1/ Fresh information in Horowitz on Steele narrative regarding @SergeiMillian shows that there was either no contact whatever by Primary Sub-Source with Person 1 or that contact was a single anonymous telephone call to PSS attributed by PSS to Person 1 out of thin air.
@SergeiMillian 2/ on this meagre infrastructure, Steele and/or PSS concocted three (or possibly four) separate "contacts" with Person 1, first prior to June 20 "report"; a second in "late July" and a third specifially dated to "August 9".
@SergeiMillian 3/ in the Telegraph's recent Crossfire podcast, they interviewed FBI James Baker, who said that cross-checking telephone and travel records was standard FBI practice in testing source information - a technique that is not exotic, but mere common sense.
@SergeiMillian 4/ Baker made an important distinction between checking public and non-public travel records. For example, Carter Page's trip to Moscow on July 6-8 was public record, whereas the Cohen trip to Prague in August alleged by Steele wasn't and could be cross-checked. (It didnt happen)
@SergeiMillian 5/ the multiple contacts with Person 1 claimed in Steele dossier were similarly refuted in the interview with Primary Sub-Source.
@SergeiMillian 6/ Horowitz was silent on whether WFO Agent 1 or anyone in FBI made any attempt to determine the exact date of the mysterious telephone call or, more fundamentally, to verify that there ever was such a telephone call.
@SergeiMillian 7/ ANY date for the "telephone call" shows that key Steele memoranda are fraudulent. If the telecon was in mid-June (as required for claims in June 20 report), then information attributed to "late July" and "August 9" calls is fraudulent. Likewise, if telecon was on August 9,
@SergeiMillian 8/ then attributions in earlier reports were fraudulent.
In my opinion, Primary Sub-Source, when directly asked by FBI, made up an implausible story about an anonymous telephone call (rather than admit that it was total fabrication). However, rather than carry out obvious
In my opinion, Primary Sub-Source, when directly asked by FBI, made up an implausible story about an anonymous telephone call (rather than admit that it was total fabrication). However, rather than carry out obvious
@SergeiMillian 9/ verification procedures on the telephone call, FBI appears to have done nothing and to let the false narrative persist, presumably as part of Comey's effort to implant a Special Counsel.
@SergeiMillian 10/ the probability that Steele and/or PSS fabricated all or most of the "Person 1" narrative is extremely important to the overall picture, since "Person 1" is the ONLY source in Steele dossier for supposed collusion between Trump campaign and Russia and for three of the four
@SergeiMillian 11/ "factual" allegations cited in the Carter Page FISA application (as reported by Horowitz).
@SergeiMillian 12/ unfortunately, Horowitz didn't fully analyze the implications of the inconsistencies between Person 1 contacts according to Steele Report and PSS evidence to WFO Agent 1. These inconsistencies ought to have been included in the summary, adding to the 17 listed defects.
@SergeiMillian 13/ indeed, they are a much bigger problem than many, if not most, of the listed defects. Instead, Horowitz accepted the questionable presumption of actual contact with Person 1 and criticized FBI for failing to disclose Steele's comment that Person 1 was boastful or that FBI was
@SergeiMillian 14/ investigating Person 1, rather than the much more fundamental problems arising from the implausible single call and FBI failure to verify that there ever was such a call.
@SergeiMillian 15/ this important Horowitz failure has resulted in perpetuation of Steele's implausible allegations against Millian even by a couple of the most insightful and well-informed Steele critics: Margot Cleveland and Dan Bongino.
@SergeiMillian 16/ in otherwise insightful recent article in Federalist, Cleveland noted Horowitz' criticism of FBI failing to disclose Steele's comment about Person 1's alleged bostfulness and FBI investigation of Person 1 without picking up fundamental issues on existence of Person 1 contacts
@SergeiMillian 17/ similarly, in a recent podcast, @danbongino (who deserves great credit for consistently challenging all Steele matters) accepted as a given that Person 1 had been in contact with Steele collector and, without naming him, that Millian was Person 1. I urge Bongino to re-examine
@SergeiMillian @danbongino 18/ the issues surrounding whether Steele's collector ever had any actual contact with Millian or whether the allegations attributed to Person 1 were simply fabricated with false attributions to give them a false air of authenticity.
@SergeiMillian @danbongino 19/ I also urge interested readers to read the excellent article monsieuramerica.com/2019/12/24/a-c… on this topic by insightful @MonsieurAmerica, who thus far has been the most alert commentator on implausibility of Steele allegations against @SergeiMillian
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 20/ for reference, here is Horowitz excerpt that PSS said that it never met sub-source, that it supposedly received a single anonymous telephone call which PSS attributed to Person 1/Millian. 
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 21/ elsewhere Horowitz reported that PSS said that the conversation was "10-15 minutes" and that the supposed communications between "Trump and the Kremlin", while ongoing, were relatively innocuous. Rather than focusing on issues relating to embellishment of this content
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 22/ in Steele dossier, I've focussed in this thread on the more fundamental inconsistencies on the date of the supposed contact and whether there was any contact whatever.
In a footnote, Horowitz reported that PSS purported to verify Millian as person who made anonymous call
In a footnote, Horowitz reported that PSS purported to verify Millian as person who made anonymous call
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 23/ by the supposed similarity of anonymous caller's voice and Millian's voice in a Youtube video. An obvious check for FBI would be to identify the video. There's a rub here: PSS' interview with WFO Agent 1 was in March 2017.
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 24/ At the time, there were numerous videos of Millian on Youtube, but virtually all of them (there's a single exception) were placed online in late Jan/early Feb 2017, following the public "outing" of Millian by Fusion GPS hacks at ABC and WSJ. These were not available when
@SergeiMillian @danbongino @MonsieurAmerica 25/ Steele named Millian to the FBI in early October 2016. The single video dating prior to Oct 2016 (and still searchable) has a very short clip of Millian, insufficient to provide any sort of identification. Be that as it may, what steps did FBI take to cross-check video?
