Fusion GPS walks back claim that they had a source in the Trump camp

  When Dianne Feinstein leaked the transcript of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony to the Congress the big news which came out was that the reason Fusion GPS took the dossier so seriously is because it was corroborated by somebody in Donald Trump’s circle.

Mr. Simpson testified, “Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

This is a claim he reiterated in an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times:

“As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp,” he wrote.

  Democrats immediately jumped on this as proof that the dossier is not phony and they thought they finally found the smoking gun they have been looking for for over one year. However, Glenn Simpson is now walking back that claim. Fusion GPS is now saying this was a “misrepresentation” of the facts.

“A source close to Fusion GPS tells me there was no walk-in source––that was a mischaracterization by Simpsonof the Australian diplomat tip about Papadopoulis [sic],” tweeted NBC reporter Ken Dilanian.Whether the source the FBI supposedly told Mr. Steele about could be Mr. Papadopoulos is doubtful. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about issues surrounding his contacts with the professor. The criminal complain says the FBI did not interview him until January 2017, three months after Mr. Steele met with the agents in Rome.The story corrections correction caught the eye of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican, who on Thursday sent off a letter to Fusion attorney Joshua Levy. Mr. Grassley demanded to know why Mr. Levy did not correct the record after spending hours reviewing the transcript in October and November or contact the committee last Tuesday.” If it is true that your client’s statement to the Committee was a mischaracterization, why did you not attempt to correct your client’s statement as soon as you and/or he realized it was not accurate?” the senator wrote. Mr. Levy did not return a message seeking comment.

  Charles Grassley asks a great question; why wasn’t this correction made once the error was known? The correction was only made once the transcript of the testimony was made public by Dianne Feinstein, leading one to believe the correction would not have been made if they were not caught in a lie, er I mean, “mischaracterization.”

  Ironically Dianne Feinstein might have done the President a favor when she leaked the testimony…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium