"I'm certainly concerned when I read these indictments, both Mr. Sussmann’s and Mr. Danchenko’s... They have subtle dog-whistles to these kinds of pro-Trump conspiracy theories."
"The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele's reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren't able to disprove it either," he said.
"My worry is that as Americans hear this news and don`t really know how the Russia investigation ended, they hear these concerns and think there must be a problem. That`s being picked up and amplified by people seizing on this to say see, everything that Mueller did, everything the FBI was nonsense, it was bogus, it was based on lies and that just couldn`t be further from the truth," he said.
Related Video: Former DNI John Ratcliffe: Special Counsel John Durham Has Classified Documents Proving Trump-Russia Allegations Were A Hoax
MADDOW: So I feel like this is a story that’s a few levels removed from how most Americans have come to understand the totality of what happened with the Russian attack and Russia investigation. I wanted to get your sort of top line perspective on the importance of what Mr. Durham is doing and the importance of what he has done today with this indictment. What do you think people should understand about it?
STRZOK: Well, I think the primary thing people need to understand are that the people that he’s indicted to date and charged to date, whether that’s Michael Sussman, Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI attorney, and today, Igor Danchenko, were all involved in matters which very were almost peripheral to the core of what we’re looking at with regard to the Russia investigations.
So, let me be clear, lying to the FBI is a significant, significant crime. It’s a crime if the national security advisor does it. It’s a crime if as alleged Mr. Danchenko did that during his interviews with the FBI.
As you mentioned earlier, I have some concerns with the indictment of Michael Sussman. I’m concerned about whether or not that’s a good use of government resources to charge him. But at the end of the day, it is a crime to lie to the FBI.
But what isn’t true is the backdrop to all this. You know, next Saturday, John Durham will have been going on for two and a half years. Now compare that to Robert Mueller who lasted less than two years and in that time charged and convicted people like Trump’s national security advisor, his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his personal attorney, his personal -- Roger Stone, personal fixer, and a large number of very significant people were key and critical to the Trump campaign and later to the administration.
[21:45:20]
When I look at these two players, I see folks that were not involved in any of those cases. You know, Robert Mueller didn’t rely on Steele’s information at all. The Alfa Bank information was looked at by the FBI and determined to be not -- didn’t appear to be anything, we weren’t quite sure what it was. And then finally with regard to Mr. Danchenko’s information, it was relevant to Carter Page, but Carter Page made up about eight pages of an almost 500-page Mueller report.
So my worry is that as Americans hear this news and don’t really know how the Russia investigation ended, they hear these concerns and think there must be a problem. That’s being picked up and amplified by people seizing on this to say see, everything that Mueller did, everything the FBI was nonsense, it was bogus, it was based on lies and that just couldn’t be further from the truth.
MADDOW: That analysis, that take on what’s going on here I feel is bolstered by the way these indictments have been presented to the public and presented to the courts. In the case of the Sussman indictment and the indictment today, the indictment as it must lays out narrowly the details of the alleged false statements, the alleged crimes for which these gentlemen have been charged.
But these are both what they call speaking indictments. In the case of Mr. Sussman’s indictment, a few weeks ago, and in the case of this indictment today, Mr. Durham in these indictments lays out basically uncharged, vague allegations that the Alfa Bank allegations about the Trump Organization, that all the allegations about Mr. Trump in the Steele dossier, these were deliberate fictions that were knowingly cooked up by bad actors who were all Democrats, who were making this stuff up, knowing that it was false and giving it to the FBI, knowing it was all made up just to basically implicate the FBI in a dirty trick against Trump. That’s the public portrayal, I believe, he’s trying to paint about the Russia investigation, at least these two elements of it, the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank allegations.
Am I right to read these in these sort of speaking indictments? Is that also the way you see it? And do you feel like that overall allegation is fair for Mr. Durham?
STRZOK: I agree with you. I think I’m certainly concerned when I read these indictments, both Mr. Sussman’s and Mr. Danchenko’s. His indictment is 39 pages long. If you go through those 39 pages and pull out the facts that are relevant to the statements he’s allegedly made to the FBI, that’s a much smaller subset. That’s a smaller subset of the 39 pages.
Or whether intentionally or not, when you look at the balance of those pages, they have subtle dog whistles to these kind of pro-Trump conspiracy theories. Statements like the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign relied on certain things. Well, there was never an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign unless you listen to some kind of far extreme right commentators or folks in Congress who assert that there was, but that’s nonsense.
The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele’s reporting. At the same time it neglects to mention that we weren’t able to disprove it either. As you look through there, these subtle one- sided portrayals of the facts that lay down a narrative that plays into the sort of prior assertions by President Trump, by the prior administration, by his enablers in Congress and the media that this is all somehow nonsense.
That can’t be -- that can’t be unintentional in my opinion and it is concerning. I think it’s seeking to lay out a false narrative about the entire effort of what the FBI and special counsel Mueller did.
Send Tips
Follow Us
