Thread by @JohnWHuber

An article the @FBI really doesn't want you to read, that also shows how laughably wrong the top @washingtonpost reporters can be

THREAD

Remember this from Feb 28 2017? It's an article about the @FBI agreeing to pay Christopher Steele for his Trump collusion information. Written by top @washingtonpost reporters Hamburger & Helderman, it is worth another look given what we now know in 2018: washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-o…

This SPECIFIC article is important because it was cited in the criminal referral letter for Christopher Steele, sent by Senate Judiciary Chairman @ChuckGrassley. According to that letter, it actually *triggered* the @senjudiciary interest in the Steele-FBI monetary relationship

In response to that letter, the FBI, via their then-Congressional Liaison Greg Brower, tried to completely redact ANY mention of this article from public view. A total blackout job: judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

@ChuckGrassley formerly challenged this classification suppression attempt from Brower, going directly to FBI Director Wray and DOJ-IG Horowitz to do it: judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

@ChuckGrassley won - EVERY redaction was removed, so you can now see what the @FBI wanted to keep hidden: scribd.com/document/37091…

Before we get to the article, it is worth looking into Greg Brower:

👉🏻appointed as Congressional Liaison by former FBI Director @Comey, in one of his last acts before he was fired

🚨 IMPORTANT: Prior to this Brower was Deputy to General Counsel Jim Baker, the FBI's top lawyer

Brower was Jim Baker's Deputy when Baker was aware of info being *deliberately withheld from Congress in the Clinton email investigation* (according to Peter Strzok's texts with Lisa Page). @Comey then promoted Brower into the role that handles all FBI disclosure to Congress 🙄

Brower has since quit the FBI, totally of his own accord, nothing to see here: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/04/05…

Jim Baker was abruptly reassigned in Dec 2017 & is now holding down a desk with no clear duties. Baker is likely cooperating with @JusticeOIG Horowitz's investigations. He is even giving damning evidence against fired Deputy Dir Andy McCabe for trying to taint his IG interviews

So with the background out of the way, let's look at the article the FBI wanted to redact any mention of

I'll use this approach:

❌CLAIM: what the article says

✅REALITY: what we now know

❌CLAIM 1: An "Intermediary to the FBI" passed Steele info "AFTER the Democratic National Convention in July [25-28]".

✅REALITY: no "intermediary", but a real live FBI agent Michael Gaeta (based in the Rome office) was given the first Steele memos face to face in London, weeks earlier than this, on July 5 2016

❌CLAIM 2: "information that Steele had been gathering while working for a Washington research firm hired by supporters* of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton"

*Yes, it really says that

✅REALITY: Fusion GPS was hired & paid for *the DNC/Clinton campaign itself*, laundered via law firm Perkins Coie. Campaign Manager Robby Mook & Chairman John Podesta (and others 😉) were *regularly briefed on Steele's information* (see @HouseIntelComm report, redactions removed)

❌CLAIM 3: "Steele was hired to work for a Washington research firm, Fusion GPS, that was providing information to a Democratic client"

✅REALITY: "a" Democratic client? How about THE Democratic client of the DNC/Clinton Campaign itself. This is James Clapper levels of obfuscation!

❌CLAIM 4: FBI officials were merely "aware" of Steele's information in Oct 2016

✅REALITY: We now know the FBI were granted a secret FISA warrant on @carterwpage in Oct 2016 with the "bulk" of that application being the Steele allegations & news reporting with Steele as the underlying source (Yahoo/Isikoff)

❌CLAIM 5: "Steele’s frustration with the FBI peaked after an Oct. 31 New York Times story that cited law enforcement sources drawing conclusions that he considered premature"

✅REALITY: The @nytimes piece was published AFTER Steele had ALREADY spoken to David Corn via a Skype call (for Corn's Oct 31 article), so could not have "prompted" his frustration. The FBI later swear under oath to the FISA court Steele's "frustration" peaked days *before* this

❌CLAIM 6a: "The development [around the Jan 10 publication of the dossier] marked the end of the FBI’s relationship with Steele"

❌CLAIM 6b: Communications between the FBI & Steele were not "interrupted" UNTIL news of the dossier was public & congressional inquiries started (so between Jan-March 2017)

🚨IMPORTANT: The FBI NOW says it terminated Steele's relationship "promptly" after learning he spoke to David Corn for his Oct 31 2016 article, NOT sometime after 13 Jan 2017. The WaPo reporters have now changed their own story to this too WITHOUT mentioning their prior reporting

So, in Feb 2017, the WaPo had well connected sources fully informed about an unknown proposed FBI financial arrangement with Steele (*an exclusive that launched a Senate investigation*), but also so mis-informed they thought Steele was terminated in Jan 2017, not Oct/Nov 2016? 🤔

This may be part of why the FBI didn't want this article being identified by @ChuckGrassley

Did the FBI *really* "promptly" terminate their relationship with Steele Oct/Nov 16?

If they didn't, this is VERY important as the Democrats (via @RepAdamSchiff) claim the FBI swore to the FISA court why & when they terminated Steele in their 1st FISC renewal for @carterpage (Jan 17): assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4387…

N.B. Schiff's memo has a typo saying "January 2018", the 4th/last renewal for @carterwpage ended in Sep 17, so this refers to Jan 17

So, these are the options:

1. This @washingtonpost piece is COMPLETELY WRONG on when Steele's FBI relationship was terminated

2. @RepAdamSchiff memo is wrong

3. The FBI lied to the FISA court

None of those are good. Anyway, let's look at just one more claim

❌CLAIM 7: "Top Intelligence and law enforcement officials" provided a "summary of the core allegations of Steele's dossier" to President Trump

✅REALITY: We now know that this is completely false. Trump was deliberately ONLY briefed on the salacious Moscow prostitutes allegation. This has now been admitted by @Comey himself, after leaving this lie out there for over a year

So that's ❌SEVEN false claims❌ in almost as many paragraphs. But there is something curious about the reporters of this piece too

TOM HAMBURGER

A former reporter at the Arkansas Gazette (covering Bill Clinton), he's also spoken at the Clinton School of Public Service (clintonschoolspeakers.com/content/tom-ha…), which is a Clinton Foundation partner. Prior to Trump-Russia, reported extensively on the Clinton Foundation

ROSALIND S. HELDERMAN

Also reported extensively on the Clinton Foundation. Wrote some negative stories, but is often getting ahead of/shaping a bad Clinton story (with HAMBURGER)

See here where an "exposé" subtly steers clear of the worst allegations: hughhewitt.com/washington-pos…

Isn't it curious these reporters have exclusive sources on the dossier/FBI AND their reporting obscures the fact the Hilary Clinton campaign & DNC paid for the Steele dossier and were regularly briefed on it?

Both Hamburger & Helderman have also published multiple "bombshell" articles on Trump- Russia "collusion", so considering how bad *just this one article* is in retrospect, I'd recommend looking those in a new light

Here is just a small sample, all making lurid claims of collusion, largely via innuendo & anonymous sources. None of these claims have ever been retracted:

1. washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politi…

2. washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politi…

3. washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…

4. washingtonpost.com/politics/top-t…

Almost all the key claims in this authoritatively written piece are false. 100% wrong.

So, if it's so inaccurate, why did the FBI not want you to read it?

Well, we now know from @HouseIntelComm that former @SenFeinstein staffer Daniel Jones set up his own investigative firm & re-hired Steele/Fusion GPS AFTER the election, bankrolled by $50m(!) via anon donors

Jones offered his (*Steele*) info to...the @FBI: amp.dailycaller.com/2018/04/27/don…

SUMMARY

It could be that the FBI was just trying to maintain confidentially about its relationship with Steele (despite it being public knowledge)

Or, it was more worried that exactly how & WHEN the FBI's relationship with Steele really "ended" keeps evolving 🤔

/END