I've racked my brains and no ideas work. I wonder whether Graham actually knows identity of Primary Sub-Source or just assumes it's Russian.
-
-
Replying to @ClimateAudit @mizdonna
Well, as I mentioned before, the report does say "Russian-based", clearly in reference to that source (see the middle of page 190), and going from that to Russian isn't much of a stretch.pic.twitter.com/m4V6jJ37dr
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
yes, you've mentioned that and it's a good point. It's hard to square the various bread crumbs: a "Russian-based" sub-source who traveled to US in Jan, Mar, May 2017 for FBI interviews.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the wording "Russian-based" is worth paying attention to, as it suggests "Russian", but doesn't say that. For example, I've asked people a trivia question: which German-born male tennis player has won the most grand slams? It isnt Boris Becker; it's John McEnroe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
so "Russian-based", IMO, would point to a non-Russian working in Russia
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ClimateAudit @mizdonna
Yes, could easily be an expat. Steele didn't tell the FBI the source's name, but rather they figured it out themselves. Which implies that he's guessable... except that really they might (and should) have used the NSA database to get a complete list of Steele's communications.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Or maybe that was wrong? The footnote on page 245 refers to an error in the FISA submission, and the blanked-out part of the footnote might be covering over "Russian-based":pic.twitter.com/uKiCyvmuct
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think that spacing works for "Russian-based". In non-proportional font, you need six letters and comma on second line of redaction.pic.twitter.com/Mu4Qh75rXH
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClimateAudit @mizdonna
That last image you made looks pretty close; the differences could just be a matter of a different font. Of course other words would fit too, but it's still enough to cast doubt on "Russian-based", opening up the field of possible candidates again.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
it isn't close enough. I used a non-proportional font - that's key. I've done numerous such comparisons. I am totally confident that it's six characters plus comma on second line.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Do you mean "proportional font"? The websites I looked at say that "non-proportional" means fixed-width, yet this text is obviously set in a variable-width font. In any case, I tried it via copy-and-pasting in an image editor, and "based" is indeed too small in this exact font:pic.twitter.com/5Hy5exRG9n
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.