What follows is a live-read of the transcript by a former criminal defense attorney. Hope you'll share.
It's not the only testimony Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) has given before Congress. The Republicans did not want Americans to see this testimony; after publicly saying he'd vote to release it, Sen. Grassley (R-IA) reneged on his promise.
Okay, so here we go.
During the presidential campaign, Fusion GPS had something north of ten clients (types: corporate, law-firm, investment-fund, litigant).
I really want to emphasize that none of this—none of it—has a damn thing to do with Christopher Steele, Orbis or the Steele Dossier.
So where are all the conservatives howling about "crazy conspiracy theories"? Because that one's crazy as hell.
No one in Simpson's line of work could operate unless he stuck to that hard-and-fast rule.
So too were Russian political figures and Russian intelligence (FSB).
Read *that* one twice.
Again, before *any* involvement by *any* Democrats.
I don't think so.
Steele found salacious stuff because it was *there*.
That person focused on Manafort and Ukraine, not Russia.
*Fusion GPS* had Republican—then Democratic—clients. Key distinction.
It's part of a story on whether media outlets should keep booking him. washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
So Davis' questioning of Simpson is borderline embarrassing to read.
Can I pause here? Doesn't all this just make Fusion GPS look like it didn't have a dog in the sanctions fight—as it was on both sides of the issue?
Davis seems to have found his bone—relevant names. But there's no sense (yet) he has a theory.
By June 2016, Fusion needed to go beyond public info, so they subcontracted with Orbis. What they got immediately—around June 20, 2016—was word of a "political conspiracy."
That "everyone" included the US government.
It's a total red herring.
(1) The Kremlin may be blackmailing Trump.
(2) Trump may be getting illegally gotten Clinton oppo research from Russia.
(3) Trump may be trading U.S. sanctions policy for a closer business relationship with Russia.
(By the way—yes, he would.)
Remember how much had gone down in mid-June in terms of Russian hacking and information sent by allies to the CIA.
(I will have to check up on this claim later, but if accurate, it's certainly a critical point.)
Bombshell: the FBI *did* have a mole in the Trump campaign pre-July 2016.
Nate Silver's polling analyses confirm the FBI's decision to reopen Clinton's case publicly—on no clear grounds—while permitting journalists to falsely report what the FBI had on Trump and Russia handed Trump the election.
Because they've known since August that either incompetence or malice at the FBI handed Trump the election—so they need to establish a counter-narrative saying that the FBI had a *pro-Clinton* bias.
This is historic news.
This is kind of too much to process—I don't think the media has *fully* processed this yet or we'd be hearing more shouting everywhere.
If you understand this Simpson transcript, it's the only thing you're talking about in U.S. politics for—seriously—the next month.
It's taken me about an hour.
If Steele *said* that, the FBI source in the Trump campaign is *definitionally not Papadopoulos*.
If Steele *didn't* say it, it *could* be Papadopoulos.
I doubt Steele and Simpson learned in September 2016 what the NYT just reported as a *major scoop* in 2018.
It wasn't days ago.
Thanks for reading, all! /end
I'll offer a parting gift (as it were): there *was* a snitch in the Trump org. I was told by a major-media UK editor it's the "American" in this graph by Paul Wood (BBC).