Hi Hal!!! Still rushing in to agree with things that favor your preferred viewpoint? 

You're going to agree with the AG who broke DoJ rules to appoint Durham in the first place? (2 months before he sneakily resigned prematurely so he could pretend innocence and keep from being bathed in Trump's Jan 6 insurrection - what a wimpl)
Appointment of Durham did not follow DoJ Rules
Durham who's been investigating longer than Mueller, and only has 3 perjury cases to show for it (the first which was dismissed with the DoJ having an embarrassing reversal?)
Did you read the actual indictment? Marcy as usual is on it, showing how much Durham is splitting hairs such as ignoring a broader statement Danchenko makes one moment to then be anally hyper-parsing about a different statement with different context a moment later - and to be over-grandiose about how much the FBI would have investigated if they'd only known what they actually admit they knew...
Compare Danchenko's overall cooperation vs the lying and backtracking of Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Trump, Carter Page and Papadopoulos.
Long thread below - enjoy the clicks for free....

"For Durham to suggest that Danchenko was withholding such details when, in that first interview, he [Danchenko]carried out a debate with himself about which of two sources, including Galkina, knew more about his intelligence gathering is, frankly, batshit insane."

https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/08/yes-and-no-john-durham-claims-an-a...

On top of that, the analyst who wrote up the report noted several times when Danchenko’s answers contradicted his early assertion that he himself had no known ties to Russian intelligence (there’s far more evidence that Danchenko knowingly lied about ties to Russian spooks than any of the charges laid out here, but that doesn’t serve Durham’s narrative and so instead he’s charging more random lies).

Thanks to Bruce Ohr’s help vetting Steele (for which he got fired), the FBI also learned that Steele was working for Oleg Deripaska, a central player in the election-year operation and one of the several obvious ways that Russia would have learned of this project.

It's rather confusing that Durham claims Danchenko was hiding how indiscreet he was in those interviews, because after I read heavily redacted summaries of those very same interviews last year, I laid out a slew of ways that Danchenko and Steele were making themselves vulnerable to discovery:

 

PSS [Danchenko] described that his debriefings with Steele were always at the Orbis office, which meant if Steele himself were surveilled, PSS’ ties to Steele would become obvious.

 

[snip]

 

[H]is communications with Steele included many insecure methods. He first met Steele in a Starbucks. Early on, he communicated with him via email and Skype, and Steele would task him, at least in part, via email. He described discussing [Carter] Page’s trip to Russia with Source 3 on some kind of voice call, possibly a phone, while he was at a public swimming pool, though he also described talking in an opaque way about election interference. Likewise, the most problematic December 13 report was based on a conversation with the same source, which was also a phone call.

 

In short, while Steele and PSS and PSS’ sources made some efforts to protect their communications from the Russians that surely considered Steele a target, those efforts were inconsistent.

 

PSS described making three trips to Russia for his election year reporting. On the second trip, he got grilled suspiciously at the border. On his third, “nothing bad happened,” which made PSS suspicious about how perfectly everything had gone.

 

PSS repeatedly described being uncomfortable with the election year tasking, and he seems to have had suspicions in real time that Russia had taken note of it.

 

I also noted that two of Danchenko’s sources — to whom he admitted he worked in business intelligence — attempted to task him to collect information (indeed, Olga Galkina, described as S3 here, had done so just days before this interview, after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed, which she subsequently admitted to reading in detail when it came out). A third — someone Danchenko believed had close ties to an FSB officer — had gotten Danchenko to help him get a scholarship to study in the UK with help from Orbis.

one more thing that’s truly bizarre about Durham’s decision to include this allegation (again, it is not charged), particularly given that Danchenko freely offered up information making it clear Galkina knew a fair bit about Danchenko’s intelligence collection. According to the indictment, after that initial interview, the FBI interviewed Danchenko on — at a minimum — March 16, May 18, June 15, October 24, and November 16, 2017. Along the way, the FBI identified Galkina as a subject of particular interest and collected her communications under Section 702 which (among other things) identified precisely the relationships at the core of this indictment, presumably a response to the candid comments Danchenko made in that January 2017 (as well as the fact that she was his claimed source for the dodgiest claims).

 

But seemingly the FBI never revisited the question about how well Danchenko hid his intelligence collection and his relationship with Christopher Steele.

 

Perhaps that’s because Danchenko said enough in that first interview to make it clear that neither he nor Steele did adequately protect that relationship. The FBI didn’t return to that question — or the one Durham falsely claims he was asked — because he had already provided the answer with his other descriptions.

Marcy comment:

THe FISA side of this is all proper, as I laid out.

 

But because DOJ IG already IDed this as FISA, they may have to share it with Danchenko in a way they wouldn’t have before. As I’ll show, the disclosure that DOJ had all of Galkina’s US-based cloud communication in June 2017 undercuts a lot of claims Durham makes about the materiality of this, not to mention what FBI did and did not have a way of understanding.

 

In short, Danchenko will get more transparency on this investigation, and that transparency will undercut the claims that Durham is making.

 

I still think he may be found guilty on this count. But Durham has left himself vulnerable on a number of points.

How ya doing with these details, Hal? Or is a headline all you needed?