So many transcripts … so many questions.
So many dirty players.
And so much panicking for our good friend, Adam Schiff. Undercover Huber is once again ‘taking one for the team’ and reading through all of these transcripts Schiff never wanted us to see and deciphering them for us on Twitter. He is also asking some pretty damning questions about what he is and is not seeing.
Take a look:
Where is the transcript of HPSCI's interview of Bill Priestap on Oct 31, 2017?
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Adam Schiff to Mary McCord, on Nov 1, 2017:
"A number of us sat down with Bill Priestap yesterday"
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
So is it say to safe the ‘Schiff’ is about to hit the fan?
Hrm.
"MR. SCHIFF: …was [Priestap] intimately involved in the preparation of the FISA pertaining to Carter Page?
MS. MCCORD: I believe so"
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Bill Priestap, talking not to HPSCI, but to the Committee on House Reform and Oversight, in June 5, 2018:
"I am sometimes brought into conversations about whether a FISA warrant is necessary…" (cont.)
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
…"I do not personally review nor is it part of my job responsibility to personally review all of our FISA applications. But I am generally aware of some of them"
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Now for the dynamite
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Grab the popcorn.
"MR. SCHIFF: And if [Priestap] had contemporaneous access to the FISA applications and a chance to review them, would his recollection be more fresh than your own about what would be in the FISA application?
MS. MCCORD: Absolutely"
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Recommended
"MR. SCHIFF: lf it was [Priestap's] view that a substantial part of the FISA application, indeed more than half of the FISA application was based on sources not involving Mr. Steele, would you have any reason to believe that that was incorrect?
MS. MCCORD: No."
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
HOOBOY.
What that looks like is that Bill Priestap – Peter Strzok's boss – sat down with Adam Schiff on Oct 31, 2017 and told him that "more than half" of the @carterwpage FISA warrant "was based on sources not involving Mr. Steele"
That's a flat out lie.
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
A flat out lie.
Gosh, we’re shocked.
Other than references to public open source information, and US intel allegations about Russia in general, the Carter Page FISA application only uses nine (9) identified "Sources"
—Steele
—Steele's primary sub source
—Steele's other sub-sources (six of them)
—Stefan Halper— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Basically all Steele.
If we don’t laugh we’ll never stop throwing up.
In other words, 8 of the 9 sources used in the FISA application to level allegations against Page are Steele, and Steele's sources.
The most important allegation: that Page was part of a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" was literally *cut and pasted* from Steele
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
No wonder Schiff is freaking out.
If Priestap really was sitting down for chats with Schiff and telling him "over half" the FISA wasn't based on Steele's sources, it sure looks like Priestap was himself a source.
For Adam Schiff's memo claims that the FISA wasn't entirely based on Steele and his dossier.
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
C’mon, nobody is shocked that Schiff probably lied his arse off, right?
Were any Republicans at this "sit down" with Priestap on Oct 31, 2017? Is there a transcript? Did Priestap really misrepresent the FISA like Schiff implies?
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Last thing: When @DevinNunes was writing his memo about FISA abuse, who was one of only two officials the FBI appointed to review the Nunes memo before it was released?
*Bill Priestap* (the other was Sally Moyer).
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
And according to Kash Patel, Nunes staffer and main author of the FISA memo, what did Priestap say about Nunes memo that said "the bulk" of the FISA was actually based on Steele's information?
"There's nothing incorrect" – as quoted by @LeeSmithDC
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
So which is it Mr. Priestap? Was "the bulk" of the FISA based on Steele (like you confirmed to Nunes' team), or *less than half of it* (which is what Schiff is implying you said)?
We all know its that the bulk was based on Steele. So why did you say the opposite to Schiff? ?
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
Ruh-roh.
Time to start asking exactly what Priestap was telling Congress and Adam Schiff in 2017.
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member