on file.

Mr Danchenko is also accused of lying to the FBI four times when he repeatedly said he believed a person who called in July 2016 and provided information without identifying himself was likely Sergei Millan, a former President of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. .

The trial, which started last week, ended much earlier than expected after the judge handling the case excluded much of the material Mr Durham had wanted to present, including the alleged blackmail tape .

Mr Durham faced additional setbacks. Two prosecution witnesses, both FBI agents, appeared to undermine the prosecution case during their testimony, including stating that Mr. Danchenko’s assertion that he had not spoken to Mr. Dolan about the Trump’s campaign office policy was “literally true” since it was made in an email.

On Friday, Judge Anthony Trenga dismissed the charge against Mr Dolan before it could go to the jury, saying Mr Durham had failed to present sufficient evidence.

Judge Trenga reserved judgment for now on a defense request to dismiss the other four charges involving the alleged appeal of a person he believed to be Mr Millian.

The prosecution pointed out that traditional phone records showed no evidence of such a call, but the defense suggested it could have taken place via an app.

The prosecution also pointed to an email Mr. Danchenko sent to Mr. Millian that made no mention of a prior call or missed meeting. But an FBI agent testified that it was reasonable for an email to omit such a reference if Mr. Danchenko believed the caller was seeking anonymity.

At one point on Monday, Mr Durham defended his work and berated the FBI for its handling of the Russia investigation, prompting the judge to ask him to speed up his remarks.

“It’s not an illogical question to ask, ‘Well, how did this start?'” Mr Durham said, after claiming that Mr Mueller had concluded there was no “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“You should finish,” said Judge Trenga.

The Russia investigation actually began after a diplomat suggested that a Trump campaign adviser may have had inside information about Russia’s breach of Democratic emails.

Mr. Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge a Trump associate with a criminal conspiracy with Russia. But his March 2019 report detailed “numerous ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that each perceived they would benefit from the other.

Linda Qiu reported from Alexandria, Virginia, and charlie savage reported from Washington. Adam Goldman contributed reporting from Alexandria, Virginia.