I notice that none of the blue ticks quoting the Senate Intel report have mentioned Comey being quoted about the Steele dossier:“I insisted that we bring it to the party”🤔Or that the only version of the ICA that included the dossier was the most highly classified version that went directly to President ObamaOr that the ICA makes zero reference to Russian disinformation as a potential risk to the Steele dossier, despite the FBI having that information at the timeOr that the ICA Annex A (a summary of the dossier) “does not mention the private clients who paid for Steele’s work.”, despite multiple people within DOJ, FBI knowing this (and likely other agencies too)Or that the two page “summary” of the dossier in Annex A (which is supposedly not even an IC product or classified itself) has still never been released so we can see what was actually presented to President Obama and POTUS-elect TrumpOr that this “two page annex” of the dossier is supposedly not part of the ICA, but those are the exact two pages that were supposed to be privately briefed to Trump, except Comey just told Trump about the Moscow hookers insteadOr that Bill Priestap told Congress under oath that quote, “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind it [the dossier]” on April 13 2017.A week earlier the FBI had “stood behind” the dossier allegations in the 3rd FISA request on @carterwpage. And it would get a 4th FISA in June!Or that the report can’t even get basic facts right, saying that Crossfire Hurricane was officially opened on “July 30” 2016. It was July 31. Who fact checked this?I also notice nobody is clamoring for the “fully unredacted” version of this report like with Mueller, or accusing Burr of a “cover up” like with Barr. This report is 70-80% redactions, easily. No facts/intel about Putin’s so-called “preference for Trump” is unredacted. Zero.
Source: A thread written by @JohnWHuber: “I notice that none of the blue ticks quoting the Senate Intel report have mentioned Comey being quoted […]”