in today's thread, I'm returning to a topic that I've alluded to previously, but will set out details, as I think that it's a very important issue, both in respect to identifying Primary Sub-Source and FBI disinformation. The paragraph shown below is from Page FISA Application. 
2/ The paragraph is from its footnote 8 introducing Steele (Source #1). It is a very long footnote that sprawls over 3 pages, occurring on bottom of p16. It contains 4 redactions described as "Source Description" - all about the same length.
3/ Last three redactions appear to be 24 characters long (including internal spaces and hyphens). The same paragraph occurs in all 4 applications. The spacing in the later applications is a little different, permitting some deductions on word lengths within 24 characters.
4/ from one of the breaks, last component of phrase appears to be 6 characters. Also I think that you can deduce that the 8th character is a hyphen. (I say this knowing the probable answer, but I think it's deducible). One break has 8 characters at end of one line, 16 on next.
5/ if the first word was 8 characters long, the component on next line would be 15 characters. If first word were 7 characters long followed by space, the redaction on first line would be 7 characters long, not 8. The 8 characters followed by 16 implies that 8th character
6/ is hyphen that is part of actual phrase, not a hyphen occurring from a page break. I mention this as a sort of due diligence checkpoint, since phrase can be figured out otherwise.
7/ Horowitz fn 389 says that SIA told Clinesmith that "Primary Sub-source was not [REDACTED] as stated in the FISA applications, and asking whether a correction should be made". (It wasn't.) The incorrect information pointed to by SIA is almost certainly what was redacted in FISA
8/ so what was the incorrect information about the Primary Sub-Source in the FISA application? And why is it still redacted both in the FISA and even in Horowitz footnote? Why are they still concealing error? Did FBI also deceive Nunes and House Intel Cte? (You know answer).
9/ as sleuths, let's now look for other paragraphs about Primary Sub-Source. In the paragraph introducing Sub-Source #1 (FISA; Person 1 in Horowitz), a 24 character phrase is used, which has a good chance of being same descriptor, but doesn't in itself pin it down.
10/ in FISA Renewals 2 and 3, there's a paragraph containing phrase "Source #1's 1234567890123 sub-source", which has same location and context as the 24 character redaction noted above. This suggests that the 13 character phrase is 7 characters - hyphen- 5 characters.
11/ while this is deducible, it's probably easier to look directly at page 190 of Horowitz where this sentence was quoted verbatim and, inconsistently, the phrase redacted everywhere else was missed. The phrase was "Russian-based sub-source". 24 characters, eighth character
12/ is a hyphen, last component 6 characters. The phrase was used over and over in the Page FISA applications. Presumably just to be sure that the FISA court and anyone else were quadruply sure that the Primary Sub-Source was Russian-based. Here's the fit in paragraph quoted by H
13/ here's the fit in the canonical introduction of Steele and his Primary Sub-Source. The phrase "Russian-based sub-source" exactly fits all 4 redactions.
13/ the same phrase "Russian-based sub-source" fits the other excerpt in the FISA applications.
14/ whatever was incorrect in Horowitz fn 389 must relate to this. The phrase requires 8 characters in first break, then 6 characters. The PSS was NOT "based in Russia", contrary to what had been stated in FISA applications.
15/ The Supervisory Intel Analyst, Case Agent 1, DOJ lawyer Laufman and his #2, would all have known this prior to the Jan 13 interview with PSS, since they had to locate him to schedule the interview, which appears to have been in or near Washington DC. Laufman took first
16/ half of meeting; his #2 the second half. They would not have done this if the meeting were in Europe or even in San Francisco. The PSS had two more interviews, both with a Washington Field Office agent. It's not 100% certain that meetings were in or near Washington, but ~99%.
17/ it wasn't just the FISA court who were told that the Primary Sub-Source was "Russian-based". The FBI said the same thing to the House Intel Committee, which, based on false FBI information, reported that Steele's information came "via a Russia-based primary sub-source".
18/ if Steele's information came from a Primary Sub-Source who lived in northern Virginia, near Langley - as appears to be the case - it would have much less resonance with Steele's audience than information coming from an endangered and brave source in Russia.
19/ shame on Steele for deceiving FBI about location of Primary Sub-Source. But that's just the beginning of the deceit. By late December or early January, the FBI knew that PSS was NOT based in Russia, but continued to say so in FISA and other reports, adopting Steele's lie.
20/ even when the Supervisory Intel Analyst asked OGC Attorney (Clinesmith) to correct the error, Clinesmith declined to do so and the Supervisory Intel Analyst failed to protest, as did Case Agent 1, David Laufman and his #2.
21/ in addition to failing to correct the record on the PSS location, by late Dec/early Jan, the FBI knew that Steele had lied about the location of the PSS. Steele had said "Russian-based" and FBI found him near Washington. This was big blemish on Steele credibility that ought
22/ to have been reported, but was concealed by FBI, which continued to endorse and praise Steele's credibility.
23/ even the Horowitz Report was a sort of "limited hang-out" - to borrow the Nixonian phrase. They identified the error in a footnote (the import of which was redacted), but did not comment on the repercussion of Steele's falsity on his credibility. And although both issues were
24/ bigger than many, if not most, issues selected into Horowitz' summary, they were not included in the summary and thus not brought to the attention of limited attention-span national media.
25/ finally, the redactors of both the Horowitz report and Page FISAs are themselves complicit in perpetuating the false information and concealment of deception. There is no valid reason for not showing the original (false) claim in the FISA applications or to not identify the
26/ false claim in the Horowitz footnote. All these redactions do is to conceal systemic wrongdoing by the FBI.
Readers who liked this thread will probably like yesterday's thread
