The Curious Clinton Development in the Case Against Igor Danchenko – Opinion

John Durham, Special Counsel to Igor Danchenko was indicted by the court about one month ago.

Danchenko, a Russian citizen who was employed by the Brookings Institution, is the principal source of the Steele dossier that falsely claimed Russia collusion. Danchenko was indicted for lying to the Brookings Institution when he was being interviewed by them in 2017, while they investigated the dossier.

All of them [sic]Not surprisingly, the Russian kept it secret that he had been working with a Democratic public relations executive who was connected to Hillary Clinton. The executive was named by press reports as Charles Dolan. This is an associate of Hillary Clinton who worked actively to make Hillary President in 2016. According to the indictment, Mr. Dolan is accused of making a number of demeaning and offensive claims against Mr. Trump. These accusations were made by Mr. Danchenko who then fed them to Mr. Steele. Mr. Dolan’s attorney told the New York Times that his client could not comment on an ongoing case.

The purpose was to present the FBI with oppo-research that masqueraded as “intelligence,” and it worked. Although Hillary Clinton won the election the Russia narrative sabotaged the incoming president with constant media assaults, and a special prosecutor investigation. The country spent years obsessing over the Trump conspiracy that didn’t exist—rather than the Clinton conspiracy that did.

At least one ‘source’ allegedly expected to get rewarded for the effort.

One of the other Danchenko/Steele Russian “sources” –

It was my expectation to receive a job with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

It is much worse than what we thought. pic.twitter.com/zUw3Z8I599

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 4, 2021

Danchenko, as we have seen, had many interesting connections.

Fiona Hill’s role in spreading the Steele Dossier as well as ginning up Trump’s first impeachment should set off alarm bells. https://t.co/7yi7ykABRl

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) November 4, 2021

But with all this now finally being investigated, one might think that there could be other targets that Durham might be looking into, since there are a lot of possibilities here — and that one might be thinking about working with Danchenko for some of that information.

However, they were wrong to think they could. Now comes the surprising development that Danchenko now has Clinton-related legal counsel. John Durham has filed a motion with the court to disclose a conflict of interest. Danchenko is represented by Danny Onorato and Stuart Sears of the firm Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears.

Durham claims that Durham is correct.

[A] separate lawyer at the firm is currently representing the 2016 “Hillary for America” presidential campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”), as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the Special Counsel. As discussed more fully below, the Clinton Campaign financed the opposition research reports, colloquially known as the “Dossier,” that are central to the Indictment against the defendant. For the reasons given below, the government respectfully asks the Court to investigate the possible conflict issues described herein.

Durham points out, however that Danchenko’s interests could be different from the Clinton Campaign.

The Clinton Campaign’s interests and those of the defendant may diverge during any pre-trial, court, hearing, trial or sentencing proceedings. Areas of inquiry that may become relevant to defense counsel’s representation of the defendant, and which also may become issues at trial or sentencing, include topics such as (1) the Clinton Campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information in the Company Reports sourced by the defendant, (2) the Clinton Campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness of the defendant’s collection methods and sub-sources, (3) meetings or communications between and among the Clinton Campaign, U.S. Investigative Firm-1, and/or U.K. Person-1 regarding or involving the defendant, (4) the defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton Campaign’s role in and activities surrounding the Company Reports, and (5) the extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled the defendant’s activities. These issues might be of concern to the Clinton Campaign, but the interests of defendant could diverge. The Clinton Campaign might be motivated to transfer blame to the other side for any false or misleading information found in the Company Reports, and/or given to the FBI. Moreover, it is possible that one of these parties might also seek to advance claims that they were harmed or defrauded by the other’s actions, statements, or representations. In addition, in the event that one or more former representatives of the Clinton Campaign (who are represented by defense counsel’s firm) are called to testify at any trial or other court proceeding, the defendant and any such witness would be represented by the same law firm, resulting in a potential conflict. Finally, it is also likely that defense counsel’s firm already has obtained privileged information from the Clinton Campaign regarding matters involving or relating to the defendant, the Company Reports, and the conduct alleged in the Indictment.

Durham asked for the court’s investigation into possible conflicts. He also noted that Danchenko or the Clinton campaign could have caused to try and blame each other.

One must ask, “How does this man suddenly obtain Clinton-related lawyers?” What does this say about Clinton’s involvement?