Saturday, July 25, 2020

Danchenko's Backstory Of Booze and Mental Illness

To be frank, I don't find Danchenko in himself at all interesting. You can read all about him in Paul Sperry's excellent article: 

Meet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Subsource': Fabulist Russian at Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI IgnoredMeet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Subsource': Fabulist Russian at Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI Ignored

The only real interest Danchenko has lies in his contacts--primarily Fiona Hill and the Brookings Institute. Those connections provide a key link--yet to be anywhere close to fully developed--between the Russia Hoax and the Fake Impeachment. That link, of course, is Fiona Hill, who had ties to Steele--including during the 2016 campaign--and to the anti-Trump resistance that brought her into Trump's NSC. That 'resistance,' of course, included key players in the GOP wing of the Deep State, like H. R. McMaster.

Bill Barr famously characterized the Durham investigation as 'sprawling.' This new revelation puts some flesh on those bones. I can well imagine that Barr and Durham's key prosecutive dilemma involves strategizing when to bring indictments when some of those targeted may have some connection to events that actually came after the Mueller Dossier was released. Including the fake impeachment.

For now, here's a data point that should be of interest.

When the interview of the PSS (Danchenko) first became public, Undercover Huber asked a key question: Who was Danchenko's lawyer (representing him at the 3-day interview) and who paid for that lawyer?

Today, Undercover Huber has the answer to the first part of that important question:

UPDATE: The PSS’s lawyer is Mark E Schamel, a top white-collar attorney in Washington D.C  
—thinks Trump will drop out of the 2020 race
—supports BLM & tearing down monuments to George Washington
—FEC recs show donations to Dems inc. Tom Steyer & “Ditch Mitch” fund

The importance of who paid for Schamel is that that information will point towards the real controllers of the Russia Hoax.


  1. I think we're missing the biggest news now that we have proven the Brookings connection--former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, President Clinton's "Russia Hand," as he described himself in a late '90's book about his diplomatic achievements. Not only was this head of Brookings in 2016 a Clintonista, he is brother in law to Cody Shearer, who reportedly showed, along with collaborator Sydney Blumenthal, a proto-dossier in Lee Smith's description to State Department officials. The Brookings Connection through Talbott-Shearer boosts the long voiced speculation that the Steele Dossier was not authored by him at all, but rather was the "information laundering" of a prewritten smear campaign. Blumenthal/Shearer give an outline of the smearjob they want done on GOP candidate X (Trump in this case) to Talbott. Since it has a Russian angle he looks at his fellows for someone who can add a Russian flavor to it, add some quotes from actual Russian nationals. Fiona Hill tells him of a former student of hers, Danchenko who is also a sometime contractor/collaborator of a former head of MI6's Russia desk who owns his own "private intelligence company." Who may or may not have already been hired at this point by Glenn Simpson--this theorizing would be a lot easier with a definite chronology of the key March-April 2016 timeframe. Bottom line, what I'm getting at, if Durham can prove the broad outline of the dossier was written before Steele was even hired, and that Steele's own "investigation" was pro forma if it existed at all, then Durham can prove an intent to defraud the law enforcement and intelligence officials that were pitched this dossier.

  2. Mark E Schamel - partner at his firm with 20 years experience, so I doubt cheap.

  3. "key prosecutive dilemma involves, strategizing when to bring indictments, when some of those targeted may have some connection, to events that actually came after the Mueller Dossier...."

    Any thoughts, as to *why* "events that actually came after the Mueller Dossier" should be seen as *so* different (in this context), than those prior to Mueller's rept. had emerged?

    1. I'm not saying that they're *so* different but, rather, that their connections--plausible in any event--are slowly becoming more apparent.

  4. OK, but in what respect does this produce a key prosecutive *dilemma*?

  5. To be more specific, does much of the dilemma stem from the election calendar?
    It should.