Igor Danchenko acquitted of lying to FBI about Steele dossier

Fox News has reported that Russian national Igor Danchenko was found not guilty this week of allegations that he lied to the FBI. 

Special Counsel John Durham expresses disappointment in Tuesday’s verdict

Danchenko, who served as the main sub-source for ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s now discredited dossier about former President Donald Trump had been charged by Special Counsel John Durham.

Fox News noted that Danchenko’s attorney, Stuart Sears, welcomed the jury’s decision, saying “We’ve known all along that Mr. Danchenko was innocent. We’re happy now that the American public knows that as well.”

For his part, Durham issued a statement following Tuesday’s verdict in which he expressed displeasure with Danchenko’s acquittal.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Fox News quoted the special counsel as saying.

“I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” Durham went on to add.

Judge previously dismissed one of Danchenko’s charges of lying to the FBI

Danchenko’s not guilty verdict came just a week after U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga dismissed one of the five charges that the defendant had been facing.

Prosecutors alleged that Danchenko lied to FBI handler Kevin Helson about having never talked with Charles Dolan regarding allegations found in the dossier.

Dolan is a long-time Clinton ally who the New York Post described in a piece published last November as having “cut his teeth in the rough-and-tumble world of Bay State Democratic politics before moving to Washington to work on Capitol Hill as a legislative director.”

According to the Washington Examiner, Helson asked Danchenko during an interview, “But you had never talked to [Dolan] about anything that showed up in the dossier right?”

When Danchenko indicated that he had not, Helson followed up again, saying, “You don’t think so?” Danchenko then replied, “No. We talked about, you know, related issues perhaps but no, no, no, nothing specific.”

Danchenko’s attorney argued that his client’s words were “literally true,” a contention with which the judge agreed.