by Gordon M. Hahn
Last week in an article on this site “Clinton-FBI Russiagate Hoax: The Danchenko Indictment and the Steele Dossier” there several takeaways discussed regarding the indictment of Igor Danchenko, the primary source for Clinton-DP-FBI fake Steele dossier (https://gordonhahn.com/2021/11/06/clinton-fbi-russiagate-hoax-the-danchenko-indictment-and-the-steele-dossier/). Takeaway 5 reads:
“Trump administration NSC ‘Russia hand’ Fiona Hill appears to have been well aware of the Clinton dossier plot and lied to the second Trump impeachment’s congressional hearings when she claimed not to know anything about the dossier’s origins. Not only was she close friends with Steele and introduced and recommended her former research assistant and co-author Danchenko to Steele for participation in Steele’s intelligence company ‘Orbis’, where incidentally, the allegedly Putin-poisoned Sergei Skrypal worked on the dossier with Steele. The indictment states that Hill introduced Danchenko to PR Executive-1 (DP operative Charles Dolan) and that Steele told the FBI that he believed Hill knew that Danchenko was working on the dossier (www.documentcloud.org/documents/21098456-danchenko-indictment). , pp 5-6). Hill emphasized an old angle at the same hearings: the Russians did it. That is, according to Hill’s testimony, her pro-Clinton friends and allies, Steele and Danchenko, were not perpetrators, purveyors of disinformation; rather, they were victims of “Russian disinformation. ” According to the Danchenko indictment, the two main conduits of the ‘Russian’ disinformation’ to Hill’s “close friend” Steele were Hill’s close one-time associate Danchenko and PE Executive-1 (Dolan), both of whom were introduced to her close friend by Hill herself. It is odd that at the same time Hill, a former National Intelligence Council member and National Security Advisor to President Trump charged with the Russia/Eurasia portfolio, worked for years side-by-side a person (Danchenko) that PR Exec-1 (Dolan) thought was FSB, but she never smelled a rat. All this suggests that Hill indeed may very well have been aware that Danchenko and Dolan were working closely with Steele on the dossier and could even have been an instigator of the plot, given her adoration for Hillary and disdain for Trump. As I have written in another article, I hope this is not the case, but it clearly needs to be investigated (https://gordonhahn.com/2021/10/08/rusology-as-propaganda-russia-as-decaying-americas-political-football/). Odds are, special prosecutor John Durham is on it, given his thoroughness evidenced by previous indictments of Clintonite Russiagate plotters, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pled guilty to falsifying the FBI’s FISA warrant application documents, and the Clinton campaign’s lawyer Michael Sussman, who awaits trial. Another oddity is that, despite reports that Danchenko was investigated by the FBI as a possible Russian asset or agent, he has not been charged with anything but lies to the FBI designed cover up his and other Clintonites’ involvement in the dossier plot. “
On November 9th, Eric Felten at Real Clear Investigations (RCI) noted: “As part of the impeachment proceedings, Hill gave closed-door testimony to House lawmakers and investigators for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. During that testimony in October 2019, Hill answered many questions emphatically and apparently without leaving herself wiggle room. Hill did not express the sort of memory fog that often afflicts well-coached, evasive witnesses. Asked whether she was ‘aware of any interaction between Mr. Steele and Ukrainians,’ Hill did not say ‘to the best of my recollection’ or ‘I don’t remember specifically,’ or even a simple ‘no.’ Instead she expanded her answer to deny not only any knowledge of Steele and Ukrainians, but to deny any knowledge of anything Steele-related: ‘I have no knowledge whatsoever of how he developed that dossier. None. I just want to state that.‘ …….
“‘It’s hard to believe Fiona Hill introduced Danchenko both to Steele and to Dolan, yet had no idea of the purpose of the introductions she herself was making or what resulted from those introductions,’ a source familiar with the thinking of House Republicans tells RealClearInvestigations. ‘So, yes, Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are taking a look at that’” (ww.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/09/new_twists_in_durham_probe_fbi_danchenko_recordings_and_suspicions_fiona_hill_lied_802878.html).
One point here is confirmation of my claim/suspicion that Hill lied in testimony, though I had in view her public testimony. The same fact — Hill’s introduction of Danchenko and Dolan to Steele — is the foundation of both my suspicion regarding the public testimony and Republican congressional elements’ suspicons regarding the closed-door testimony. But this is actually the less interesting revelation in the RCI piece. The more interesting revelation is thatthe FBI was interested in whether Hill had been ‘aware of any interaction between Mr. Steele and Ukrainians.’ The Ukrainian track in Russiagate and, in particular, the Steele dossier aspect Russiagate, has long been ignored in public commentary and analysis. I have addressed it several times. For example, a few weeks ago, you might have read here the following:
“The first ‘information’ billed as Trump ‘Russia collusion’ was a set of documents – the so-called chernaya kassa – that came from Ukrainians and after years of investigation not a single Trump campaign or White House staffer was brought up on charges of interacting with Russia. The ‘chernaya kassa’ documents became the basis for an investigation of Paul Manafort, leading to his removal from the Trump campaign and, on completely different charges (of tax fraud and operating as a foreign representative without having registered) to indictment, arrest, and imprisonment. On 27 May 2016, weeks after Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, radical cultural Marxist and DNC operative Ali Chalupa’s emails promising something big to the DNC and meetings with Ukrainian Embassy staff and, Artyom Sytnik, head of the US embassy- and Soros-controlled Main National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine or NABU confirmed that his department had received documents from the Party of Regions “black cash box” handed over to it by former (as of 2015) deputy head of post-Soviet Ukraine’s successor to the Ukrainian KGB, the Sluzhba bezopasnosti Ukrainy or SBU, and at the time a continuing SBU operative. Chalupa, who founded the U.S. ‘United With Ukraine Coalition’ in 2014, wrote that she led the DNC’s opposition research into any Trump ties to Russia. That is not all she did. The White House visitor logs show that Ali Chalupa, the relatively low-level DNC contractor who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate Manafort and Trump, visited the White House 27 times. Four days later, a portion of these documents was published by a Rada deputy from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc Sergei Leshchenko and the editor-in-chief of the daily pro-Maidan Ukrainskaya pravda, Segvil Musaeva-Borovik. Although the documents they produced would help prove secret payments were made to Manafort from Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions before 2014, forcing Manafort to plead guilty to illegal lobbying and tax violations and sending him to prison, he was never accused or charged by US authorities, including the Mueller investigation, of colluding with Russia. Moreover, high-level DP political consultants such as the Podesta brothers were engaged in the same consulting activity. So Ukrainian officials and Ukrainian-American emigres conspired to smear a presidential candidate at the behest of the same DNC that claimed to be hacked by the Russians. In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that both NABU head Sytnik and Rada deputy Leshchenko had illegally meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking financial documents that smeared then-Trump campaign manager Manafort. Sytnik and Leshchenko eventually ended up in Ukrainian prisons for attempting to influence the US presidential campaign on Hillary’s behalf. All this was tied into what was the clear Obama-DP-FBI hoax: the Steele Dossier” (https://gordonhahn.com/2021/11/04/working-paper-comparing-the-russian-and-american-revolutions-from-above-part-1/). The same working paper “Comparing the Russian and American Revolutions from Above” notes the possible Ukrainian element in the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee server.
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, www.cetisresearch.org. Dr. Hahn is the author of The Russian Dilemma: Security, Vigilance, and Relations with the West from Ivan III to Putin (McFarland, forthcoming in 2021), Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the “New Cold War” (McFarland, 2018), The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia’s North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland, 2014), Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia’s Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.