Fusion GPS to Congress: Release our testimony

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: luthier

Glenn Simpson testified at the closed door hearing:

Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the firm that assembled the controversial “Steele dossier” on President Trump, has struck a deal to appear before the House Intelligence Committee for a voluntary closed-door interview next week, committee leaders announced Wednesday.

An attorney for Simpson said he will not assert his Fifth Amendment rights during the interview, as was done by two other executives from the firm who appeared before the committee last month.

Simpson had been under subpoena by the committee, which is seeking more information on the dossier as part of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. That order will be lifted at the time of the interview on Tuesday, Reps. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said during a joint statement.

The Hill

Why was Fritsch and Catan so adamant about pleading the 5th rather than actually testifying?

Why did Simpson not agree to testify unless the testimony would be done behind closed doors?

Why are they now trying to say they want what they said to be public?

This is my opinion and you probably will reject the notion but if your an Intel firm you probably want to at least appear your looking out for your sources and don't just roll over without a fight, or you won't be getting new ones.

But that is just my opinion.

a reply to: luthier

I'm talking about several instances -- not just one -- as are they:

"Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions...

Note: Plural, not singular.

I provided links showing where they have refused to testify, have plead the fifth, and were interviewed rather than testified in order to not take an oath to tell the truth.

I'm really not sure what you're asking me.

a reply to: luthier

Oh I agree with that.

Just like them standing behind their 'product.'

No one would ever expect them to admit how faulty it is, otherwise no one would ever hire them again if it came out they knew they sold the DNC/Hillary's campaign bogus material.

This is just like when Hillary called on the FBI to release information about their investigation into her use of a private, unsecured, unapproved server.

She knew that said information could not be released as the investigation (lol, such as it was) was still underway at that time. It was all bluster in an attempt to appear transparent cloaked in the fact that was the last thing she really wanted.

But then why would Fritsch and Catan plead the 5th, even behind closed doors?

That amendment is there to prevent self incrimination. What is it that they are not wanting to incriminate themselves for?

a reply to: Boadicea

Would you expect an Intel firm legit or not to have public testimony and easily roll over and provide it's sources?

I am.saying someone did testify in a closed hearing under oath.

IMO it would be suicide for any Intel company to roll over whether they are legit or con artists

a reply to: Sillyolme

That it was a disinformation plot paid for by the democrats to ensure a win for Clinton.

Because it was.

Link 1

Link 2

Back to your witch hunt.

The only thing that dossier is ?

A year long bad tv political commercial that no one can tune out of.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Tht is too much speculation and partisan for me to just say I agree.

I do think Hilary is a crook and a pro at it but it's easy to use half truths to seem like obvious truth.

I have no on hand experience with GPS so I can't say if they are legit or not.

a reply to: luthier

While this may be true (speculation as to why they now want to release what they would not testify in open session), the fact the two members plead the 5th is not.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Not really it's a cat out of the bag situation. They are trying to preserve themselves anyway they can.

Maybe they found a way to protect there sources. If I were to start speculating I could come up with many theories.

Not saying your wrong it's just a crap show in political media right now so I don't hold much stock in narratives.

Maybe they, Fusion, want their testimony released so others, who are/are not referenced in testimony/interview, can get on the same page, as to what they said or didn’t say...

...kinda like when two people haven’t gotten their story straight, but one has already been questioned... When the other is being questioned, the first person is behind the questioner, nodding, shaking their head, mouthing words, playing charades, etc... (and if the questioner looks back, the person snaps to acting all nonchalant.)

They might want the committees to say something, giving information, because they can’t communicate for themselves without being surveilled or stirring up suspicion...

a reply to: GuidedKill

Wow I guess laughing through your tears.
Just how much circumstantial evidence needs to be presented before you start wondering if there isn't some circumstance it's pointing a finger to?
Not that circumstantial evidence is all we have but there is some. Like what occurred in the trump tower meeting which Steve Bannon is putting his own spin on now. And we don't know where Mueller is going.
He threw a curve ball with Papadopoulos whom nobody knew from Adam. But things like hiding a communications channel with a foreign power from the American people and more meetings with Russians than Ronald Reagan had with Gorbachev combined with what we learned about Russian efforts on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and how many Russians were eyeing for meetings if they didn't get one outright.
Add to that suspicious real estate deals where property sells for twice it's value and is then torn down unimproved. Add to that the fact that everybody on the campaign lied about dealings with Russia. Some unfortunately while talking to the FBI as we know. Add to that Flynns turning on trump and he was at his elbow almost constantly. Add to that Kushners failure to disclose certain contacts and associations.
I'm sure I'm leaving some things off.

So its ok ...you can laugh all you want. I will be the one laughing in the end.


and we all know that...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Boadicea

Would you expect an Intel firm legit or not to have public testimony and easily roll over and provide it's sources?

I expect nothing... folks surprise me all the time. I'm only observing and commenting on the end result...

I am.saying someone did testify in a closed hearing under oath.

But you're not also saying that that testimony under oath consisted of pleading the 5th. At least, that's what they said they would do, and that's what has been reported as happening, though as you note the transcript has not been released for confirmation of such.

IMO it would be suicide for any Intel company to roll over whether they are legit or con artists

I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that. Doesn't matter for our purposes, since the end result is the same. But to that extent, I would much prefer they honorably plead the 5th than to "testify" without taking an oath, in which case everything they say is questionable.

a reply to: Boadicea

So some news outlet reported about a closed hearing nobody knows about.

They previously publicly stated they would plead the 5th (to protect their image they protect their sources)

So in other words speculation.

a reply to: luthier

So in other words speculation.

Not unless it's Simpson's attorney who is doing the speculating:

An attorney for Simpson said he will not assert his Fifth Amendment rights during the interview, as was done by two other executives from the firm who appeared before the committee last month.

The Hill

Fusion GPS partners Peter Fritsch and Thomas Catan invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, said their lawyer, Joshua Levy. He said they would cooperate with "serious" investigations and also claimed that a "Trump cabal has carried out a campaign to demonize our client for having been tied to the Trump dossier."

Bloomberg

Not sure why you're having a hard time understanding this.

They previously publicly stated they would plead the 5th (to protect their image they protect their sources)

Also, this is not the purpose of the fifth amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Cornell Legal Institute

Not seeing anything there about protection of sources.

But you're not also saying that that testimony under oath consisted of pleading the 5th. At least, that's what they said they would do, and that's what has been reported as happening, though as you note the transcript has not been released for confirmation of such

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

OK so Bodicea was incorrect. He never said he would plead the fifth or wouldn't take an oath.

a reply to: luthier

He never said he would plead the fifth

Except he did:

“Glenn Simpson, through his attorney, has declined to voluntarily attend Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing regarding compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” the senators wrote in a statement. “Therefore, a subpoena has been issued to compel his attendance. Simpson’s attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena.”

Washington Times

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Boadicea

So some news outlet reported about a closed hearing nobody knows about.

This is from "some news outlet" called CNN:

Two partners at the intelligence firm that produced the dossier of memos alleging Russian efforts to aid Donald Trump's presidential campaign on Wednesday declined to answer questions before the House intelligence committee.

Fusion GPS' Peter Fritsch and Thomas Catán invoked their Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions during their closed-door appearance before the committee, according to their attorney Joshua Levy.

You and I don't know about what happened in that hearing. Their attorney does know what went on in that hearing.

They previously publicly stated they would plead the 5th (to protect their image they protect their sources)

So in other words speculation.

So, in other words, they said they would plead the fifth... their attorney says they plead the fifth... CNN and others reported they plead the fifth... so, no, it's not speculation.

Now, as I said before, by all means release the transcripts. Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and let the chips fall where they may!

And I'll remember that they refused to take an oath to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's not a grand jury though. It's congress..You don't have to say anything, you just can't lie.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: luthier

He never said he would plead the fifth

Except he did:

“Glenn Simpson, through his attorney, has declined to voluntarily attend Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing regarding compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” the senators wrote in a statement. “Therefore, a subpoena has been issued to compel his attendance. Simpson’s attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena.”

Washington Times

It seems yur talking about two different hearings, we have no information on the closed session.

We know his lawyer said he ain't talking. Which would be a good pr move.

The fifth is a tool for a "defendant" it isn't always used for only self incriminating comments. It can also be used to not expose others.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

No they weren't false. The records have been subpoenaed.

This is from your own source.

“We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources,” Trump’s lawyer John Dowd wrote in an email Dec. 5.

Highlighted the relevant part for you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

The dossier is real.

Yes, physically it is real. The contents of it however, are not.