Mccain is always called a hero, but if you follow the money, it is the same money as clinton. I feel mccain did more harm than good.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/two_possibilities_in_trump_wiretapping_and_neither_is_good.html

conclusion:

Quote:

---

Whichever explanation seems more likely, the end result should be infuriating to every American. Either your nations premiere law enforcement agency was breathtakingly incompetent when the stakes were the highest, or select officials in that organization made deliberate decisions to break the law, undermine the Constitution, and illegally spy on a fellow American. Either possibility has deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and DOJ in addition to the reputations of thousands of honest FBI Agents and DOJ attorneys. Despite the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians, the FISA process has indisputably proved an invaluable resource in safeguarding the country from terrorism. If the heinous abuses documented in the I.G.s report result in a weakening or loss of FISA, we will all be the worse for it. If those responsible are not held to account, this will happen again. There is no happy face to put on this episode.

---

This is the most damning article I have read concerning FisaGate. Well worth a read. It becomes readily understandable why they sought a FISA warrant against Carter Page rather than a Title III wiretap.

"The author is a 1983 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He served for over 22 years as an FBI special agent, supervisory special agent, and FBI SWAT team leader."

jagvocate said:

---

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/27/dirty-spooks-concerned-about-barr-and-durham/

Barr and Durham have the goods on Misfud and will use it to indict Clapper, Brennan, and others

---

I saw that disgusting Politico article on Twitter when it was posted...& I am proud of my comment at the time:

The Identity of Steele's Primary Sub-Source a very, very long post (my last on Horowitz's Report)

Pages 186-190 of Horowitz's Report:

Quote:

---

C. The FBI Identifies and Interviews the Primary Sub-Source in Early 2017

The FBI conducted interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting....

During the FBI's January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336
Footnote 336: David Laufman, then Chief of NSD's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES), covered the first portion of the January interview and his Deputy Section Chief covered the remaining portions of the January interview. Laufman told us that he negotiated with the Primary Sub-source's counsel to facilitate the FBI's interview and

The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a "brokerage."340...

The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March 2017 about the election reporting and his/her communications with Steele. The Washington Field Office agent (WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of Steele's reports was far more "conclusive" than was justified.... WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."341...
Footnote 341: According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source told him that he/she spoke with at least one staff member at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow who said that there were stories concerning Trump's alleged sexual activities, not that the activities themselves had been confirmed by the staff member as stated in Report 80.

As discussed in Chapter Eight, Carter Page FISA Renewal Application Nos. 2 and 3 advised the court that following the January interview with the Primary Subsource, "the FBI found the Russian-based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative."...

---

Observations:
(1) The Primary Sub-source had to be someone personally known by Steele & with whom Steele was meeting/communicating with some regularity circa the summer of 2016.
(2) The Primary Sub-source apparently related information verbally to Steele.
(3) The Primary Sub-source likely maintained a residence in the peri-Washington DC area -- 3 interviews occurring within a 5 month period involving multiple DC based persons, including high profile DOJ attorneys + NSD personnel as well as FBI associated with the Washington Field Office.
(4) However, the Primary Sub-source was Russian (Moscow?) based.
(5) The Primary Sub-source was apparently an American citizen with an obligation (contract or employment) or an active connection of some sort with the US government -- although possessing legal counsel, the Primary Sub-source 'agreed' to be interviewed by the FBI & he/she 'voluntarily' allowed text messages to be recovered/viewed by the FBI. In other words, the Primary Sub-source 'chose' to cooperate with the FBI; i.e., likely he/she could not refuse to cooperate.

Pages 190-194 of Horowitz's Report:

Quote:

---

D. The FBI Obtains Additional Information about the Reliability of Steele's Reporting after FISA Renewal Application No. 3

However, we were told by WFO Agent 1 that the Primary Sub-source stated that he/she never met this sub-source and that other sub-sources were responsible for the Ritz Carlton reporting. The Primary Sub-source also told the FBI interviewers as well as WFO Agent 1 that he/she received a telephone call from an individual he/she believed was this sub-source but was not certain of the person's identity and that the person never identified him/herself during the call. 345 The FBI's written summary of the Primary Sub-source's interview describes this call as follows:
[The Primary Sub-source] recalls that this 10-15 minute conversation included a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin, that there was "communication" between the parties, and that it was an ongoing relationship. [The Primary Sub-source] recalls that the individual believed to be [Source E in Report 95] said that there was "exchange of information" between Trump and the Kremlin, and that there was "nothing bad about it . ." [Source E] said that some of this information exchange could be good for Russia, and some could be damaging to Trump, but deniable. The individual said that the Kremlin might be of help to get Trump elected, but [the Primary Sub-source] did not recall any discussion or mention of Wiki[L]eaks.
Footnote 345: The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she found a YouTube video of the subsource speaking and that it sounded like the person on the telephone call.

---

Observation:
(6) What would precipitate the Primary Sub-source to seek out a connection via a YouTube? Since he/she did not know the caller, it had to be a clue(s) deduced from the information relayed during the telecom &/or the voicing patterns. What clue(s) could have led him/her to suspect Sergei Millian? Well, suppose/consider: a) the caller had to know who the Primary sub-source was in order to seek him/her out & then to convey the information; b) the caller had some affiliation/association with the Trump Campaign & likely was acquainted with Trump personally; c) the caller resided in the US and spoke good English but with an accent of English being a second language; d) the caller was very familiar with the political environment in Russia including key players, most likely had lived in Russia/USSR at one time or was a native, & spoke fluent Russian with a regional accent; i.e., the caller was likely a Russian/USSR-American. That type of deduction could lead to Sergei Millian (it could lead to Felix Sater as well), but could there be other peripheral considerations or coincidences in play as well?

So, considering the 6 Observations gleaned from the IG Report, was there anyone who might come to mind as being a potential candidate for being the Primary Sub-source? After some thought, a name emerged, someone we have discussed on our thread: Adam Waldman, lobbyist for Oleg Deripaska. Remember, he was the individual secretly texting Senator Warner regarding a meeting with Steele + negotiations with Assange. We discussed this scenario in detail -- it was suspicious that Waldman was coordinating with Warner regarding both Steel's Dossier activities & Assange's WikiLeaks/DNC email hack, & Waldman also was acquainted with Dan Jones (Senator Feinstein's former staffer/Penn Quarter Group), another Dem operative who was financing Steele. Senator Grassley tried unsuccessfully to have Waldman interviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Waldman, via the Endeavor Law Firm, had submitted multiple lucrative FARA filings related to Deripaska & Lavrov, not to mention having multiple US political contacts stemming from his lobbying activities, so he could hardly decline to cooperate with the FBI; see this thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1085547013352157186.html

Adam Waldman appears in the IG Report as Oligarch 1's attorney, Oligarch 1 being Oleg Deripaska:
Page 91 of Horowitz's Report:

Quote:

---

Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that Steele facilitated meetings in a European city that included Handling Agent 1, Ohr, an attorney of Russian Oligarch 1, and a representative of another Russian oligarch. 209
Footnote 209: Handling Agent 1 told us that he was aware that Steele had a relationship with Russian Oligarch 1's attorney and assumed it may have been a business relationship....

We asked Steele about whether he had a relationship with Russian Oligarch 1. Steele stated that he did not have a relationship and indicated that he had met Russian Oligarch 1 one time. He explained that he worked for Russian Oligarch l's attorney on litigation matters that involved Russian Oligarch 1 but that he could not provide "specifics" about them for confidentiality reasons. Steele stated that Russian Oligarch 1 had no influence on the substance of his election reporting and no contact with any of his sources. He also stated that he was not aware of any information indicating that Russian Oligarch 1 knew of his investigation relating to the 2016 U.S. Elections. 211...

---

(Methinks Steele was covering his tracks regarding outing his Primary Sub-source in the above exchange as noted in Horowitz's Report, Steele wasn't always truthful.)

So, what about Observation (6) regarding the telecom & the YouTube? Remember, the Primary Sub-source (erroneously) fingered Sergei Millian via his voicing from a YouTube. Well, why would he even be aware of Millian in order to consider him per the previous discussion? Were there any other suggestions or tips the Primary Sub-Source might have received which possibly directed him to suspect Millian? Here's some additional factors:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-source-d-the-man-said-to-be-behind-the-trump-russia-dossiers-most-salacious-claim/2017/03/29/379846a8-0f53-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

Millian was born in Belarus where Russian was one of the two official languages. He emigrated to America as an adult & later founded the Russian American Chamber of Commerce in 2006. He traveled to Moscow in 2011. He boasted about his real estate contacts with Trump, & he presented himself as a representative of the Trump Campaign in 2016 to the Russian community in America. The latter attracted the Russian news media which reported an interview with Millian on April 13, 2016, and included a photo of Millian with Trump. You can read the Russian to English translation here:

(https://ria.ru/20160413/1409790646.html)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Finterview%2F20160413%2F1409790646.html&edit-text=&act=url

Then, in the summer of 2016, Millian traveled to Russia & attended a seminar. He posted on Facebook a photo on himself chatting with Oleg Deripaska in St. Petersburg. So, between the Millian interview published in the Russian news media on April 2016 + Millian meeting Deripaska in the summer of 2016, Waldman, via these two timely-coincidental events, may have been spurred about whose voice to seek out via a YouTube.

Was there a YouTube of Millian available in the summer of 2016? Yup! It's very short though, & it is rather obscure, having less than 1,200 views:



So, was Steele's Primary Sub-source Adam Waldman? I've tried to piece together a reasoned circumstantial argument. Although I can't prove this hypothesis, Waldman surely must be a prime candidate. I noted arguments posted on Twitter for both Konstantin Kilimnik & Stefan Halper as being Steele's Primary Sub-source, but in 2017 Kilimnik was based in Ukraine + had no reported association with Steele, & of course Halper was not based in Russia. Do you see any holes in my analysis?/END

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/two_possibilities_in_trump_wiretapping_and_neither_is_good.html

conclusion:

Quote:

---

Whichever explanation seems more likely, the end result should be infuriating to every American. Either your nations premiere law enforcement agency was breathtakingly incompetent when the stakes were the highest, or select officials in that organization made deliberate decisions to break the law, undermine the Constitution, and illegally spy on a fellow American. Either possibility has deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and DOJ in addition to the reputations of thousands of honest FBI Agents and DOJ attorneys. Despite the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians, the FISA process has indisputably proved an invaluable resource in safeguarding the country from terrorism. If the heinous abuses documented in the I.G.s report result in a weakening or loss of FISA, we will all be the worse for it. If those responsible are not held to account, this will happen again. There is no happy face to put on this episode.

---

This is the most damning article I have read concerning FisaGate. Well worth a read. It becomes readily understandable why they sought a FISA warrant against Carter Page rather than a Title III wiretap.

"The author is a 1983 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He served for over 22 years as an FBI special agent, supervisory special agent, and FBI SWAT team leader."

---

If we want to keep FISA for terrorism purposes, then everyone who broke the law must be put in jail. Otherwise the author is correct - it will happen again.