The role of Fusion GPS as an active participant in the 2016 election is growing in scale amid yet another report showing the scope of their involvement.

Two weeks ago the DNC and Clinton Campaign teams were forced to admit they hired Fusion GPS to engage in political activity and research against presidential candidate Trump. That’s sketchy. Then last week we discovered that Fusion GPS head, Glenn Simpson, actually met with Russian operative Natalia Veselnitskaya immediately prior to her visit to Trump Tower and immediately after. That’s beyond sketchy. Now we discover Glenn Simpson actually wrote the material that Natalia Veselnitskava used to pitch herself into a meeting with Don Trump Jr. Wait,… what…

Yes, we are now in “ludicrous mode“. It’s no longer a surprise why Glenn Simpson’s lawyers are trying desperately to keep him from a congressional subpoena. Clinton Lawyers, Perkins Coie, acknowledged they paid $1.02 million to Fusion for research related to candidate Donald Trump. However, the entire story now looks like the DNC and Clinton camp hired Fusion GPS to construct negative material, not “discover” it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The same political research firm that prepared a dossier on Trump campaign ties to Russia had unrelated information on Clinton Foundation donors that a Russian lawyer obtained and offered to President Donald Trump’s eldest son last year, three sources familiar with the matter said. […] The sources told Reuters that the negative information that Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya wanted to give to Republican Trump’s campaign at a June 2016 meeting in New York had been dug up by Fusion GPS in an unrelated investigation. (read more)

The Russian Dossier, an outcome of Clinton and the DNC hiring Fusion GPS, was reportedly used by the FBI (James Comey and Sally Yates) as part of the basis to open its counter-intel investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. Congressional committees are attempting to find out whether the FBI vetted the document prior to relying on it for its probe and possible FISA warrants.

It should be noted that the New York Times had the story (the DNC/Clinton’s funding the dossier) a year prior and did not report on it because the DNC attorney, Marc E. Elias, outright denied it.

In the segment of the March 10th, 2017, questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.

The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.

With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:

…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?

Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

Watch it again.

Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:

…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey

Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.

The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.

Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.

The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.

There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes.

As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.