more about that

Posted on: December 9, 2019 at 21:23:42 CT

The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March
2017 about the election reporting and his/ her communications with Steele. The
Washington Field Office agent {WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and
others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of
Steele's reports was far more "conclusive" than was justified. The Primary Subsource also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Subsource's statements in reports or present them as facts. According to WFO Agent
1, the Primary Sub-source said he/ she made it clear to Steele that h'e/she had no
proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that "it was just
talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/ her
information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that (he/she)
had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations
about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."341
The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other
sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that
information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that
he/she "takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/ her] with 'a grain of salt."'
In addition, the FBI interviews with the Primary Sub-source revealed that
Steele did not have good insight into how many degrees of separation existed
between the Primary Sub-source's sub-sources and the persons quoted in the
reporting, and that it could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For
example, the Primary Sub-source stated to WFO Agent 1 that, in contrast to the
impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct
access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told
WFO Agent 1 that their information was "from someone else who may have had
access."
The Primary Sub-source also informed WFO Agent 1 that Steele tasked
him/her after the 2016 U.S. elections to find corroboration for the election reporting
and that the Primary Sub-source could find none. According to WFO Agent 1,
during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source sa id the corroboration
was "zero." The Primary Sub-source had reported the same conclusion to the
Crossfire Hurricane team members who interviewed him/her in January 2017.
Following the January interview with the Primary Sub-source, on February
15, 2017, Strzok forwarded by email to Priestap and others a news article
referencing the Steele election reporting; Strzok commented that "recent interviews
and investigation, however, reveal [Steele] may not be in a position to judge the
reliabi lity of his sub-source network." According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst,
the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the
reporting was difficult to discern and could be attributed to a number of factors.
These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source,
exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained,
or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when
questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary
Sub-source.

Edited by dangertim at 21:25:33 on 12/09/19