Renewed scrutiny is being directed at the FBI’s handling of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation, with public figures like former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving a convicted former senior FBI agent. The controversy centers on Charles McGonigal, once a high-ranking counterintelligence official, whose recent sentencing for crimes involving a Russian oligarch is being linked to the bureau’s earlier reliance on the controversial Steele dossier.
Speaking on a news program, Bondi articulated a narrative suggesting that McGonigal’s actions may have influenced the FBI’s internal assessment of the dossier and its primary source. These assertions bring together several complex threads from the past several years, including the origins of the dossier, the role of its main source Igor Danchenko, and the subsequent findings of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation.
The document at the heart of the matter, commonly known as the Steele dossier, was a collection of raw intelligence memos compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Its creation was financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign through the law firm Perkins Coie. The dossier contained numerous allegations of a conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government, allegations that energized public debate and were referenced in the FBI’s application to conduct surveillance on a Trump campaign associate.
A central figure in the dossier’s creation was Igor Danchenko, a Russia analyst who served as Steele’s primary sub-source. The credibility of the dossier was significantly undermined when it was later revealed, most notably through the Durham investigation, that Danchenko had been a paid confidential human source for the FBI from 2017 to 2020. This revelation raised questions about why the bureau continued to pay an individual whose information was, in part, being actively investigated for its veracity. Danchenko was later charged by Durham’s team with five counts of making false statements to the FBI; in 2022, a jury acquitted him on all counts.
The latest figure to be drawn into this complex web is Charles McGonigal, the former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s counterintelligence division in New York. McGonigal’s case, while separate from the dossier itself, has provided fresh ammunition for critics of the FBI’s conduct. He was sentenced to 50 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to violate sanctions and commit money laundering by working for Oleg Deripaska, a sanctioned Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin. In a separate case, he was sentenced to over two years in prison for concealing at least $225,000 in cash payments he received from an individual with ties to Albanian intelligence.
It is McGonigal’s former position and subsequent criminal conduct that commentators like Bondi are now highlighting. They argue that as a top counterintelligence official, McGonigal would have been in a position to influence or oversee investigations related to Russian interference, including any internal review of the Steele dossier and its sources. Bondi and others question whether McGonigal’s own illicit dealings with Russian-connected individuals compromised his official duties.
On the Fox News program “Hannity,” Bondi argued that these connections represent a significant conflict of interest that demands further explanation. “They had to have known this was going on,” Bondi stated, referencing the FBI’s awareness of Danchenko’s status and questioning the integrity of the broader investigation. The core of her argument is that officials like McGonigal may have had a motive to downplay or suppress information that would discredit the dossier, potentially to protect the bureau from embarrassment or for other reasons related to his own secret activities. “It’s about going back and trying to get to the truth,” she added.
This perspective posits that a “shadow force” within the bureau, exemplified by McGonigal, worked to protect the integrity of the initial Trump-Russia probe by silencing internal dissent or overlooking red flags about the dossier. Proponents of this view point to the Durham Report’s finding that the FBI failed to uphold its “important mission of strict fidelity to the law” when it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
The Department of Justice and the FBI have consistently defended the integrity of their personnel and processes, while also acknowledging procedural failings identified in various reviews, including those by the Inspector General and Special Counsel Durham. To date, there has been no official finding from the DOJ linking McGonigal’s criminal acts directly to a deliberate effort to manipulate the dossier investigation. However, for critics of the bureau, the timeline of events and the overlapping spheres of influence are too significant to be dismissed as mere coincidence. The ongoing discussion ensures that the political and legal fallout from the 2016 election continues to unfold, with the actions of figures like Danchenko and McGonigal remaining central to the debate over institutional accountability.
