7 Takeaways From Trial of Igor Danchenko, Key Source for Anti-Trump Dossier

Russian analyst Igor Danchenko walks to the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Va., on Oct. 11, 2022. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The trial of Igor Danchenko, a key source for the anti-Donald Trump dossier, ended in Danchenko’s acquittal. But a number of revelations emerged during the trial about Danchenko, dossier author Christopher Steele, and the FBI.

FBI Paid Danchenko Nearly $220,000

Filings just before the trial showed Danchenko was a confidential human informant for the FBI. The arrangement started in March 2017 and ended in October 2020, just before the 2020 presidential election.

Danchenko was paid $219,000 during that time, Kevin Helson, one of his handling agents, testified.

Helson, who declined an offer to join the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged links between Trump and Russia, submitted approvals for each payment.

As part of the arrangement, Danchenko was given an immunity letter.

“Your client agrees to supply complete and truthful information and testimony to all persons in this matter, as well as in any other proceeding, including court proceedings, related to or growing out of this investigation. Your client must answer all questions concerning the subject matter of this investigation and must not withhold any information. Your client must neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission nor falsely implicate any person or entity,” the letter stated.

Helson said Danchenko proved useful, providing information that was used in at least 25 investigations. He lamented losing Danchenko as a source.

Helson asked for a lump sum payment of $346,000 for Danchenko due to him being terminated and because of fears surrounding his safety. The Department of Justice rejected the request.

Danchenko May Have Committed Immigration Fraud

Danchenko came onto the FBI’s radar in 2008 after allegedly offering a colleague payment in exchange for classified information. The bureau opened an investigation, but closed the probe when it believed he left the country.

But Danchenko actually never departed the United States, which meant he overstayed his visa, special counsel John Durham said.

“Are you aware of the fact that he was supposed to depart the country and didn’t?” Durham asked Helson.

“No,” Helson said.

When the bureau began seeking to turn Danchenko into a source, experts at the bureau’s human validation unit recommended the Washington Field Office determine whether Danchenko committed immigration fraud, Helson confirmed.

“Yes, they commended that,” he told Durham.

“Did you do that?” Durham wondered.

“No,” Helson said.

Helson also ignored other recommendations, including a recommendation to examine Danchenko’s motives, allegiances, and vulnerabilities;  a recommendation to give Danchenko a polygraph; and a recommendation to assess Danchenko’s financial situation.

Under cross-examination, Helson agreed that he had issues with at least one of the people on the validation unit, and that he sent text messages complaining that the report containing the recommendations was poorly written. He said he did not feel that the recommended actions were necessary.

Millian Also an FBI Source

Millian was also at one point an informant for the FBI, according to FBI analyst Brian Auten.

“Mr. Millian, at one time, had been a source,” Auten testified under questioning by Durham.

Millian declined to comment about the statement to The Epoch Times.

Auten also sent an email to colleagues in August 2017 saying that the bureau was conducting surveillance when Millian showed up in a vehicle, Durham said during a sidebar.

“The fact that the bureau was surveilling one person, not Millian, and Millian was in a car, when he was the president of the Russian Chamber of Commerce, is completely irrelevant to these proceedings,” Durham said. The judge ruled against admitting the email.

There’s no sign that Millian, a pro-Trump businessman, ever communicated with Danchenko, who reached out in 2016 as he gathered information for the dossier.

Millian was for years believed to be “Source E” in the dossier, but charging documents in the Danchenko case largely quashed those rumors. The documents triggered major corrections from the Washington Post, one of the main news outlets that promoted the theory.

Information Danchenko attributed to Millian ended up in the warrants for spy applications the FBI submitted to the secretive U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The court approved a warrant and three renewals for agents to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign associate.

Millian was listed on the government witness list but prosecutors said he did not want to travel to the United States due to concerns about the safety of himself and his family.

Neither Steele Nor Danchenko Provided Corroborative Information

The dossier was rife with unsubstantiated allegations.

Steele was offered $1 million to prove any of the claims in the document, Auten testified.

“Mr. Steele was offered anywhere up to a million dollars for any information, documentary, physical evidence, anything of that sort which could help to prove the allegations,” Auten said.

“At any time when you were overseas meeting with Steele in early October, did he provide anything?” he was asked.

“He did not,” Auten replied.

The offer was made when Auten and others with the FBI met with Steele in Rome, Italy in October 2016. Steele was slated to be paid $15,000 for the meeting but the payment never went through, according to a previous investigation (pdf).

Auten compared the offer to those made to people when the FBI wants to solicit information from anybody who might know details that could lead to a successful prosecution.

If Steele provided information “that led to a successful prosecution, Mr. Steele would be able to earn potentially up to a million dollars,” Auten said.

Steele, Auten said, also did not provide any corroborative information after the meeting.

Danchenko also did not provide evidence for the claims for which he was responsible, agents testified during the trial.

Danchenko conveyed to Steele that the information he was providing “rumor and speculation,” according to his lawyers. Danchenko recounted that to FBI agents.

Danchenko “never claimed that he was going to be able to corroborate anything that was in the dossier, correct?” Stuart Sears, one of the lawyers, said while questioning Helson.

“That’s correct,” Helson said.

“And he said it was unlikely you were going to be able to corroborate anything that was in the dossier, correct?” Sears asked.

“He basically said that the bureau or the U.S. Government is going to have to figure that out,” Helson said.

Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer in London, UK, on March 7, 2017. Victoria Jones/PA via AP

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on July 24, 2019. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Mueller’s Team Was Investigating Dossier

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigated the dossier, even though Mueller told members of Congress in 2019 that examining the dossier’s veracity was “outside my purview.”

But testimony during the trial indicated otherwise.

Helson, Danchenko’s handling agent, said questions that were posed to Danchenko about the dossier actually came from Mueller’s team.

They “came from the Mueller investigative team, particularly Ms. Anderson,” Helson testified.

Amy Anderson was an analyst at the FBI headquarters assigned to assist Mueller.

“I would speak to Agent Helson, and we would discuss what might be interesting for us to know. And then he would go and speak to his source,” Anderson testified.

“I was assigned to attempt to validate the Steele dossier,” she also said. “I was asked to either verify the reporting or determine that it was not accurate.”

Anderson and Brian Auten, another Mueller team member, even traveled to Cyprus to interview Olga Galkina, an associate of Danchenko.

Galkina has denied being a source for the dossier but FBI agents determined she was.

Brittany Hertzog, another FBI agent assigned to Mueller’s team, said that one of her jobs was to investigate the dossier.

“As an intelligence analyst, we were trying to identify the sourcing for the claims in the dossier and, specifically, the national security threat with regards to the Russian influence piece,” she said.

Dossier Source Says He Lied

The dossier was compiled by Steele for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. Some of the information in the dossier came from Charles Dolan, a longtime Clinton associate, via Danchenko.

Dolan testified during the trial that he was not being truthful when he wrote the email that contained the information.

“I had a drink with a GOP friend of mine who knows some of the players and got some of what is in this article, which provides even more detail. She also told me that Corey Lewandowski, who hates [Paul] Manafort and still speaks to Trump, regularly played a role. He is said to be doing a happy dance over it,” Dolan wrote to Danchenko.

“I lied. I got it off cable news,” Dolan said on the stand. “Mr. Danchenko had brought me some business. I wanted to tell him that his sources were good. The woman was on cable news.”

Dolan was deeply connected to Russia, including working with Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also had a business connection with Galkina, to whom he was introduced by Danchenko.

FBI Blocks Investigation Into Dolan

Hertzog and Anderson both said they wanted to investigate Dolan, but were blocked by their superiors.

“I was concerned about a national security threat, especially as it related to Mr. Dolan’s connectivity to the sources and sub-sources of the dossier, as well as his connectivity to any Russian government officials,” Hertzog testified.

But the team was instructed “not to take further action on the matter,” Hertzog said.

She wanted further investigation of Dolan so she serialized it in case files.

Anderson said that, after she learned of Dolan’s connections to Galkina and Danchenko, “I wanted to look into him.” She recounted compiling a report in a manner that would allow the bureau to take investigative steps such as subpoenaing Dolan’s emails.

Anderson submitted the report to her superior, special agent Joe Nelson.

The report “sat for approximately three to four weeks,” Anderson said.

“I was told to close—well, it was never opened. So I was told it was not going to be opened,” she said.

“And who told you that?” Anderson was asked.

“Joe Nelson,” she said.

“Were you given any specific reason why it was not to be opened?” a prosecutor asked.

A defense lawyer objected, and the judge sustained the objection, so Anderson could not answer.