Doug Collins Releases Transcripts of Nine Former DOJ and FBI Officials…

I hope everyone is ready to do some reading….

Moments ago Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins released the transcripts of nine key figures from the House investigation into DOJ and FBI political activity.

The transcript release includes testimony from:

  • Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabepdf Link Here
  • Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynchpdf Link Here
  • James Comey former chief-of-staff James Rybickipdf Link Here
  • Former FBI lawyer, Office of Legal Counsel, Trisha Beth Andersonpdf Link Here
  • Deputy Asst. Attorney General (DOJ-NSD), George Toscaspdf Link Here
  • FBI Deputy Asst. Director, Jonathan Moffapdf Link Here
  • Former FBI Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch, John Giaclonepdf Link Here
  • FBI Unit Chief, Office of Legal Counsel, Sally Moyerpdf Link Here
  • FBI New York Field Office, Assistant Director in Charge, William F. Sweeney Jr.pdf Link Here

This could be overwhelming.  So we will post two transcripts per day for full review starting below with the transcript of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

333 Responses to Doug Collins Releases Transcripts of Nine Former DOJ and FBI Officials…

  1. fanbeav says:

    Thank you Doug Collins! Looking forward to Sundance’s recap!

    Liked by 30 people

    • BetsyRossRocked says:

      Just put a pot of coffee on !

      Liked by 12 people

      • Daniel M. Camac says:

        Betsy…, Graveyard shift reporting for duty. May we have a little LIGHT over here! Reading the first transcript just reminds me how stupid Lee and Cummings really are….and how rotten to the core McCabe is, was and will always be. God please watch over Doug Collins and his family. We are getting close to launch………

        Liked by 11 people

        • CA M says:

          My thoughts exactly! I was pursuing through Lynch’s testimony. Nadler, Lee and Cummings are a bunch of maroons.

          Lynch basically sticks to the “grandkids and golf” on the tarmac, didn’t have a problem with Comey making sweeping decisions on the email case in public, and has no idea who would inform a presidential candidate that someone on their team may have suspicious ties to a foreign government. Yeah, right. 🙄

          Liked by 1 person

        • fabrabbit says:

          Reading these transcripts, I usually skip the Dem questioners because they ask softball questions or questions posed to confirm their bias. And I am also struck (not Strzok) by the qualifiers and modifiers they use in responding, i.e. “May have been possibly potential…”

          Liked by 1 person

      • carterzest says:

        #FreshPots will be a good thing.

        Liked by 1 person

    • And thank you Sundance for keeping us all up to date on the essentials and providing a comfortable place to discuss and review.

      Liked by 19 people

  2. riverelf says:

    Gonna be a long night! Thanks Sundance!

    Liked by 7 people

  3. AnotherView says:

    WOW!…..just WOW!

    Liked by 4 people

  4. JL says:

    What’s the deal with the Invisible Man.

    Joe Pientka.

    Or is he the “Man Who Knew Too Much”?

    Liked by 7 people

  5. NJF says:

    Giddy up!

    Liked by 4 people

  6. AmericaFirst says:

    This is not meant to be off topic, but did we the public ever see anything in writing from the FBI agent Joe Pientka who was one of the two who “interviewed” General Flynn and whose initial assessment was that he was truthful?

    Liked by 6 people

  7. WSB says:

    Whoa, Nellie! I had some spidey senses something was up for tonight!

    Liked by 11 people

  8. MaineCoon says:

    He’s guilty.

    Thought I’d save everyone time.

    Liked by 11 people

  9. Mark L. says:

    By releasing this, what does it ultimately mean? Does this exposure force others, with oversight powers, to see that justice prevails?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Baby El says:

      Perhaps testimony that conflicts with narratives, proving that public statements were in fact outright lies. This is as much a war of public opinion.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. OSP says:

    Loretta Lynch DENIES telling Comey to refer to the Clinton email case as a “matter,” rather than an investigation, directly contradicting statements made by Comey. pp 16-17

    Liked by 21 people

    • Amy2 says:

      James Comey tweet in 3..2…

      Liked by 4 people

      • Sherri Young says:

        …when he gets through gazing at the redwoods long enough to thumb his phone…

        Liked by 2 people

        • Lester Smith says:

          Comey is just plain weird. I bet he was exercising his inner Dorothy and the talking trees. This man has mental health issues. It is scary that Comey and his terd patrol would of got off Scott free if crackles was president. Also it was noted that all of Julius computers hard drives and so on was sent to America does any one know what agency has taken possession.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Patriot1783 says:

            Crazy likes fox. That is Comey’s desperate hope for everyone to interpret him as to avoid incarceration at a legitimate prison facility.
            Prior to his issues with Donald Trump spying debacle, had he ever acted like he does now? Anyone in previous texts ever question his capabilities? No coz Comey was always calm, cool, collected, in control, as you expect the head of the FBI to conduct themself.
            Very similar to Hillary in her “sick” coughy, fall down phase, symptoms come and go….looking for sympathy factor no doubt also when she is standing trial and sitting at the defense table.
            Comey and Clinton bizarre actions (which had never arisen previously) are their ways of counting on leniency by the courts.

            Like

        • fabrabbit says:

          Or standing in the middle of an intersection. I’ll bet he said to his wife, “Honey, take some really interesting, seriously introspective pictures of me that I can use in tweets. It’s OK if I always have the same clothes on, no one will notice.”

          Liked by 1 person

    • jay says:

      Rybicki backs Comey’s version of events re “matter”, pgs. 39-45.
      And……
      Mr. Parmiter. Okay. Do you know what the other DOJ personnel’s opinion of the Attorney General’s directive was, particularly someone like George Toscas?
      Mr. Rybicki. Certainly. I remember a sort of quip that he said after the meeting that could indicate what he thought of it.
      Mr. Parmiter. What was the quip?
      Mr. Rybicki. It was basically — and I don’t know if this is verbatim, but it was basically I guess you’re the Federal Bureau of matters now.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. Warren Schickli says:

    Still wonder why no testimony from Carlin and no one asking for testimony from Carlin.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. WeThePeople2016 says:

    This was definitely planned and coordinated to do it this way. Maria B. asked him this weekend when he was going to release more transcripts. I wonder why so many at once this time. There has to be a strategic reason. I have a few guesses, but I will leave it to SD and others to say what they think first.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “There has to be a strategic reason. I have a few guesses, but I will leave it to SD and others to say what they think first.”

      My guess is that there is too much material there for the guilty to absorb all at once. So, in the rush to try and get their “story” out first, mistakes will be made and the contradictions will multiply.

      Ready with the popcorn over here….

      Liked by 9 people

      • WSB says:

        It stills burns me that Gowdy and Company have known about all of these informant transcripts from when HE was in Congress. We should have had a lot of information one year ago at the very last.

        Liked by 6 people

        • TarsTarkas says:

          MO he was holding on to it in case things didn’t go the Swamp’s way. Thinking that speaking up now is going to make him look like a white hat.

          Liked by 3 people

    • digleigh says:

      Maybe a giddyup because of neocons trying to get us into War with Iran?…False flag fear? and the Dems (pelosi) is getting pressure to impeach very shortly(GP story?)!!Rubber is about to hit the road… Hang on…..

      Like

    • deepdivemaga says:

      Perhaps Collins got a nod from President Trump and/or Trump’s lawyers to release all of these at once. Maybe moving up the DECLASSIFICATION timeline up a bit. Just my two cents.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Athena the Warrior says:

        We also have a proper AG in place. The Mueller/Weissmann Report has been released so they can’t claim “ongoing investigation” and oh yeah, no more Rosenstein to hold things up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Pa Hermit says:

        There is no coincidence in this world. Only synchronicity.

        Like

    • Sherri Young says:

      The Swamp Creatures must feel like they are in a circular firing squad. Drip, drip, drip would be much more manageable. For a guilty or somewhat paranoid person to be caught in a vortex must be a terrifying experience. The effect must be like shouting “Fire!” in a dark, crowded theater.

      Like

      • Dutchman says:

        Sherri;
        I think maybe more like the prison break, when the spotlite turns on you, and the sirens sound.
        Your busted, and no way to run, no place to hide!
        Oh, and I’m a johnny rivers fan, too
        And Partick Mcguen fan, as well.

        Liked by 2 people

    • justlizzyp says:

      My thinking is that the ruling on Trump financial info might have escalated some things. That ruling frees the Dems to push harder.

      Like

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      There has to be a strategic reason.

      Impeachment

      Like

  13. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Liked by 11 people

  14. Please … in addition to these releases … post ANALYSES. For those of us who either do not have the time to do so or who do not feel comfortable to conclude for ourselves “what all of this might actually mean,” please be reporters. Thanks.

    Liked by 7 people

  15. Looking at Peter Strzok and Lisa Page photos on Sundance’s FBI/DOJ wire diagram, I for the first time noticed that we have Strzok and Love-Strzok.
    (Tickled me. Guess it’s past my bedtime)

    Liked by 10 people

  16. Bob, Esq. says:

    Anyone know what might be the best order to read them?

    Liked by 3 people

  17. CopperTop says:

    Please watch for “washouts”. Things that are common to all the testimony. Its Backasswards but useful.

    Second…

    What kind of people get ‘exculpatory’ evidence IGNORED (Papa) in relation to them being part of an “investigation”…the kinda of people who were a part of the investigation.

    Watch for signs Papa righted his own ship but was cooperative to a certain point.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. riverelf says:

    (McCabe) “…the men and women of the FBI remain committed to the most righteous mission on earth, and that is protecting Americans wherever they are, in whatever they do, and upholding the Constitution.”
    If only. Specially that latter part. Yeah.

    Like

  19. John says:

    I find these redaction interesting; from DOJ perhaps.

    But Peter Strzok was part of that team. REDACTION was part of that team. REDACTION was part of that team. James Baker was part of that team. The director’s chief of staff, James Rybicki, was frequently present for meetings or discussions about issues on that investigation. Lisa Page was part of that team.

    Liked by 2 people

    • JL says:

      John Carlin and Joe Pientka

      Liked by 1 person

      • AmericaFirst says:

        Not John Carlin, he specifically says that while not officially recused, Carlin was not part of the investigation. Unless that was just a lie.

        Liked by 1 person

    • JL says:

      I should have added, I would think the two redacted names are people helping the investigation.

      Or perhaps they are people under criminal investigation. Who are the odd men out?

      Liked by 1 person

    • litenmaus says:

      John….I found those two redacted team names to be interesting as well, especially in light of the names that weren’t redacted….

      McCabe testimony, Page 22
      Gowdy: who would some of those team members be?

      McCabe: Director Comey, Deputy Director EAD Michael Steinbach, Bill Priestap, (Redacted) was part of the team, (Redacted) was part of the team, James Baker, James Rybicki, Lisa Page-and on page30 , McCabe adds Ms. Anderson to the list of team members.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Ed Smith says:

    OK, we have a mountain of slam dunk prosecutable evidence on these traitorous criminals. Now get cracking on indictments. It’s clear that someone or everyone is trying to run out the clock on prosecutions. If they get away with the treason of trying to oust a sitting President the USA as founded is done.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. …..and it’s only Monday

    Liked by 7 people

  22. weirdflunky says:

    All these released at once. Why?

    Obvious contradictory testimony.

    Find it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nigella says:

      Because Pelosi is getting ready to bring articles of Impeachment

      Like

      • icthematrix says:

        Yes, and I think Pelosi and company are wanting to play the impeachment card first in order to claim anything PDJT and DOJ do relative to the coup is nothing but retribution. It’s the last major card they can play. Important for our President to go first, but I fear IG report is being delayed to address new evidence, which just gives time for the plotters to make their move first.

        It is time Mr. President. Nuke em all.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Judith says:

          I think the legal term is “retaliation” and, yes, I believe President Trump should get ahead of it before they can plant a reason to claim retaliation.

          I’ve said all along that they will charge POTUS with either obstruction or retaliation, and use that to bring the impeachment proceedings, which will of course be a BIPARTISAN effort.

          Going after Don Jr is one way to elicit a response. Any action by POTUS can be construed as retaliation. With the Mueller novella a bust, *now* is the time for President Trump to strike. He has a short window to blindside them, before they hit him with anything else!

          Liked by 1 person

    • Hmmm... says:

      The Micheal Cohen testimony had a lot of testimony focused on his pre testimony meeting with Democrats. He has been referred for perjury charges for the testimony following those meetings. If the charges are pursued and the meetings included discussion on those topics then the Dem staffers could be charged with suborning perjury.

      Dunno how that would relate with the others but that’s one bit of contradictory testimony. Perhaps the specific perjury charges referred from Cohens latest House appearance relate to other testimony. It seems a long shot though.

      Like

  23. mr.piddles says:

    “I hope everyone is ready to do some reading….”

    Hangin’ around here, ain’t I?

    :^p

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Zorro says:

    Here are a couple of examples of the “quality” of McCabe’s testimony.

    Lack of candor ?

    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Do you know the identity of the “Andy”
    who is mentioned in that text message?
    Mr. McCabe. I do not.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Were there any other Andys who were
    working on this email investigation employed by the FBI or DOJ?
    Mr. McCabe. I mean, not at my level and not that I’m aware of,
    sir, but I can’t vouch for how many Andys we have.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t have any idea what they are referring to in
    this text. I don’t remember a meeting with Pete Strzok and Lisa Page
    that fits the description of what they have discussed here.
    Chairman Goodlatte. Is there anyone else that they could be
    referring to as “Andy,” other than you?
    Mr. McCabe. I am not aware of anyone. I don’t know who they were
    referring to.
    —–

    Liked by 7 people

  25. cheekymeeky says:

    Oh dear.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cassander1 says:

      A ‘witness’?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Former lurker says:

        Bing bing bing….Lynch is answering these questions not as Boss talking about a subordinate.

        She’s answering these questions with her role in the conspiracy and possible legal ramifications in mind.

        Comey isn’t the Director, FBI, or even my pal Jimmy. He’s a witness for a future prosecution.

        The finger pointing started a while ago.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Comey tossed Lynch under the bus, back around the time of his book release, when he dropped hints, trail of breadcrumbs leading to phone call he was monitoring, between lynch and NYPD, where she threatened NYPD with opening a civil rights investigation unless they shut up about weiner laptop.

          He’s got his contemporaneous memos, which he thinks will exonerate him.
          They won’t, but they WILL throw EVERYONE else under the bus. Its blackmail he has created with those memos, and I would BET they even finger Obama.

          “The POTUS made me do it! I VUS JUEST VOLLOWINK ORDERS!”

          Liked by 1 person

  26. Lumina says:

    So does it seem odd Lorretta Lynch was standing up to deplane when her security detail comes in & says ex Pes. Clinton wants to say Hi, and he appears in less than a minute. Ex Pres Clinton greets everyone, walks to back of plane & has a conversation with 2 members of the flight crew for 5 minutes then comes back & talks to LL. Her description was of wanting to move on & Clinton kept talking.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Kent says:

      …he was letting her know in no uncertain terms that he could cause trouble for her….he’s a very slick politician displaying his style…

      FT Clintons and everthing/everyone they have ushered in…

      Liked by 3 people

      • Lis says:

        Or, he might have just wanted to give the appearance of having discussed something deep within those 30 or so minutes that he was on her plane. Compromised her. She is now sort of hinting at that, anyway.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      That meeting was her “out” so she could hand the PUBLIC decision over to St. Jim and absolve herself of the responsibility I wouldn’t doubt it was prearranged with Billy Boy.

      Like

    • Patriot1783 says:

      Another factor to consider is why was Clinton at the airport to begin with? He had no previous business (there is no proof that he was playing golf in area at the time) there to hang around and wait on Lynch’s flight to arrive. To discuss grandchildren & golf? Please.
      There are no coincidences when it comes to the Clintons….only agendas.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. WSB says:

    Page 254-256:

    Mr. Hiller. What did the New York field office do with Anthony Wiener’s computer from October 2, or from whenever in early October you informed them to take those additional steps, until October 30, when they obtained a search warrant to actually go into that laptop and do forensic work?

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t know specifically what they did during that time. I reengaged on the issue the beginning of that last week in October. So what was the 27 — probably 24, something like that, of October, in or around that time period, when I was asked about it by someone at the Department of Justice.

    Mr. Hiller. And when you reengaged, had they, in fact, done any forensic work yet?

    Mr. McCabe. Not that I am aware of.

    Mr. Hiller. Why not? Mr. McCabe. I don’t know. I don’t know. It was essentially it came back to my attention, and I asked my team what’s — kind of what’s going on with that? I need a status on this, on the matter.

    Mr. Hiller. Do you believe the delay was deliberate?

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t have any reason to believe there was a deliberate delay.

    Mr. Hiller. On October 29, 2016, the day after Director Comey wrote to the Hill, The New York Times reported that, quote, “Although Mr. Comey told Congress this summer that the Clinton investigation was complete, he believed that if word of the new emails leaked out, and it was sure to leak out, he concluded, he risked being accused of misleading Congress.” Did you read that article?

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t remember.

    Mr. Hiller. Is that account accurate?

    Mr. McCabe. I was not discussing this matter with Director Comey at that time. So I can’t tell you exactly what was going into hisdecision-making.

    Mr. Hiller. Was word of the new emails sure to leak out? Was it likely?

    Mr. McCabe. You are asking me to speculate. That’s hard for me to do. A lot of things were leaking out. That was our perception at that time.

    Mr. Hiller. Was any part of the FBI’s decision to send us the October 28 letter wanting to reopen the investigation based, in part, on the threat of unauthorized disclosures of information like the ones you described in the email there?

    Mr. McCabe. I can’t answer that question. Ms. Anderson. Mr. McCabe has already testified he was not involved in that decision.

    Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Thank you very much.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. weirdflunky says:

    In a conspiracy this large and this long lasting there is zero chance that all these people could keep there stories straight, not implicate themselves and not implicate each other.

    Zero chance.

    Liked by 10 people

  29. Bill G says:

    Why is nobody talking about how Barr/Durham “investigation” is just a review and has no criminal power?

    Everyone so quick to kiss Barr’s ass before anyone is held accountable. We are being played folks. We must demand an aggressive criminal inquiry.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. lawton says:

    McCabe’s stuff just seems to be 90% MYE and not that useful for the Russian stuff.

    Moffa’s is mostly useless also just glancing over it though there is more Russian related stuff.

    Like

    • LBB says:

      I haven’t finished all of Moffa’s yet, but he mainly had a position of no power or decision making. He confirmed his role ended with appointment of Mueller. The guidelines of what info Moffa’s team could examine , request, was all defined by DOJ & OGC attorneys agreed upon (pg 33). Different devices/sources had different guidelines, date perimeters.

      He swore to everything (in his awareness) was on the up & up, no bias, etc.

      Like

  31. Paul Tibbets says:

    “Okay. If you turn to the second page on No. 4 — and I’ll read it out loud — the statement that, quote, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account is too strong. It is more accurate to say, we know foreign actors obtained access to some of her emails, including at least one secret one, via compromises of the private email accounts of some of her staffers. Again, this is an email from Pete Strzok to other individuals inside the FBI, it appears mostly management team, including an ”

    Interview of Sally Moyer, busted the FBI knew Clinton’s server violated the espionage act .

    Liked by 6 people

    • Hmmm... says:

      Really interesting confirmation of something suspected and hinted at for a while. So Comey played some word games in his exoneration presser by not disclosing this. Her server was never hacked but her emails were.

      I suspect this explains the FBI’s wacky and disproportionate fixation on Hillary’s missing emails. Would be very embarrassing to the FBI if they popped up somewhere (and we certainly know that the FBI cares about their reputation above any concerns of law or ethics).

      Liked by 3 people

      • fabrabbit says:

        The other “word game” Comey played was saying “no ‘reasonable’ prosecutor would…” Of course, any prosecutor who would indict Hillary would be commit Arkanicide! That would be unreasonable.

        Like

    • Sprawlie says:

      Another interesting part RE: Clinton Server from the Sally Moyer interview. Pg 193-194:

      Q Rewinding back several hours ago, you said you had a role in changing or assisting in the revision of Mr. Comey’s draft statement at his press conference where the negligence issue was removed. Did you also have a role in changing the word “President” to “senior government official”?
      A I remember that discussion, yes, but I did not have a role in changing it.
      Q Do you know who did?
      A Oh, I don’t know who did actually.
      Q But there was a discussion about changing it? A Yes, for security reasons. Q Okay. And that was the underlying issue for security reasons?
      A That’s my understanding, yeah.
      Q Do you remember what the concern about saying President was?
      A I think that that would have highlighted — and given the foreign power an opportunity to go back and look through information to see if they could find communications with the President. I think there was something like that.
      Q But does that indicate that the FBI was aware that President Obama was communicating with Hillary Clinton through her private server?
      A That is true, I believe.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Coco Mama says:

        BINGO!

        Like

      • Newhere says:

        Exhibit number one million and three about how things that are embarrassing or incriminating get classified for “national security.” Nevermind that for YEARS Clinton’s comms with the President on her own server caused incalculable national security exposure; the REAL threat is admitting it in retrospect.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          Thats not simply embarrassing; its clear evidence the POTUS was guilty of violating the espionage act.

          He was COMPLICIT, and concealing the fact the POTUS was complicit is Obstruction of Justice, whether the ‘intent’ was for ‘security’, or embarrasment is irrelevant.

          Liked by 2 people

  32. ann says:

    Mr. Collins, thank you. You are an American of True Grit and an authentic leader,

    Liked by 8 people

  33. WSB says:

    McCabe page 252-254, questioner is attempting to implicate Giuiliani:

    Mr. Hiller. — in a series of television interviews, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested that the Trump campaign, quote, “has a couple of things up our sleeves that should turn things around.” Do you recall him giving television interviews like that? Mr.

    McCabe. Generally, yes.

    Mr. Hiller. On October 28, 2016, in an interview on the Lars Larson radio program, Mayor Giuliani said he was in contact, quote,

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    253

    “with a few active agents who obviously don’t want to identify themselves.” Do you recall him making that statement or statements like that?

    Mr. McCabe. I have a general recollection of him making statements like that, but I don’t — I don’t know that I have ever heard the Lars Larson program.

    Mr. Hiller. I don’t think I have listened to it either. On October 4th, 2016, in an appearance on FOX and Friends, Mayor Giuliani was asked if he knew about the FBI’s possession of the laptop before Director Comey wrote to the Hill?

    Mr. McCabe. I am sorry, what date was that? Mr. Hiller. November 4th.

    Mr. McCabe. Okay.

    Mr. Hiller. He responded, quote, “Did I hear about it? You are darned right I heard about it.” Do you recall him making a statement like that?

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t remember that.

    Mr. Hiller. You said earlier that you believed it was possible that somebody inside the FBI was providing information, accurate or not, to True Pundit. Is that correct?

    Mr. McCabe. It’s possible, yes. Mr. Hiller. Is it possible that sources within the FBI were also talking to Mayor Giuliani?

    Mr. McCabe. It’s possible, yes.

    Mr. Hiller. Was Director Comey aware of those statements at the

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    254
    time?

    Ms. Anderson. Again, you are asking —

    Mr. McCabe. I couldn’t answer that. I don’t know what Director Comey knew.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. AmericaFirst says:

    I find it strangely amusing that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was compared to the Robert Hanssen spying for Russia investigation – by McCabe no less! p. 23.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. Hmmm... says:

    Sally Moyers gives pretty convincing testimony that the Rosenstein story about wearing a wire and 25th amendment was not a joke.

    Liked by 4 people

    • A2 says:

      Yes and who fed her the story?

      Mattress back Lisa Page who just let it drop during her commuter drive with Moyers her passenger.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fabrabbit says:

        Are we sure they were having an affair? Would you stay married to either one of them if they had humiliated you that way? I can’t wait until all the Strzok/Page texts are released so we can hear them planning to meet in the janitor closet. Plus, I’d divorce Strozk before all the assets are gone.

        Like

  36. WSB says:

    McCabe 251: Bill Sweeny was the NY Field FBI office agent with the laptop.

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    251
    Mr. Hiller. Okay. And were you or Director Comey informed that the computer might contain additional emails that could be relevant to the Clinton investigation?

    Mr. McCabe. I was. Mr. Hiller. And when were you informed of that? Mr. McCabe. I don’t know the specific day, but it was in the beginning of October.

    Mr. Hiller. In the beginning of October. Did you or Director Comey instruct the New York field office to search that computer for any additional information that might be relevant to the Clinton investigation?

    Mr. McCabe. Are we still within scope?

    Mr. Hiller. I believe that this is all relevant to the decision to reopen the Clinton investigation. We are well within the scope.

    Mr. McCabe. Okay. Just checking. Sorry. Can you repeat the question?

    Mr. Hiller. Certainly. Did you or Director Comey instruct the New York field office to search that computer for any additional information that might be relevant to the Clinton investigation?

    Mr. McCabe. So I first learned of the existence of the computer and that it might have information on it relevant to the Clinton investigation in a telephone conversation with Bill Sweeney, who was and still is the ADIC of the New York field office. My best recollection is as a result of that conversation I spoke to my counterintelligence division, likely Bill Priestap, but I don’t have — I would have to check that — and told them to get with the New York field office, figure out what do we have, and come back to me with a recommendation of a path forward. That was the first I knew of the existence of the Wiener laptop material.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. MaineCoon says:

    P. 61

    Q: When did the FBI make the decision not to charge Secretary Clinton, before or after interviewing her?

    McCabe: After.
    ————————

    Liar.

    Lying to congress — perjury — should be jail time.

    2-tiered justice system.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 247: back and forth about John Giacalone possibly being the leaker to TruPundit. McCabe downplaying it, believeing it could have been a lower level FBI spurce or putside the agency.

    Like

  39. Carson Napier says:

    And like an iceberg, only about 10% of their criminality is in any transcripts or testimony, if even that much.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. All Too Much says:

    Lynch, p 53
    Mr. Nadler, Now, Madam Attorney General, do you believe the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes?
    Ms. Lynch. I know that they did not.
    Mr. Nadler. Did President Obama, or anyone in his
    administration, ever make a demand or request that the FBI or DOJ
    infiltrate or surveil the Trump campaign for political purposes?
    Ms. Lynch. Never.
    ////

    Liked by 3 people

    • AmericaFirst says:

      Seems odd to me that they can be prosecuted for lying to Congress … on the record … but NOT under oath. I think all of these interviews should be under oath. Even if that wouldn’t matter to the soulless anti-Americans whose records we are reading.

      Like

    • Beau Geste says:

      “for political purposes” seems to be the qualifier by nadler for lynch’s pre-determined tstimony.

      Liked by 2 people

    • fabrabbit says:

      Stop appending “political purposes” to your questions! And wouldn’t any good attorney follow up that question with “did they surveil for ANY purposes?”

      Like

  41. Dave Sanderson says:

    Releasing so much all at once is a new version of the ‘SHOCK & AWE’ military strategy …so much so fast makes it impossible to create, coordinate and then leak responses by treasonous swamp creatures …and then even MORE DEVESTATING material will be released! … wave upon wave of devestating testimony, full of major contradictions made under oath.

    It’s time for Costco to start selling us 50-gallon drums of Kirkland SPYGATE Popcorn.

    Liked by 8 people

  42. Bogeyfree says:

    This was posted on the Presidential thread but most probably missed it and IMO it needs some additional exposure and maybe it’s own thread?

    These seem to be newer OIG investigations, post July 2017

    So my question to Sundance is, are these new to you and are they intended to dig deeper to get to the truth or to set up “corrective action measures” such as more FBI training to help sweep all of this corruption under the rug??

    FBI’s Adjudication of Misconduct Investigations
    The OIG is examining whether FBI’s misconduct investigations are handled according to policy throughout the adjudication process and how FBI determines when and how to revise its misconduct adjudication policies and process.

    FBI’s Confidential Human Source Program
    The OIG is auditing the FBI’s Confidential Human Source Program. The preliminary objectives are to: (1) assess the FBI’s management and oversight of its Confidential Human Source Program, to include the FBI’s oversight of payments to confidential human sources, (2) examine the FBI’s confidential human source policies to ensure consistency with the Attorney General Guidelines, and (3) assess the FBI’s process of determining reliability and appropriateness of confidential human sources.

    FBI’s Covert Contracts
    The OIG is auditing the FBI’s contracts awarded for covert activity. The preliminary objectives of the audit are to assess the FBI’s awarding and administration of these covert contracts and to evaluate the FBI’s procedures and processes for ensuring contractor performance and compliance with the terms, conditions, laws, and regulations applicable to these contracts.

    FBI’s National Security Undercover Operations
    The OIG is conducting an audit of the FBI’s National Security Undercover Operations. The preliminary objectives are to evaluate: (1) the FBI’s oversight of national security-related undercover operations, and (2) the FBI’s efforts to recruit and train agents for these undercover operations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Beau Geste says:

      85% of the spying was illegal, and much of it was done by “contractors”, according to the FISC Collyer report. Who awarded these spy contracts? Who directed and authorized the spying? Who received the illegal spying results? In addition to the contracts themselves (with their defined work scope), there are records of all this illegal spying and illegal contracting approvals and directions and reports from the illegal spying. Each of these companies should be barred ( “pun”?) from any further government contracts as required by law.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Bogeyfree;
      I recall seeing these I.G. reviews listed as ‘opened’ or ‘ongoing’ on the I.G. website, back around the time he released his FIRST report, on McCabe vs Comey, “who’s lieing?”. So, been ongoing for awhile.

      Like

  43. freepetta says:

    I started with Assistant Director Sweeney from the NY field office at the bottom. FBI did a BIG cover up job on Anthony Weenies laptop. McCabe and Comey should be tarred and feathered for this 💩

    Liked by 1 person

    • Newhere says:

      I started there too. Really just tracks the IG Report (in fact Sweeney repeatedly says, “I’m not sure, I think it was [X] … is that what the IG report says?”). Most interesting round of questions is the last set, starting on page 89.

      Liked by 1 person

  44. Carson Napier says:

    To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens –

    My own view is that the FBI, DOJ and CIA, along with the upper echelons of the Democrat Party, have been used as a dumping ground by a superior civilization, to get rid of their very worst criminal sociopaths. I can’t prove it, but no one can disprove it either and the circumstantial evidence is truly overwhelming.

    Liked by 10 people

    • sturmudgeon says:

      Carson: good take! thanks.

      Like

    • fabrabbit says:

      I miss Christopher and also Andrew Breitbart. It was the Friday before Memorial Day when he was sitting in his kitchen with his wife and saw the Weiner tweet. Everyone else was drinking martinis, preparing for the holiday weekend, but Andrew caught it before Mr. Weinermann had a chance to delete it. Oh, I miss that man. btw: Weiner should have gotten a bigger penalty for his behavior of self abuse with his son taking a nap right next to him.

      Liked by 1 person

  45. Margaret Berger says:

    The problem is what the meaning of “is” is. Note the question from nadler to lynch, did you spy for political purpose? That is so different than did you spy on the President Trump campaign. That is what the question should have been. Follow up, why? When they answer muh Russia the follow up is what was the evidence you had that made you think muh Russia?

    Liked by 5 people

  46. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 232 -233 knows nothing of the “path of consideration” and “the insurance policy.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bogeyfree says:

      So how does this statement play when PT declassifies all the texts?

      It seems the order is:

      First – these under oath testimony’s – Get it all in writing verbatim.

      Second – IG Report documents his findings

      Third – Declassify all their texts and emails – allow for clear side by side comparison of what was said under oath vs their personal emails and texts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        McCabe testified that although there are no other ‘Andy’s’ that he knows of, he does not remember the meeting of which Strzok and Page are referring in their infamous texts. At which point, he is asked for his calendar!

        It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

        Liked by 3 people

    • fabrabbit says:

      Wasn’t the insurance policy referred to by Strzok as “the idea thrown out in Andy’s office…sort of like an insurance policy…” But Andy McCabe doesn’t know about it?

      Liked by 1 person

  47. Gonna be another loooong week.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. blognificentbee says:

    Wow! No sleep for Sundance a few other Treepers tonight!

    Liked by 3 people

    • fabrabbit says:

      Why should we sleep when Comey, et al. haven’t been sleeping for months?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lester Smith says:

        Comey and the terds play at night to keep their dirt out of sight. Now it’s time for the sun to shine liberty and justice have expose their crimes. No where to run no where to hide lady liberty is on our side.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. Amy2 says:

    Thank you Mr. Sundance, and God bless you in advance for the work you are going to be doing here. THANK YOU DOUG COLLINS!!

    Liked by 2 people

  50. Pyrthroes says:

    We await far more informed and detail-oriented commentary than anything our naive impression(s) might supply. In sum: Holy mackerel, what a mess uv stinkin’ fish.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s