The statements of Igor Danchenko and another Steele dossier source are conflicting, according to FBI officials connected to the case. It was the conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in court on October 12. Furthermore, the statement given in 2017 does not seem credible regarding the case.

Accuracy of Steele Dossier Statements

One of the alleged sources, a Russian citizen and communications adviser, appears to contradict declarations from Danchenko, another Russian national, when in an August 2017 question and answer session with Investigators in Cyprus, FBI official Brian Auten, among the agents, said reported The Epoch Times.

Danchenko, who has openly said that he was responsible for a great deal of the details in the dossier, told the agency during interviews in 2017 that one of his references was Olga Galkina, prodding investigators to arrange a visit with her in August 2017.

When Auten gave an account of events in Virginia, he added that investigators were searching for the details from the January 2017 interviews that had been credited to Galkina once again, states The Daily Beast.

They were interested in knowing how Galkina had been centered concerning her access and whether the documentation was precisely based on her own words, memories, etc.

Based on the official, a supervising special agent who'd been implicated with both Crossfire Hurricane and special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Steel dossier source Galkina supplied had been at odds with information Danchenko provided in certain aspects. The denial from Igor Danchenko's defense lawyers compelled a sidebar.

Read Also: Mark Zuckerberg Net Worth 2022: How Did Facebook Founder Lose $30 Billion in 1 Day?

John Durham, the special prosecutor, did speak out of the jury's range of hearing when he stated Auten and others go, and they question and answer session Galkina in Cyprus.

The source provides some data that is incongruent with what Danchenko had informed the FBI. Some of those disparities resulted in questions that they desired to ask the informant as a consequence. This is where it is heading, then. The judge decided it was best to avoid talking about the contradictions.

DOJ Report

An original report from the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG), quoting Federal Bureau of Investigation documents, stated that one of Steele's sub-sources informed the agency in August 2017 that whatever information in the leaked document that was credited to them had been "overstated" and that they didn't even recognize anything as "arising specifically from him/her," but the person wasn't identified, per The Washington Post.

Galkina stated to a U.S. court in 2021 that she had known Danchenko and been friends with him when they were young teens in Perm, Russia, and that she "did not provide Danchenko (or anyone else) with the details provided in the dossier and that he was connected to certain individuals."

During a face-to-face meeting in the United States in 2016, Galkina contended that Danchenko presented her to Charles Dolan, a longtime marketer affiliated with the Democrats.

By that point, Danchenko had been hired by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a hidden human source. That scenario remained until the end of 2020. The FBI found uncertainty in the relationship between Igor Danchenko and a Steele dossier source.

Related Article: Germany Reaps Anger from EU States as Disunity Caused By Energy Crisis Grows