GCP12 said:

---

Nellie Ohr wrote the dossier. Steele just laundered it.

---

I think Cody Shearer wrote the original dossier and used Glen Simpson, Nellie Ohr, and Steele to launder it.

Why is Cody Shearer's name not mentioned in IG report?

Thread on Shearer's Role

Quote:

---

Let's start with Page 116 of the Horowitz Report. This makes a brief, passing reference to a report that Steele obtained from State Dept official Jonthan Winer, who the IG says got it from "a friend of a well-known Clinton supporter." The "friend" is Cody. "Supporter" is Sid..

---

Quote:

---

But...but...Glenn Simpson didn't work at the FBI in the Counterintelligence Division, did he? And Mary Jacoby, Simpson's wife, was just a casual visitor at the White House on April 19, 2016...sure.

---

Simpson and his wife had long been enemies of Paul Manafort regarding his activities in Ukraine working with Yanukovych. I think when Manafort became attached to the campaign, they saw an opportunity to get paid by Hillary to indulge their grudge against Manafort. But Manafort alone wasn't sexy enough to sell, not for the money they wanted anyway. So throw in Trump/Russia as bait and shop it.

Remember the business both Fusion and Steele's Orbis are in--information tailored to suit a client's needs. Whether it be for legal or business competition needs, they did the research, mostly open source, and produced reports that were advantageous to their clients.

What is the rule in the intelligence world of being on salary for a US agency and accepting funds from third parties?

That's what I assume. I also assume money is flowing freely to these dishonest buerocrats.

If I remember correctly, Simpson used to work at the WSJ. I've got to wonder what kind of quality journalistic writing he produced.

And I'm actually shocked his wife was at the WH. Every 50 pages, or so, of this thread, I'm reminded of how staggeringly incestuous DC is.

The worst part is I'm constantly amazed every time I read about some husband, wife, niece, brother, etc., involving themselves in some peripheral manner of a political operation.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/11/fbi-lied-to-congress-about-fake-defensive-briefing-of-trump-campaign-in-2016/

Quote:

---

"Did they ever try to protect Donald Trump from foreign influence?" Graham asked.

"They did not brief him," Horowitz said.

"As a matter of fact, whenever they went in and gave him a vanilla briefing'the Russians are out there, you better beware,'didn't they have an FBI agent do a 302 on the defensive briefing itself?" Graham asked.

"They sent one of the supervisory agents from the Crossfire Hurricane team to the briefing and that agent prepared a report to the file of the briefing," Horowitz said.

A 302 is an FBI form used to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct" as part of an investigation. So the FBI "defensive briefing" the agency said they provided to the Trump campaign was not a defensive briefing at all, but rather an information gathering interview for the agents surveilling those associated with the Trump campaign.

---

I thought Graham was rather impressive during the Horowitz testimony, although I was only able to listen to the morning session.

i opined before that Jesse Liu was way far out on a limb in following Van Grack's lead in the mess that is the Flynn case. Seems that limb just broke and she's paying the price. Good.

I look for some movement in the Flynn case very soon. Not saying that the whole case gets dismissed but that Sidney's motion to compel production of the Brady and Giglio material to be granted. Have to wonder if Van Grack ever disclosed the 302 on Flynn that was generated from the phony "defensive" briefing they gave to Trump and Flynn. Guess we'll find out soon.

Quote:

---

They manufactured the charge out of thin air and then tried to backfill the evidence. When the evidence was only exculpatory, it became an investigation in search of a crime.

---

"Well...", as President Reagan used to start his explanations. It appears that Dems, Libs and Political Morons, through many years of experience have honed it to a fine art; that of creative law prosecution and manipulation of the legal system.

Yeah, two tier justice system is right...

Missed this yesterday. Horowitz testified that the only Trump campaign official FISA warrant they found was the one on Carter Page. No Flynn FISA, No Manafort FISA, No Papadopoulus FISA.

Hhmm.

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed this yesterday. Horowitz testified that the only Trump campaign official FISA warrant they found was the one on Carter Page. No Flynn FISA, No Manafort FISA, No Papadopoulus FISA.

Hhmm.

LINK

---

I wonder how many applications were denied, & what were the reasons for denial.

If the other 3 guys were ever on an email chain or conference call with Page, would they be vulnerable under the 2 hop?

tsuag10 said:

---

If the other 3 guys were ever on an email chain or conference call with Page, would they be vulnerable under the 2 hop?

---

Yes. But then you are going under 702 queries. The Title I FISA goes both forward and backwards on Page. Then they can follow the bread crumbs from there.

I also noted that Horowitz said there were open investigation on Page and Papadop before either of them joined the Trump campaign. Now I know Papadop was on Ben Carson's campaign but was Page associated with another Republican primary candidate before Trump?

I guess what I am confused about is how CI investigations were opened against Republicans and their associates during the Republican primary? And did Horowitz actually look into that? Or just whether there were Title I FISA warrants that resulted from those CI investigations?

Sounds to me like it was the latter.

I thought Horowitz' narrow scope was just the FISA application abuses. If that's accurate, then how and why CI investigations were started during Republican primary would've been outside his scope.

akm91 said:

---

I thought Horowitz' narrow scope was just the FISA application abuses. If that's accurate, then how and why CI investigations were started during Republican primary would've been outside his scope.

---

Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be within Durham's scope, however. Not only spying on the Trump campaign but other Republican campaigns as well.

Nearing 1000 pages now, I have no clue where I saw this but I thought I remembered seeing something about Trump, Carson, and Cruz being the campaigns that were suspected to have been surveilled.

tsuag10 said:

---

Nearing 1000 pages now, I have no clue where I saw this but I thought I remembered seeing something about Trump, Carson, and Cruz being the campaigns that were suspected to have been surveilled.

---

There was a hearing last year where Cruz said he knew his campaign had been surveiled. He alluded to it being something he couldn't go into more detail on in a public hearing.

Might have been some of the stuff with McCabe or Comey?

Quote:

---

Nearing 1000 pages now,

---

I was just thinking this morning that posters who haven't kept up with this thread must be pretty confused by what Horowitz was presenting yesterday and its import.

"No bias!" So what? There's a boatload of actual crimes.

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

I thought Horowitz' narrow scope was just the FISA application abuses. If that's accurate, then how and why CI investigations were started during Republican primary would've been outside his scope.

---

Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be within Durham's scope, however. Not only spying on the Trump campaign but other Republican campaigns as well.

---

I think that's the most chilling scenario

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

I thought Horowitz' narrow scope was just the FISA application abuses. If that's accurate, then how and why CI investigations were started during Republican primary would've been outside his scope.

---

Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be within Durham's scope, however. Not only spying on the Trump campaign but other Republican campaigns as well.

---

I think that's the most chilling scenario

---

It happened.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/horowitz-testimony-hearing/index.html

Horowitz's opening statement transcript is embedded in the above article. Here's an important takeaway from the bottom of Page 5:

Quote:

---

For example, the Crossfire Hurricane team obtained information from Steele's Primary Sub-source in January 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used in the Carter Page FISA applications. This was particularly noteworthy because the FISA applications relied entirely on information from the Steele reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities. However, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to share the information about the Primary Sub-source's information with the Department, and...

---

'relied entirely'.....That's not what Schiff's HPSCI memo said. You can read the latter here:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

I thought Horowitz' narrow scope was just the FISA application abuses. If that's accurate, then how and why CI investigations were started during Republican primary would've been outside his scope.

---

Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be within Durham's scope, however. Not only spying on the Trump campaign but other Republican campaigns as well.

---

I think that's the most chilling scenario

---

I mean, thats exacly what happened and was not limited to politicians but extended to private citizens, also.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/horowitz-testimony-hearing/index.html

Horowitz's opening statement transcript is embedded in the above article. Here's an important takeaway from the bottom of Page 5:

Quote:

---

For example, the Crossfire Hurricane team obtained information from Steele's Primary Sub-source in January 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used in the Carter Page FISA applications. This was particularly noteworthy because the FISA applications relied entirely on information from the Steele reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities. However, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to share the information about the Primary Sub-source's information with the Department, and...

---

'relied entirely'.....That's not what Schiff's HPSCI memo said. You can read the latter here:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

---

That would mean eric and others lied on this forum. I can't believe that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Nearing 1000 pages now,

---

I was just thinking this morning that posters who haven't kept up with this thread must be pretty confused by what Horowitz was presenting yesterday and its import.

"No bias!" So what? There's a boatload of actual crimes.

---

Heard an interesting theory this morning that the reason that the Horowitz report states "no bias" is to pave the way for Durham's more comprehensive report that will state that the FBI did not act alone, that they were instructed and their actions directed by other entities. Hmmmm.

Quote:

---

I think that's the most chilling scenario.

---

Indeed. Perhaps the most surprising thing to me to come out yesterday was ridiculously low the bar is to open a counter-intel investigation on American citizens. That's scary as hell. Anyone with foreign business interests are vulnerable.

Which reminds me of Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen had family and business interests with Ukrainians and Americans of Ukrainian descent. Need rocky to make a meme of "UKRAINIANS! UKRAINIANS! UKRAINIANS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

I have been bumping threads. I still can't find one in particular where they were all saying that the dossier wasn't needed and barely used. They also were slamming Nunes.

So should I ask the former FBI agent about this on Sunday at church? He guaranteed it to me that the FISA application was not based on the dossier because it just doesn't work that way. He knows because he has sworn to many of them before. I was wrong (in his words).

This is a guy that either worked on the 7th floor or was always there. He knew most of these players on a 1st name basis.

Is it right to rub a retired agents nose in it or should I just let it go?

Do it!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think that's the most chilling scenario.

---

Indeed. Perhaps the most surprising thing to me to come out yesterday was ridiculously low the bar is to open a counter-intel investigation on American citizens. That's scary as hell. Anyone with foreign business interests are vulnerable.

Which reminds me of Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen had family and business interests with Ukrainians and Americans of Ukrainian descent. Need rocky to make a meme of "UKRAINIANS! UKRAINIANS! UKRAINIANS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

---

Speaking of Cohen we finally got confirmation that he NEVER WAS IN PRAGUE!!!

Just add it to the ever growing list of things disproved in the dossier so I guess the concerned moderates can no longer use that talking point. Although it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

FriscoKid said:

---

So should I ask the former FBI agent about this on Sunday at church? He guaranteed it to me that the FISA application was not based on the dossier because it just doesn't work that way. He knows because he has sworn to many of them before. I was wrong (in his words).

This is a guy that either worked on the 7th floor or was always there. He knew most of these players on a 1st name basis.

Is it right to rub a retired agents nose in it or should I just let it go?

---

Maybe he is also just a big government liar.

FriscoKid said:

---

So should I ask the former FBI agent about this on Sunday at church? He guaranteed it to me that the FISA application was not based on the dossier because it just doesn't work that way. He knows because he has sworn to many of them before. I was wrong (in his words).

This is a guy that either worked on the 7th floor or was always there. He knew most of these players on a 1st name basis.

Is it right to rub a retired agents nose in it or should I just let it go?

---

Pretend you are a concerned moderate, tell him how shocked you were and ask him if he was surprised, too.

backintexas2013 said:

---

I have been bumping threads. I still can't find one in particular where they were all saying that the dossier wasn't needed and barely used. They also were slamming Nunes.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3032465/replies/54118411

Frisco bumped this one. Eric made a typical eric post on page 1.

aggiehawg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

DSo should I ask the former FBI agent about this on Sunday at church? He guaranteed it to me that the FISA application was not based on the dossier because it just doesn't work that way. He knows because he has sworn to many of them before. I was wrong (in his words).

This is a guy that either worked on the 7th floor or was always there. He knew most of these players on a 1st name basis.

Is it right to rub a retired agents nose in it or should I just let it go?

---

Pretend you are a concerned moderate, tell him how shocked you were and ask him if he was surprised, too.

---

Maybe tell him "sorry your agency lost"

Saw that thread yesterday. I was confused how a college football coach was being discussed as a former MI6 agent. Kevin Steele?