House Intel Chair Adam Schiff was finally forced to release a lot of the Russia investigation transcripts that he had been desperate to hold back.

Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell pressured him by saying he would release them if Schiff did not.

Among the things they have revealed is how Obama officials testified there was no evidence of Russia collusion with the Trump team despite what those same officials were saying publicly, claiming there was. It also exposed Schiff for the contemptible fraud that he is, showing once again his repeated claim that he knew of evidence of collusion was false. It explains Schiff’s panic and why he didn’t want them out.

But as investigative whiz Undercover Huber revealed, it looks like there’s more. Huber takes deep dives into things like the transcripts. With an understanding of the history and great discernment, he’s able to pick up a lot that others may not.

He found testimony indicating an apparent HPSCI interview of Bill Priestap on October 31, 2017.

Here’s Schiff questioning former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice Mary McCord.

Where is the transcript of HPSCI's interview of Bill Priestap on Oct 31, 2017?

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Adam Schiff to Mary McCord, on Nov 1, 2017:

“A number of us sat down with Bill Priestap yesterday”

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

“MR. SCHIFF: …was [Priestap] intimately involved in the preparation of the FISA pertaining to Carter Page?

MS. MCCORD: I believe so”

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Bill Priestap, talking not to HPSCI, but to the Committee on House Reform and Oversight, in June 5, 2018:

“I am sometimes brought into conversations about whether a FISA warrant is necessary…” (cont.)

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

…”I do not personally review nor is it part of my job responsibility to personally review all of our FISA applications. But I am generally aware of some of them”

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Now for the dynamite

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Sounds good.

“MR. SCHIFF: And if [Priestap] had contemporaneous access to the FISA applications and a chance to review them, would his recollection be more fresh than your own about what would be in the FISA application?

MS. MCCORD: Absolutely”

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

“MR. SCHIFF: lf it was [Priestap’s] view that a substantial part of the FISA application, indeed more than half of the FISA application was based on sources not involving Mr. Steele, would you have any reason to believe that that was incorrect?

MS. MCCORD: No.”

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

What that looks like is that Bill Priestap – Peter Strzok’s boss – sat down with Adam Schiff on Oct 31, 2017 and told him that “more than half” of the @carterwpage FISA warrant “was based on sources not involving Mr. Steele”

That’s a flat out lie.

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

So where’s the transcript of that interview?

As Huber explains, virtually all the sources were Steele.

Other than references to public open source information, and US intel allegations about Russia in general, the Carter Page FISA application only uses nine (9) identified “Sources”

—Steele
—Steele’s primary sub source
—Steele’s other sub-sources (six of them)
—Stefan Halper

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

In other words, 8 of the 9 sources used in the FISA application to level allegations against Page are Steele, and Steele’s sources.

The most important allegation: that Page was part of a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” was literally *cut and pasted* from Steele

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

If Priestap really was sitting down for chats with Schiff and telling him “over half” the FISA wasn’t based on Steele’s sources, it sure looks like Priestap was himself a source.

For Adam Schiff’s memo claims that the FISA wasn’t entirely based on Steele and his dossier.

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Were any Republicans at this “sit down” with Priestap on Oct 31, 2017? Is there a transcript? Did Priestap really misrepresent the FISA like Schiff implies?

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Last thing: When @DevinNunes was writing his memo about FISA abuse, who was one of only two officials the FBI appointed to review the Nunes memo before it was released?

*Bill Priestap* (the other was Sally Moyer).

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

And according to Kash Patel, Nunes staffer and main author of the FISA memo, what did Priestap say about Nunes memo that said “the bulk” of the FISA was actually based on Steele’s information?

“There’s nothing incorrect” – as quoted by @LeeSmithDC

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

So which is it Mr. Priestap? Was “the bulk” of the FISA based on Steele (like you confirmed to Nunes’ team), or *less than half of it* (which is what Schiff is implying you said)?

We all know its that the bulk was based on Steele. So why did you say the opposite to Schiff? 🤔

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Time to start asking exactly what Priestap was telling Congress and Adam Schiff in 2017.

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 9, 2020

Yes, and why has the Priestap transcript not been revealed, Adam Schiff? If he’s holding onto that even after being forced to release all the others, you know it has to be really good.

Sounds like a good thing to ask DNI Ric Grenell.

HT: Twitchy