Russian Collusion, Pt. 1
A deep dive into the FBI's investigation into Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and why it matters today.
There is a crisis of confidence in both our intelligence agencies and our legal system at large in the United States. In 2014, 62% of Republicans believed the FBI was doing a “good” or “excellent” job. That declined to 49% in 2017. It now sits around 29%. What caused the party of “law and order” to abandon faith in our nation’s top law enforcement agency?
Furthermore, Republicans’ faith in our criminal justice system currently sits lower than their Democratic counterparts.
With the indictments and trials of former President Donald Trump capturing attention for the foreseeable future, I wanted to do a deep dive on a difficult topic: why many Americans have lost faith in our intelligence community and judicial system. I want to be clear, I’m not an attorney. I’ll probably miss something in this series. But, I think it’s important that Americans get an adequate understanding of how the most powerful government agencies work, and importantly, when they don’t work.
Supporters of Donald Trump do not have faith in our intelligence or legal community. Those who aren’t the biggest fans of the former President are usually quick to dismiss this distrust. That’s usually where the battle lines are drawn and there’s little nuance in between.
Here’s where I stand: Supporters of Donald Trump have valid reasons to be skeptical of the federal government’s objectiveness. That’s not to say that all their reasons are justified, but some most certainly are. I thought it would be a worthwhile venture to do a deep dive into what the heck actually occurred when the FBI investigated the Trump campaign in 2016, something that evolved into the infamous “Russian collusion” conspiracy that shadowed the first half of Trump’s term in office.
I’m relying on various sources here, but here are three major ones:
The Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns, or has it has been colloquially named, the Durham Report, as the report was assembled by Special Counsel John M. Durham. 480 interviews were conducted, 190 subpoenas were issued, and 6 million pages of documents were reviewed in crafting this report. The full report is 306 pages and I am including it as an attachment below.
The Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, which I will refer to as the Inspector General’s Review. This review, released on December 9, 2019, The full review is 434 pages and I am including it as an attachment below.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Interview of Stuart Evans. This is an interview conducted on July 31, 2020 of Stuart Evans, who served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General responsible for Intelligence and Oversight during the beginning stages of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. I won’t actually get to Stuart Evans and his importance until part 2, but I’m attaching it ahead of time. The full interview is 227 pages and I am including it as an attachment below.
If I discover any other significant source material, I’ll do my best to include it and cite it in a way that you can find it easily.
Let’s remember what folks said about the Russian Collusion conspiracy, shall we?
If your memory is a bit hazy on how all the talk of Donald Trump and Russia began, you may want to take a look at Politico’s timeline of events. It gives a good general overview of what was said, when, and what events transpired leading up to, during, and after the 2016 election.
It’s important to put this entire conspiracy into context.
During the campaign, Trump had made many comments that were complimentary towards Vladimir Putin and Russia. Meanwhile, John Podesta’s emails were hacked and eventually released, leading to embarrassment for the Democratic establishment. Intelligence officials were quick to point the finger at Russia.
The turning point was the Steele Dossier.
“A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations that the Russian government has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.”
Buzzfeed, January 10, 2017
“Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.”
CNN, January 12, 2017
Emerging from a contentious campaign and Trump’s shocking victory, Democrats were quick to latch onto claims that there was collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. All of a sudden, Trump’s praise for a de facto dictator made sense, as did Russia’s efforts to hack Democrats’ emails and embarrass Hillary Clinton. They were in on it together!
It seems that the Steele Dossier was in the hands of a few folks before the November 2016 election. For example, a letter from then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to then-FBI Director James Comey on October 30, 2016 accuses the top cop of potentially engaging in illegal activity to promote one candidate (Trump) over another (Clinton). You see, Reid was aware of the Steele Dossier for sometime before that, and he was aware that Comey’s FBI had them as well. Reid wanted to know why they hadn’t released them and concluded that the most plausible answer was Comey’s allegiance to Trump. Keep in mind that Comey was a lifelong Republican until 2016.
Ironic, considering President Trump’s views on Comey today.
The Durham Report
At 306 pages, the Durham Report is a quite the read, so I wanted to distill its conclusions as simply as possible as I believe the report generally establishes a good guide as to how the FBI opened their investigation into the Trump campaign, how that investigation was conducted, and what it actually revealed.
INVESTIGATION OPENED AGAINST STANDARD PRECEDENT: The FBI opened an investigation (named Crossfire Hurricane) on July 31, 2016 into Donald Trump’s campaign based on unverified information. They seemingly broke traditional procedure in doing so with such speed (and by opening a full investigation rather than a partial one).
BIAS SHOWN BY AGENTS IN CHARGE: Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, was responsible for helping launch the investigation. While doing so, he texted clear bias against Donald Trump to the woman he was having an affair with (who also worked for the FBI), stating that “we'll stop” Trump from becoming President just days after the investigation was opened.
POOR SOURCES UTILIZED TO CONTINUE INVESTIGATION, OBTAIN WARRANTS: The most significant piece of information used to push the Crossfire Hurricane investigation forward was the infamous “Steele Dossier,” a collection of reports made by a London-based investigator paid by the Democratic National Committee. The bulk of the information in these reports supposedly came from a single source, Igor Danchenko, who had previously been suspected of working with Russian intelligence in some capacity and admitted he had little to no corroboration for most of the claims he made in the reports. These reports were heavily cited in applications to obtain FISA warrants against multiple members of the Trump campaign.
UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF THE CAMPAIGNS: Despite information (some of which was more substantiated and credible than what triggered the investigation into Trump’s campaign) regarding foreign interference into the Clinton campaign, the FBI handled that information very differently, even providing Hillary Clinton with defensive briefings (via her personal attorneys) about the allegations. The same offer was not extended to Donald Trump.
RED FLAGS WERE RAISED ON OMITTED INFORMATION: When a significant Department of Justice official learned that a substantial part of the information used to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page was paid for by the Democratic National Committee, the FBI decided to move forward anyways, against the professional opinion of that DOJ official.
How the Investigation into Donald Trump’s Campaign Began
Upon receiving information that George Papadopoulos, an unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign, told an Australian diplomat that the Russians were willing/able to assist Trump, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened. The information was received by the FBI on July 28, 2016.
”…neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” (p.8, Durham Report)
The investigation was launched at the direction of Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI, and Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence.
“The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.” (p.9, Durham Report)
“at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.” (p.9, Durham Report)
“The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign.” (p.9, Durham Report)
These three statements reveal that the FBI moved quickly to open a full investigation into the Trump campaign without properly vetting the information that underpinned its purpose. What could simply be dismissed as misfeasance can be quickly assumed to be malfeasance when you consider the fact that a differing standard was supposedly applied to the Clinton campaign. That assumption is bolstered by the fact that Peter Strzok made numerous comments in private text messages to Lisa Page, at the time an FBI lawyer who was having an affair with Strzok.
Here are a few of those messages, found on pages 49 and 50 of the Durham Report:
July 18, 2016:
Page: “Oooh, TURN IT ON, TURN IT ON!!! THE DOUCHE BAGS ARE ABOUT TO COME OUT. You can tell by the excitable clapping.”
Strzok: “And wow, Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.”
July 21, 2016:
Strzok: “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.”
July 27, 2016:
Page: “Have we opened on him yet? Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumpputin-yesit-s-really-a-thing”
Strzok: “Opened on Trump? If Hillary did, you know 5 field offices would…”
July 28, 2016 (timeline context):
The FBI receives the information regarding the meeting between Australian diplomats and George Papadopoulos.
July 31, 2016 (timeline context):
The Crossfire Hurricane investigation is opened into the allegation that the Trump campaign is colluding with the Russian government.
August 8, 2016:
Page: “[Trump's] not going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No, he's not. We'll stop it.”
It is, of course, doubtful that Strzok had the power or resources to “stop” a Trump Presidency (as is evident with Trump’s victory 3 months later), but that doesn’t mean we can dismiss the fact that person who helped launch and then led the investigation into Trump’s campaign held strong views opposing his candidacy and was seemingly more than willing to utilize his government power to tip the scales.
Strzok was fired once these text messages became public. He has sued on First Amendment grounds. It is absolutely true that Strzok has the right to have opinions, even on presidential candidates, but this is a part of a broader conversation surrounding perception, not necessarily legality.
(Side note: Strzok and Page are, I believe, still suing the federal government over the release of these text messages)
Two days after the investigation was opened, FBI agents (including Strzok) travelled to London to interview the Australian diplomats who provided the information regarding Papadopolous. Even then, most involved seemed to agree that the evidence was thin and that Papadopolous’s word wasn’t reliable. Below is a conversation between an FBI agent (referred to below as Agent) assigned to the investigation and the FBI's Assistant Legal Attache in London (referred to below as Attache) via Lync messenger on August 11, 2016: (p.60, Durham Report)
Attache: “Dude, are we telling them [British Intelligence Service] everything we know, or is there more to this?”
Agent: “that's all we have”
Agent: “not holding anything back”
Attache: “Damn that's thin”
Agent: “I know”
Agent: “it sucks”
In an interview with the Inspector General later, the Attache stated that higher ups were pushing this issue and “there was no stopping the train.” (p.61, Durham Report)
Eventually, even the British became skeptical of the investigation and began pushing back on collaborating with the FBI on it.
Here’s where I beg for a few bucks.
For just $5.00 a month (just $2.50 a month for the rest of the year) - the price of a tiny Starbucks coffee - you can get insights and analysis such as this. Part 2 will also be available for all my readers, but you’ll need to be a subscriber to read Part 3 (and any other parts that my come)!
The Steele Dossier
One of the more well-known aspects of the “Russian collusion” story is the Steele Dossier. In 2016, the law firm Perkins Coie, which was retained by the Clinton campaign, retained Fusion GPS, a research firm in the United States, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then decided to hire Christopher Steele and his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to prepare opposition research on Donald Trump. Steele was a MI6 intelligence official for 22 years. Orbis then hired Igor Danchenko, a Russian national with a strange web of connections and credentials, to help gather information and provide analysis for this opposition research. (Other sources may have been used, but Danchenko is the one who’s name is now public.)
Beginning sometime in September of 2016, the Steele Reports (which became the Steele Dossier) were being sent to the FBI on a regular basis. Days after being received, these reports were used as legal justification before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, primarily for Carter Page.
Near the end of 2016, the FBI became aware that Igor Danchenko was the “primary sub source” for most of the information (80% by Danchenko’s own estimation) within the reports. The FBI began directly interviewing Danchenko, which occurred with some regularity between 2017 and 2020, and beginning in March of 2017, the FBI began paying Danchenko as a confidential human source.
Here’s why this is so important: this was not the first time the FBI was aware of Danchenko. In fact, if we turn the clock back to 2009, we learn that Igor Danchenko was the target of an FBI counterespionage investigation.
What?
Check this out:
“In late 2008, while employed by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., Danchenko engaged two fellow employees at a happy hour about whether one of the employees might be willing or able in the future to provide classified information in exchange for money. [One of the coworkers] was a research fellow for an influential foreign policy advisor who was about to enter the Obama administration. According to [that coworker], Danchenko believed that he [that coworker] might also enter the Obama administration with the foreign policy advisor and have access to classified information. During this exchange, Danchenko informed [that coworker] that he (Danchenko) had access to people who would be willing to pay money for classified information. Rightly concerned, [that coworker] informed a U.S. government contact at an appropriate government agency about this encounter, and the information was subsequently passed on to the FBI.” (p.132)
The FBI soon after opened a full investigation into Danchenko once they discovered that he “(i) had been identified as an associate of two other FBI espionage subjects, and (ii) had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.” (p.130)
The investigation continued with more interviews of folks who worked or studied with Danchenko, many of which suspected he had ties to Russian intelligence.
So, what ended up happening?
The FBI dropped the investigation. Why, might you ask? Well, Danchenko and his wife purchased one-way tickets to London in September of 2010. The FBI concluded they were leaving the United States for good.
But he didn’t. They never boarded the flight.
(If you suspect you’re the target of an FBI investigation, I can’t promise this will still be an effective strategy to throw them off your trail.)
It seems that the FBI was told that Danchenko may not have left in 2012, but they never re-opened the investigation.
Equally troubling is that Russians knew about Steele’s investigations intro Trump before the FBI did, or at least before the Crossfire Hurricane team did. According to the Durham report, “Russian intelligence knew of Steele's election investigation for the Clinton campaign by no later than early July 2016." (p.59) This is concerning considering the fact that the Igor Danchenko, who apparently is responsible for 80% of the content in the Steele Reports/Dossier, had known ties to Russian intelligence, was suspected of working for the Russians by fellow students and coworkers, and was once under investigation by the FBI for his ties to Russian intelligence.
Now, there’s a flip side to Igor Danchenko, or at least a different story that the FBI wants to tell. Due to the Durham investigation, Danchenko was charged with lying to the FBI, specifically about the sources of information he received. During his trial, the two FBI officials called to the stand ended up being generally defensive of Danchenko, with one calling him “a model” informant that “reshaped the way the U.S. even perceives threats.” Perhaps this is true, or perhaps FBI agents were attempting to cover for their colleagues who conducted a botched investigation. Danchenko ended up being acquitted of the charges. Of interest, the agents who testified, who were not involved in Crossfire Hurricane, also were not aware of the counterintelligence investigation into Danchenko a few years before.
Furthermore, when the FBI began speaking directly with Danchenko, he seemed to downplay his own intelligence, basically stating that Christopher Steele was responsible for playing up the allegations, not him. According to the Inspector General’s investigation, Danchenko “had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that ‘it was just talk.’” Danchenko “believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests.” (p.226)
Steele was asked to respond to this in an ABC interview in 2021, where he stated that Danchenko probably downplayed his information to not spook his sources.
What conclusions can we draw about Danchenko? Hardly any. Depending who you ask, he was either an important source who got the short end of the stick here, a potential double agent, a liar who wanted to cash in on the anti-Trump craze, or exaggerative about his sources and their information. The same generally goes for Christopher Steele. Steele had a long career in British intelligence, but he was also paid by the DNC. He continues to believe that some of the most salacious allegations made in his reports are true, but can we take that at face value?
I went on Colorado Inside Out quite awhile ago to discuss Donald Trump’s legal issues. If you’d like to see that short clip on LinkedIn, click here.
For the rest of the year, I’m offering 50% off my premium Substack newsletter, which includes posts like this. If you’d like to continue receiving insightful posts like this for the price of a really cheap coffee (just $2.50) per month, click below! Thanks for considering.