Margot Cleveland guessed 3 of the 4 footnotes in Grassley unredaction letter: 302, 342 and 350. Other was 334 versus her guess of 347. https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/10/senators-ig-fisa-abuse-report-misled-public-about-crossfire-hurricane/

2/ all the early stories on unredactions are about "Russian disinformation", but nothing in the redactions provides any new details on identity of Primary Sub-Source - who we believe to be Ukrainian partisan, not Russian.

3/ I politely disagree with both Cleveland and @danbongino on role of Person 1 (Millian), both of whom believe that he was an actual sub-source. Elsewhere, Horowitz reported that Primary Sub-Source never met with Person 1 and

4/ that his entire contact with the supposed Person 1 was a single 10-15 minute telephone call with an anonymous caller, who the PSS presumed to be Millian. The Steele memoranda inconsistently requires separate contacts between PSS and Person 1/Millain before June 20, in late

5/ July after Dem convention and on August 9. Horowitz somewhat arched his eyebrow at the inconsistency but didn't hammer the point home or include it in his summary, despite its importance. Instead, he acquiesced in the idea that there had been contacts between PSS and Person 1,

6/ but that FBI's fault had been their failure to disclose to FISA court that Steele had told agents that Person 1 was "boaster" and "egoist" - though there is My own view is that the "anonymous" phone call claimed by PSS never happened or wasn't from Millian.

7/ I also believe that Millian was completely framed by Steele, who, despite his protestations about protecting sources, named Millian - even faster than Papadopoulos could compose about Clovis or Sessions, that fast - all the while, stoutly refusing to identify PSS.

8/ So we get to unredactions in 302. The unredactions are Simpson's speculation that Person 1 was a "RIS officer" and that a "document circulated among CH team" in early Oct said that Person 1 had had contacts with persons "suspected of" links to RIS.

9/ if Millian/Person 1 were an "RIS officer", as Simpson surmised, then all of his supposed information about collusion would obviously have to be disinfected for potential disinformation, with full disclosure to FISA. Needless to say, FBI concealed.

10/ additionally, as I've mentioned in the past, FBI's entire justification for opening an investigation into Trump campaign was their supposed concern of Russian disinformation being passed to Trump campaign.

11/ I observed previously - before this footnote - that they had far more evidence of Russian disinformation being passed to Clinton campaign. I also observed that the test for political bias in opening the investigation into Trump campaign was not whether information met so low

12/ a bar as to be almost non-existent, but whether they would have opened a similar investigation into Clinton campaign on similar facts. In this redacted footnote is clinching proof that FBI did have much stronger grounds to open investigation into Russian disinformation

13/ being passed to the Clinton campaign than to Trump campaign, but they didn't open any such investigation. In other words, Horowitz conclusion that there was no political bias in opening the investigation was incorrect. With the redaction of this footnote hiding this.

14 on to footnote 342. This was most important as it contained details about Primary Sub-Source - a topic of particular interest to myself, Hans, FN, walkafyre. It unfortunately remains totally redacted.

15/ the obstructionist refusal to reveal any information about Primary Sub-Source- about the only thing that hasn't leaked from FBI in past 3 years - is very suspicious. Our identification (USA-based Ukraine partisan) puts these events in totally different perspective than others

16/ there is extensive unredaction of 350 which concerns Deripaska. While Steele's association with Deripaska is unseemly for a supposed source and ought to raise all sorts of questions, I don't think that Deripaska was interested in touching this with a bargepole.

17/ nonetheless, there were all sorts of disclosures which FBI ought to have made and dodged. FN 350 was nearly all redacted. The unredacted FN reports multiple inaccuracies in Steele's reporting, all of which ought to have been disclosed, including an assessment by an

18/ unnamed agency that Steele's fairy-tale about Michael Cohen was "Russian disinformation" - something that also ought to have been disclosed. I happen to think that it was Ukrainian disinformation, not "Russian" disinformation. There is nothing in footnote showing otherwise,

19/ other than an "assessment" from an unnamed agency. We'll know one way or the other when Primary Sub-Source is identified.