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  

Schamel: 

—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.

Sebastian Gorka: The Counter-Coup Has Begun

Writing at American Greatness today, Sebastian Gorka argues that, in the wake of the Impeachment Theater, President Trump has moved decisively to take control of personnel within his administration. His primary focus, naturally enough, is on the NSC. Whether Trump previously believed he could work with Establishment Deep State figures, or whether he was constrained by the Senate confirmation process to accept such figures in sensitive positions (or a combination of the two possibilities) is difficult to determine. What does seem clear is that Trump appears to be acting on the conviction that personnel is policy. I take note of this article because I don't believe Gorka's pro-Trump credentials have ever been questioned and undoubtedly knows many of the persons involved. 

Toward the end of the article Gorka offers some observations regarding the investigations into the Russia Hoax which are worth considering. He doesn't add anything that hasn't been discussed here, but his previous closeness to Trump lends credibility to these observations:

While many in the MAGA community are still smarting from the Barr Department of Justice’s recent decision not to prosecute corrupt FBI agent Andrew McCabe, they miss the point. The charges in question were related exclusively to his lying to officials over his leaking details to the media about the Clinton email investigation. They have nothing to do with the current, and far, far larger investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax by U.S. Attorney John Durham. No one has been exonerated or had charges dropped against him when it comes to the greatest political conspiracy in modern American history, the use of the FBI, NSA, and CIA to spy on a presidential campaign and White House, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. No one, not McCabe, not Comey, not John Brennan, not Jim Clapper, not Rice, and not Barack Obama. 

Lastly and most promising to those who believe in Lady Justice truly being blindfolded, nothing—and I mean nothing—has leaked from the Durham investigation. In fact the only time that Barr’s handpicked team has said anything on record in relation to its work is to correct the sweeping claims made by the Justice Department’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz that there was no detectable political bias at the highest levels of Obama’s Department of Justice and that the rules for predication were followed. 

Attorney General William Barr may not like the president tweeting about cases that are sub judice, but he is clearly a man on a mission to clean to Augean Stables that are the post-Obama Department of Justice, and in the most under-reported story of the last four years, his man Durham’s mandate was changed from heading an administration review, to heading a criminal investigation, which means he has found evidence of felonious acts and can (is?) impaneling secret grand juries.

The Deep State And The NSC

Phil Giraldi, a former CIA officer, has a nice piece up at Zerohedge this morning. Giraldi is no fan of Donald Trump but is disturbed at what's going on in the National Security Council. He sees Alexander Vindman--probably the actual originator of the "whistleblower" hoax--as a window into that world, and its distortion of American interests. I offer some excerpts. The entire article can be read here: Deep State On The National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is An "Expert" With An Agenda.

The current frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government. ... 

The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. ... 

Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government’s sole genuine Ukrainian expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow’s involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia. 

Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump ... “”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.” 

Translation: A narrative that is "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" is ipso facto a "false narrative" and "harmful to US government policy." Nota Bene: Not necessarily harmful to the United States, but harmful to the "consensus views of the interagency" which constitute, according to Vindman, the only legitimate source for "US government policy."