Judge rules naughty bits off limits at Trump dossier trial

Credit: Daily Mail

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that at an upcoming trial of an analyst who served as the main source for that report, prosecutors cannot introduce evidence to a jury about the most explicit details of a faulty dossier alleging connections between the former president Donald Trump and Russia.

The trial for Igor Danchenko, who is accused of lying to the FBI, is set to begin the following week in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Danchenko, according to Special Counsel John Durham, was a key informant in a dossier on Trump compiled by British spy Christopher Steele at the behest of Democrats during the 2016 election.

According to the indictment, Danchenko's main information came from Democratic operative Charles Dolan, a public relations specialist who worked as a volunteer for Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton. If Danchenko had acknowledged his primary source was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, according to the prosecution, the FBI would have been better equipped to assess the dossier's veracity.

The most well-known allegations in the dossier are that Trump engaged in lewd behaviour with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel that was allegedly bugged by Russian intelligence, suggesting that the Russians may have information they could have used to blackmail Trump. The dossier was denounced by Trump as fake news and proof of a political witch hunt against him.

Danchenko is not accused of fabricating the information that led to the sex allegations in any of the five specific counts in the indictment. However, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence at trial that they claimed would have demonstrated that Danchenko had lied about his sources for those accusations as well as other aspects of his sourcing.

Lawyers for Danchenko objected. They claim the testimony would be extremely biassed and perplex the jury.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga sided with the defence in a decision made public on Tuesday. In particular, he claimed that the government's planned introduction of testimony wouldn't actually establish Danchenko's deception.

Given the low probative value of these allegations, Trenga ruled that they cannot be admitted because the risk of confusion and unfair prejudice outweighs them significantly.

The verdict is yet another blow to Durham's case. Danchenko's attorneys sought to have the case completely dismissed at a hearing last week, but Trenga denied their request. He did, however, add that it was "an extremely close call" and that Danchenko's defence might well sway the jury.

The answers Danchenko provided to the FBI were all technically true, even if they weren't particularly illuminating, according to Danchenko's attorneys, who have called the case an example of prosecutorial overreach.

A request from the government to prevent Danchenko from arguing to jurors or presenting evidence that the prosecution is politically motivated was also rejected by Trenga in Tuesday's decision, at least temporarily.