OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Just The News founder John Solomon believes that Special Counsel John Durham is preparing to go after the FBI.
Solomon spoke about Durham’s probe into the Trump-Russia witch hunt and predicted what he believes Durham’s next move might be.
Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — key source for the unverified Steele dossier that alleged ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents last year as part of the Durham investigation.
Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”
In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials who were connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.
Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on members of Trump’s 2016 campaign.
“But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He’s hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated,” he said.
“A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what’s right and wrong with the Steele dossier. It’s all wrong. Can’t corroborate, they can’t collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that’s where John Durham’s investigation is focused right now,” he added.
Durham’s investigation has shown that “Clinton’s allies and lawyers fed the FBI a stream of rumor and innuendo suggesting Trump and his aides were in bed with the Russians” and that “after Trump won, the FBI’s leadership was eager to use the Clinton campaign’s research to bolster their own failing probe,” argues Eli Lake at Spectator World.
“In October . . . the second trial to stem from Durham’s investigation will commence: that of Igor Danchenko — largely responsible for the specious contents of the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign.” But “to this day, most Democrats still don’t believe that and ignore how that conspiracy theory was first whispered by their party’s own lawyers and operatives,” Lake wrote.
“And Danchenko was not reliable. Last year, he was charged with five counts of lying to the FBI during 2017 debriefings about his sourcing for the dossier. The theory of the case is that this former Brookings Institution researcher, himself once the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation as a possible Russian agent, hoodwinked the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world. Had Danchenko told the truth when first questioned, the FBI would have saved the time and resources it wasted on trying to confirm his tall tales,” Lake added in his piece.
“If the only damage done by the Steele dossier had been to inject disinformation into American political discourse, there would only be a medium-level scandal. But Comey and the FBI took the dossier seriously, despite never verifying it. Comey himself, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, personally lobbied — over the objections of CIA analysts — to include allegations from the dossier in a US intelligence assessment of Russia’s influence over the 2016 election. And when Comey briefed congressional leaders and the Justice Department in March 2017, we know from recently declassified FBI talking points, it was claimed that some of the dossier had already been corroborated and that it derived from a Russia-based source, when in fact Danchenko was a US resident at the time. By that point, the FBI had already conducted one interview with Danchenko — and he had begun to walk back some of the dossier’s claims. In other words, Comey presented the Steele dossier as credible information to Congress, just as lower-level agents were learning it was not to be trusted,” he wrote.