Her last update: Durham brings up the communications with Charles Dolan. Defense is objecting on basis of hearsay. Judge Trenga asks Durham to rephrase the question.

In relation to Mr. Dolan, Durham directs Mr. Auten to not mention anything about what Steele said.

Auten: "I received some characterizations regarding the sources of the Steele dossier." Steele gave Charles Dolan as a name.

Durham reiterates to Mr. Auten that Danchenko said that he himself was responsible for a sizeable amount of the intel for the Steele dossier: 80% of the raw intelligence and 50% of the analysis. Durham is raising this to infer that there may be a reason Danchenko left out Charles Dolan, as Auten then says Danchenko never brought up Dolan’s name. Durham asks Auten, given Dolan’s connection to Crossfire Hurricane, that if his name had been mentioned, he would remember, right? Auten agrees. Danchenko did not provide records to the FBI regarding himself and Mr. Dolan. Auten says that in January 2017 prior to Danchenko’s FBI interview, the Bureau was only concerned with Dolan on a preliminary investigation level. Following Danchenko’s interview, the Bureau began to dig more extensively during the months of April, May, and June of 2017.

Durham asks if Auten was told about Danchenko’s meeting in Moscow during the January 2017 interview. Auten says yes; however during Durham’s examination it’s revealed that Danchenko did not make any mention of this meeting in Moscow having to do with Dolan. In early October of 2016, Danchenko and Charles Dolan attended a meeting in Moscow together, as well as a separate meeting in Moscow later in June 2017.

Durham: "Did the FBI press Danchenko to disclose any sources regarding the Steele dossier?"

Auten: "Yes, we asked if Danchenko could provide additional sources; Dolan’s name was not brought up."

Durham introduces stipulations regarding a number of government exhibits, including 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, etc. which are a number of emails from Mr. Dolan. The stipulation confirms that these emails are trustworthy for sake of review. Note that Charles Dolan worked for KGlobal, a consultant firm. Defense asks judge to approach.

Conversation under seal.

On Friday, August 19, 2016, Danchenko sent an email to [email protected] with the subject: "Kozachev & Prizadio (sp?)"

The email reads text including: "Please ask anyone about Paul Manafort’s resignation and the Trump campaign, off the record of course!"

"I am working on a project against Trump…"

Durham questions if handling agent Helsan saw any of this information that Danchenko had not shared in his January 2017 interview with Auten and Soma. Durham asks: "Were these conversations with Dolan not shared?"

Auten: "Correct."

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Charles Dolan replies to Danchenko’s email: "Let me dig around on Manafort."

Durham: "Would Mr. Dolan’s response have been relevant?"

Auten: "Yes, it should have been given."

Charles Dolan also sent an email to Danchenko on August 20, 2016, at 10:43 AM that said (paraphrased):

"I had a drink with a GOP friend of mine who has info." Corey Lewandowski, according to Dolan, had "info on Manafort." Dolan included a link to a Politico article all about Paul Manafort.

Returning from a short break, there’s a question from the jury about the slight difference in name listed in the emails they’ve been presented. Some say "Sergei" others say "Sergio." Judge Trenga confirms this is in fact the same person, however he is going to address counsel as to whether the difference in name changes based on familiarity with who is addressing him (formal versus friend, close connection, etc.)

Government Exhibit 713A and B are more emails between Danchenko and Charles Dolan.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016, Danchenko sends a response to Dolan which includes text saying:

"Dear Chuck,

Thank you for this. Any additional [info] will be appreciated. I am following the Trump-Russia trail; it is there . . . [it is] an important project for me.

Cheers,

Danchenko"

Durham: "Did Danchenko indicate work he was doing for Christopher Steele was important?"

Auten: "He just said he was busy with it."

Durham: "Wouldn’t it have been helpful to know that Igor Danchenko and Charles Dolan’s goals were the same working on the same projects?"

Defense: "Objection!"

Judge Trenga: "Rephrase."

Durham: "Wouldn’t it be important to know that Danchenko’s goals coincided with Dolan’s?"

Auten: "Yes."

Durham: "Could you determine whether or not Dolan had a partisan persuasion?"

Auten: "Yes, Democrat. . . He worked for various aspects of the DNC over the years going a while back."

Durham: "Wouldn’t this information be valuable for you to know that Danchenko’s goals coincided with Dolan’s?"

Auten: "For corroborating the Steele report, yes."