Steele dossier’s main source was investigated by FBI as ‘threat to national security’

U.S. Attorney John Durham discovered that the primary sub-source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier was investigated by the FBI as a possible “threat to national security,” but the bureau never told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and used the dossier anyway.

The revelation was made public Thursday evening by Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who is conducting an investigation of the Trump-Russia investigators. He made public a letter from Attorney General William Barr along with an unclassified FBI overview, created at Barr’s behest, of the FBI’s 2009-2011 counterintelligence investigation into Steele’s main source, U.S.-based Russian lawyer Igor Danchenko, whom the bureau suspected of being a Russian agent, according to a newly declassified footnote from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into ties between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The FBI said that the Crossfire Hurricane team became aware of this information about Steele’s primary sub-source in December 2016.

Danchenko was later relied upon by Steele in 2016 in the Democratic-funded dossier used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Graham said the new information “is the most stunning and damning revelation the committee has uncovered.” Earlier this year, it was also revealed that Danchenko had cast doubt on the reliability and credibility of the former MI6 agent’s Trump-Russia reporting in January 2017, which the bureau concealed from the FISA court and apparently misled the Senate Intelligence Committee about in 2018. The new records show the FBI had even considered pursuing FISA surveillance against Steele’s source years prior.

“First, the primary source for the Steele dossier was likely a Russian agent. Second, the primary sub-source was suspected by the FBI in 2009 of being a Russian agent, and there had been an active counterintelligence investigation of this individual. That FBI investigation revealed the primary sub-source was suspected of providing information to the Russian Embassy and was in contact with known Russian intelligence officers and made offers to people connected to incoming Obama administration officials that any classified information they provided could be paid for,” Graham said. “In addition, during this investigation it was disclosed that the primary sub-source persistently asked individuals about a particular military vessel of the United States. Third, the information provided shows that in December 2016, the FBI knew of the previous counterintelligence investigation of the primary sub-source and the source’s ties to Russian intelligence services.”


Barr said the revelation was unearthed by Durham and noted the federal prosecutor said this disclosure would not compromise his ongoing criminal inquiry. The declassified footnote from Horowitz’s report, relayed by Barr, states that “the Primary Sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation” from May 2009 to March 2011 that “assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” Barr provided a two-page “declassified summary of certain information from the counterintelligence investigation” of Danchenko, which revealed that “the FBI commenced this investigation … based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Graham lambasted the FBI. “Not only did they not inform the FISA court the primary sub-source was likely a Russian agent, they continued to use the Steele dossier to seek warrants against Carter Page,” the South Carolina Republican said. “They told the court the primary sub-source was truthful and cooperative. Specifically, the three FISA applications filed after December 2016 make no mention of the previous counterintelligence investigation against the primary sub-source.”

The new FBI summary said the bureau “opened a preliminary investigation predicated on a specific interaction between three individuals who were then employed by a prominent U.S. think tank.” The think tank is not named, but Danchenko used to work for the Brookings Institution. The bureau said it “received reporting indicating a research fellow for an influential foreign policy advisor in the Obama Administration was at a work-related event in late 2008 with a coworker when they were approached by another employee of the think tank” and that “the employee reportedly indicated that if the two individuals at the table ‘did get a job in the government and had access to classified information’ and wanted ‘to make a little extra money,’ the employee knew some people to whom they could speak.” The bureau said that “when later interviewed by the FBI, the research fellow confirmed the report and stated that while he/she could not be certain, he/she did not believe the employee was attempting to gain access to the foreign policy advisor through the research fellow’s access” and “when interviewed by the FBI, the coworker seated with the research fellow did not recall a specific pitch for classified information, however, the coworker did express suspicion of the employee and had questioned the possibility that the employee might actually be a Russian spy.”

FBI notes of an interview conducted with Danchenko in January 2017 show he told the bureau that he didn’t know where some of the dossier claims attributed to him came from and that his Russian sources never mentioned some of the allegations. Danchenko told bureau agents he “did not know the origins” of some Steele claims and “did not recall” other information in the dossier. Steele’s source told the FBI that Steele mischaracterized at least one of his own Russian source contacts too. Danchenko noted that much of what he gave to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay,” some stemmed from a “conversation that [he] had with friends over beers,” and the most salacious Trump allegations may have been made in “jest.”

The bureau’s new report on its Danchenko inquiry said the FBI “converted it from a preliminary to a full investigation” because he “was identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects” and “a review of FBI databases revealed that the Primary Sub-source had contact in 2006 with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.” The FBI said that Danchenko “was in contact with a known Russian intelligence officer” in September 2006 and that “during these conversations, the Russian Intelligence Officer invited the Primary Sub-source to the Russian Embassy to see his office” and “the Primary Sub-source told the Russian Intelligence Officer that he/she was interested in entering the Russian diplomatic service one day.” The Russian intelligence officer contacted Danchenko four days later and informed him they could meet that day to work “on the documents and then think about future plans.” Later, in October 2006, Danchenko contacted the Russian intelligence officer seeking a response “so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic mail pouch.” The bureau “further identified, in 2005, the Primary Sub-source making contact with a Washington, D.C.–based Russian officer,” and “it was noted” that Danchenko and the Russian officer “seemed very familiar with each other.”

The new FBI summary said that, in July 2010, the FBI field office “initiated a request for FISA-authorized coverage, and the request was routed to” the Justice Department in August 2010. The bureau said, “Investigators subsequently learned that the Primary Sub-source departed the United States in September 2010,” and “further investigation determined that his/her visa was not renewed,” so “the FBI withdrew the FISA application request and closed the investigation.”

“The record documenting the closing of the investigation stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States,” the FBI’s report said. “In December 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team identified the Primary Sub-source used by Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation. The Crossfire Hurricane team interviewed the Primary Sub-source over the course of three sequential days in January 2017. At that time, the 2009 investigation remained closed. The 2009 investigation remains closed to this day.”

Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting” and cast doubt on some of its biggest claims, noting Danchenko’s account “was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’” in Steele’s dossier.

Horowitz’s lengthy December report criticized the Justice Department and the FBI for at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants against Page, who was never charged with a crime and has denied any wrongdoing, and for the bureau’s reliance on Steele’s Democratic-funded and unverified dossier. Declassified footnotes now show the FBI was aware that Steele’s dossier might have been compromised by Russian disinformation.

Related Content

Related Content