This past week we put out two posts that focused on Russia Hoax figures who have strong connections to the left wing Brookings Institution, but also—at least circumstantially—to the Clinton Dossier. Brookings, of course, has been home to many Clintonistas over the years, and writers such as Jonathan Turley and Eric Felten (among others) have been drawn to analyze the web of associations among such as Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko, Chuck Dolan, Strobe Talbott, and Fiona Hill. In particular, Steele’s testimony in a London defamation trial has proven to be a gold mine in that regard. We reviewed these analyses in these posts:
>> > " … after Trump’s surprise 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton, according to the lawyer taking on Steele, Steele wrote to the Brookings president [Talbott] on November 12, 2016 about the dossier: “Dear Strobe, I know this is not straight forward but we need to discuss the package we delivered to you the other week, and the sooner the better. What you thought of it, what you did with it, how we (both) should handle it and the issues it highlights going forward, etc."<
Talbott at this point is a co-conspirator. No wonder he’s said to be lawyered up. <<
The sense of urgency in Steele's memo to Talbott is interesting. One suspects Steele, among others, "Brandoned" his pants when Trump won the election. It wasn't supposed to happen. Now a frantic CYA mode begins among the conspirators.
Correct me on Conspiracy law, if you will: a co-conspirator has committed criminal conspiracy if they are in agreement with the criminal object of the conspiracy, and one or more co-conspirators have committed one or more overt acts in furtherance. IOW, as long as one co-conspirator commits an act in furtherance, ALL of the co-conspirators have committed the crime of conspiracy. That is, it does not require each co-conspirator to commit an act in furtherance, one is sufficient to make them all criminals.
Do I have that right?
IF so, Talbot has a problem if Durham can show Talbott was in agreement with the criminal object of the conspiracy, even if Talbott never lifted a finger to help
No. Mental agreement with the purpose isn't enough to make you a co-conspirator--we don't prosecute thought crimes (unless against conservatives). However, the "act in furtherance" does not need to be a criminal act. It can be completely legal. So, for example, renting a car is a legal act, but doing so for a bank robbery conspiracy makes you a co-conspirator--even if you don't take part in the robbery and don't share in the proceeds. Coordinating stories sounds to me like it would probably be an act in furtherance. Someone in that position could test the idea at a criminal prosecution, but IMO the smarter thing to do is cooperate with the prosecution.
I agree that if Talbott relays what Steele tells him to other conspirators to facilitate either an ongoing conspiracy, or to cover up what they already did, he's overtly furthering the conspiracy.
The problem will be proving he's in agreement with the object of the conspiracy. I can imagine him using a defense along the lines of saying he either didn't know the Dossier material was fake, or was NOT in agreement if he new it was, and whatever legal overt acts he committed after the election were merely trying to help his friends out, even if he was NOT in agreement with the purpose of their conspiracy.
He might be guilty of accessory after the fact, by helping a cover-up, but technically he's not a co-conspirator without evidence he was knowledgeable of the object of the conspiracy and in agreement with the others to try to achieve it.
SWC does not mention it, but might be worth noting Danchenko was given immunity (I assume use immunity) prior to the first interview. Of course the immunity agreement, whatever it's terms, was breached the moment Danchenko lied to the FBI, which was basically from day one.
Yes. These factors became known only after the indictment, and added together mean that Danchenko is in very serious trouble. Reneging on a deal will win him no sympathy from anyone. It will also make him absolutely worthless as a witness for any defendant.
It doesn't. As I've explained at great length in the past, the way to look at this is as a conspiracy to defraud the government--from two perspectives: 1) by government employees themselves (FBI, DoJ, etc.), and 2) by non-gov people (various lawyers, consultants, campaign workers, think tankers, etc.). Conspiracy is the ticket.
FYI, he was correcting your reference to RICO, not collusion. Several older posts and comments cover this ground. Search works better at the blogspot site.
Raw meat:
Part 2 on Danchenko Indictment -- No Time for Pithy Titles.
>> https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/part-2-on-danchenko-indictment-no <<
>> > " … after Trump’s surprise 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton, according to the lawyer taking on Steele, Steele wrote to the Brookings president [Talbott] on November 12, 2016 about the dossier: “Dear Strobe, I know this is not straight forward but we need to discuss the package we delivered to you the other week, and the sooner the better. What you thought of it, what you did with it, how we (both) should handle it and the issues it highlights going forward, etc."<
Talbott at this point is a co-conspirator. No wonder he’s said to be lawyered up. <<
The sense of urgency in Steele's memo to Talbott is interesting. One suspects Steele, among others, "Brandoned" his pants when Trump won the election. It wasn't supposed to happen. Now a frantic CYA mode begins among the conspirators.
Correct me on Conspiracy law, if you will: a co-conspirator has committed criminal conspiracy if they are in agreement with the criminal object of the conspiracy, and one or more co-conspirators have committed one or more overt acts in furtherance. IOW, as long as one co-conspirator commits an act in furtherance, ALL of the co-conspirators have committed the crime of conspiracy. That is, it does not require each co-conspirator to commit an act in furtherance, one is sufficient to make them all criminals.
Do I have that right?
IF so, Talbot has a problem if Durham can show Talbott was in agreement with the criminal object of the conspiracy, even if Talbott never lifted a finger to help
No. Mental agreement with the purpose isn't enough to make you a co-conspirator--we don't prosecute thought crimes (unless against conservatives). However, the "act in furtherance" does not need to be a criminal act. It can be completely legal. So, for example, renting a car is a legal act, but doing so for a bank robbery conspiracy makes you a co-conspirator--even if you don't take part in the robbery and don't share in the proceeds. Coordinating stories sounds to me like it would probably be an act in furtherance. Someone in that position could test the idea at a criminal prosecution, but IMO the smarter thing to do is cooperate with the prosecution.
Ahh, thanks for straightening me out.
I agree that if Talbott relays what Steele tells him to other conspirators to facilitate either an ongoing conspiracy, or to cover up what they already did, he's overtly furthering the conspiracy.
The problem will be proving he's in agreement with the object of the conspiracy. I can imagine him using a defense along the lines of saying he either didn't know the Dossier material was fake, or was NOT in agreement if he new it was, and whatever legal overt acts he committed after the election were merely trying to help his friends out, even if he was NOT in agreement with the purpose of their conspiracy.
He might be guilty of accessory after the fact, by helping a cover-up, but technically he's not a co-conspirator without evidence he was knowledgeable of the object of the conspiracy and in agreement with the others to try to achieve it.
All true, but to convince Durham of that could become insanely expensive. That's the reality of criminal justice in the US.
Side note: SWC raises an intriguing question:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1459411143093485572 <<
Why did FBI interview Danchenko so many times?
SWC does not mention it, but might be worth noting Danchenko was given immunity (I assume use immunity) prior to the first interview. Of course the immunity agreement, whatever it's terms, was breached the moment Danchenko lied to the FBI, which was basically from day one.
What else did they ask him about?
Hmmm ...
Yes. These factors became known only after the indictment, and added together mean that Danchenko is in very serious trouble. Reneging on a deal will win him no sympathy from anyone. It will also make him absolutely worthless as a witness for any defendant.
so....... 3, maybe 4, or 5 senior members of an NPO were involved in producing the fake dossier and foisting it on the US government.
At what point does that become collusion?
And, since they were all in Brookings,
and certainly at least Strobe Talbott was involved in making annual reports and fundraising,
did they do this on Brookings time? Using Brookings provided equipment, phones, cell phones, etc.
at what point does that become a RICO violation??
It doesn't. As I've explained at great length in the past, the way to look at this is as a conspiracy to defraud the government--from two perspectives: 1) by government employees themselves (FBI, DoJ, etc.), and 2) by non-gov people (various lawyers, consultants, campaign workers, think tankers, etc.). Conspiracy is the ticket.
Sorry - meant ‘conspiracy’ not collusion.
Thanks - makes sense.
I hope we get to see.
FYI, he was correcting your reference to RICO, not collusion. Several older posts and comments cover this ground. Search works better at the blogspot site.
Correct on both counts. Lousy to no search is a bummer here.
New Kash's Corner from EpochTV is up... Kash’s Corner: Connecting the Dots on the Origins of the Steele Dossier https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/kashs-corner-connecting-the-dots-on-the-origins-of-the-steele-dossier_4101743.html?utm_source=appan2028231
The transcript is good, thanks for the link.
They dig into Charlie Dolan to the extent they can.
Unregistered Russian agent? FARA violations?
Good lord, the Dimms actually did every single thing for which they accused Trump and his folks.
The Dimms hounded Flynn to death over an indirect connection to the Turks with a supposed FARA registration violation (note: I don't think it was).
Dolan's company K Global apparently deep-sixed his bio page.
https://www.kglobal.com/team-member/charles-dolan
but his very limited Linked In page still up: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charleshdolan/
Doesn't sound like someone who wants to do time for anyone.
He ought to be indicted on that haircut alone.
Did Hillary finally screw up and use a cat's paw that wasn't a lawyer, and can't hide behind attorney-client privilege? She's done it for decades.