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. Hmmm... says:

    The tail end of the Sally Moyer transcript involves discussion about the Ohr meeting in November. I’d have to go back and look but it seems likely that someone is lying here. Moyer describes getting the information from Ohr that indicated Steele’s bias only after the election (and FISA). This information was certainly available to them prior via the recent released notes from the State Department but I seem to recall Ohr testifying that he advised the FBI of Steele’s bias before the FISA. I’ll double check and reply back once I’ve looked. Obviously something doesn’t add up since Moyer is testifying that she worked on the FISA and this was her first time hearing about Steele’s bias despite clear warnings received by Stzrok prior to the FISA warrant.

    Liked by 6 people

    • OlderAnd Wiser says:

      Yes, you are right. Ohr did say that he warned the FBI of Steele’s bias.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hmmm... says:

      Definitely a conflict with Ohr’s testimony but not overwhelmingly clear cut. Ohr gets asked twice about this (when he told the FBI about Steele’s bias) and the first time he gets cut off by the FBI lawyer. It was asking specifically whether the bias information was given to the FBI before the FISA (though it was in a list of 3-4 items). The second time Ohr responds he thinks he gave the Steele bias information to the FBI in either the August or September meeting but that probably gives him enough wiggle room for plausible deniability. The 302s should clarify if you can believe them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Coco Mama says:

        Sally Moyer page 194. Obama communicated with Hillary secret server.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Hmmm... says:

        Final followup on this just to save anyone else time. The little snippet of testimony about the State Department lady (Kisevelek or whatever her name is) becomes relevant. Ratcliffe’s questioning of Ohr indicates the Republicans are aware of this document (the Kavalek State Department notes) but don’t know the date of it.

        Ohr and the FBI are playing games here. So Ohr says previously he thinks he conveyed the info from the memo to the FBI in August or September. Because the Republicans didn’t have a complete picture about the Kavalek notes they were not able to pin Ohr down as to when he became aware of them. So they were able to launder that info into Ohr’s 302 in November establishing that they didn’t receive it until after the FISA. Pientka gets assigned (the second time his name pops up in a suspicious 302 situation) to Ohr just before this November 302 where this information pops up.

        It seems obvious that the FBI is trying to hide the fact they received this memo from her until after the FISA was issued. Hard to say how involved Ohr is with this part of the coverup because they didn’t ask him specifically about it but there is a lot of questioning about whether or not he promptly reported information given to him to the FBI. This is probably what will get him a referral for a perjury charge in my opinion since the Sally Moyer testimony gives added weight to the idea that he did not promptly disclose this information.

        Like

        • Rachel Guess says:

          Hmmm,

          Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder where b ohr’s message to nellie telling her to log into his FBI account and delete information falls into this timeline.

          First, DoJ and FBI personnel are prohibited from giving their login information to ANYONE else, even a spouse, and secondly, any messages in his DoJ email account would be backed up on multiple servers.

          I don’t know if b ohr would have had access to the DoJ server back ups, but if he did I could see him sending a message to his wife ‘delete this information now’ at the same moment he was deleting information from the server back ups.

          Checking the server back ups to see how the messages compare could be very informative.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Ted says:

      Let there be no doubt:
      Sally Moyer’s credibility and professionalism is destroyed in her testimony. Just read the last few pages. At the end, she has no idea that she has been stripped naked.

      A few examples:
      Her relationship with Lisa Paige: she was coached to be vague, but it doesn’t pass and it’s obvious she was party to vulgar exchanges
      Espionage Act: she gets absolutely schooled
      Disclosure to FISC: unabashedly says all appropriate exculpatory evidence was disclosed after having the words from the report read to her.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. WSB says:

    McCabe, page 229:

    Chairman Goodlatte. Hang on just a minute. Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, let me ask one question from one of our other members just in the interest of time while you’re looking at that. At what point did you become aware that this investigation was a headquarters special or this term that you use internally?

    Headquarters special? Ouch.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. lawton says:

    Rep Jackson Lee basically tells us all 4 of the people named in the scope memo to Mueller by Rosenstein had FISAs placed on them when questioning AG Loretta Lynch. I pretty much assumed Flynn and Manafort did also besides Carter Page but that means George Paps got one thrown on him like he thought. The Flynn one will be even more crooked than the Page one I am sure with the lies placed in there.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. haruspex says:

    Meadows/Gowdy to McCabe, Comey was super efficient with drafting Clinton’s exoneration letter on May 2nd, 2 months before she was even interviewed. But what we find peculiar is the hasty review of and lack of involvement once she was interviewed on a holiday Saturday, 7/2. Comey pulls together a press meeting and exonerates her, Tuesday 7/5. And that is standard operating procedure Mr. McCabe?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. CopperTop says:

    230: Insurance Policy language design ALERT

    “Mr. McCabe. It is my understanding, having been told about this
    after the fact, that Attorney General Lynch had that exchange with
    Director Comey, and she said that she preferred — I don’t know whether
    she preferred that he or that she refer to it as a matter instead of
    an investigation.”

    McCabe is noting that he is not sure if Lynch wants Comey to call it a matter or if she is telling Comey she will be referring to it as a matter…

    So if it’s the latter…in any circumstance when it’s posed she will not be referring to an investigation…

    Let’s go on a limb and assume the real circumstance is the matter as it stands in conversation with the WH…damning…but EQUALLY damning if the FBI ‘adopted’ this as a part of the insurance policy

    Like

    • CopperTop says:

      Notice…this page (230) is RIGHT before McCabe is asked to speak what he knows about an insurance policy.

      Like

    • CopperTop says:

      Yep. Loretta Lynch tries to distance herself from calling it a matter.

      p 17 Lynch

      I heard his testimony on it and that was the first time that
      he had ever indicated to me, in my understanding — he may have told
      others — that he had that impression of our conversation.
      Q So you do not believe you ever instructed him to call it a
      matter?
      A I did not.

      If you look over her testimony she use MATTER like a valley girl says ohm’gawd. 66 times only a handful are in context of calling MYE a matter.

      Lynch used the term matter…McCabe from his quote above appears to think she was using the term for her own use..and suspects that FBI wasn’t supposed to adopt.

      Like

  6. mtk says:

    Anyone have any success opening up any the pdf’s files linked in the blog.
    I am getting zip, nada success
    I like to read backwards starting with the last one.

    FBI New York Field Office, Assistant Director in Charge, William F. Sweeney Jr. – pdf Link Here…

    The pdf Link Here hypertext link leads to…

    a general search page results on Rep Collins.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      Links are fine.

      Liked by 3 people

      • mtk says:

        I’ve since have been able to determine my issue is with the browser I am using.

        As always the deep state wants to know who is accessing the information.

        Seriously, Sundance does that come as a surprise.

        Like

      • mtk says:

        I since have been able to determine the issue is with the browser I am using.

        When I switched to Chrome, I was able to download the pdf I wanted to read.

        Nothing to do with your reporting, or the syntax of a link. Every thing worked fine once I switched browsers.
        It is just the administrative State wanting know who was accessing these documents.
        The duck duck go browser was presenting the differculty.
        At this point do I care, “Is a question that should not be surprising.”

        If you want, I can present screen shots of the htlm responce when I clicked the link in duck duck go.

        Liked by 1 person

    • jebg46 says:

      I have an iPad and use DuckDuckGo for the Treehouse and just tried the Sweeney link. It worked just fine so not really sure what your issu is.

      Like

  7. MaineCoon says:

    P. 223. Chairman Goodlatte. Are you aware whether the FBI ever provided defensive briefings to anyone connected to the 2016 election concerning threats from foreign adversaries?

    P. 224. Mr. McCabe. So are you asking me if we provided defensive
    briefings to any candidate? Chairman Goodlatte. Yes, for the 2016 election.

    P. 225. Mr. McCabe. I’m aware that we participated in a defensive briefing for both candidates after they were designated their parties’ nominees, as is the normal course of business. We did defensive briefings for the nominees and for the nominees for Vice President and also a third defensive briefing for I think the small staff of the nominee.

    Chairman Goodlatte. And do you know roughly when those occurred?

    Mr. McCabe. I don’t remember off the top of my head. I want to say October. There would have been six different, you know, different engagements. Those briefings are actually coordinated by and scheduled by the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI’s office sets the whole thing up. The FBI is given a small, you know, part of — if it is a 2-hour briefing, we’re given some small period of time, maybe 15, 20 minutes, to do a defensive briefing of the nominee.

    Chairman Goodlatte. Was the code name for the Clinton
    investigation “midyear exam”?
    Mr. McCabe. It was.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Jerry Joe says:

    Figured I’d start from the bottom up. William Sweeney testified he received information up through his chain regarding 141,000 Clinton e-mails discovered on the Weiner laptop. Two days later, he reported the findings to HQ during a weekly closed circuit video conference at the end of September, 2016. He also testified he made a special phone call two days later to report the number had grown to 347,000, wanting to be accurate. Though his office could not investigate those e-mails (being beyond the scope of his warrant), his office determined the final number to be upwards of 650,000. It does appear that one month passes before DOJ secures warrant to search those e-mails. Most disappointing from this higher up testifying to the importance/significance he conveyed/attached to this discovery, he could not answer the question as to the whereabouts, the physical location, of this prized piece of evidence. He could not tell what evidence may have been preserved or deleted. He can not locate the index card of his notes reporting the matter either. Sheesh, for a guy who had only been in that New York field office for ONE MONTH, I would not have expected bigger cases than this to have already clogged up his desk or head…

    Read at your own risk: poring over these questions all at once can be painful.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Johnny Dollar says:

      “he [Sweeney] could not answer the question as to the whereabouts, the physical location, of this prized piece of evidence.[Weiner laptop]”

      Actually, he did answer the question.

      The laptop itself was returned to Weiner. But before returning it, the FBI “mirrored” it. The “mirror” is in Quantico.

      According to Sweeny, the FBI never works off the original, only the”mirror.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        The “mirror” being at Quantico is in the IG Report.

        Sweeney’s cautiousness (and conferring with counsel) around any Clinton Foundation questions suggests ongoing investigation. If that’s true (which was confirmed recently in the belated release of a Jeff Sessions letter), the investigators would surely be able to get access to the mirror. Sweeney waxes philosophical about how a “hypothetical” CF investigator would have to establish probably cause, which would all depend on certain facts and whatever ….. but let’s be real. If CF investigators are actually investigating and not just making paper airplanes, they’ve looked at the Wiener laptop.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jerry Joe says:

          As I find the above referenced facts “mirrored” those findings in Horowitz’ OIG summary report, my noted observation was Sweeney’s duration in the NY office. In early July of 2016, Comey exhonerated Clinton; by mid-July, Candidate Trump is calling for the 30,000 missing e-mails. In this same July, 18 year veteran Sweeney is tapped to relocate from Philly to NY as Asst. Director in Charge. His announcement is official in August and he begins in September.

          For all practical purposes and before he can figure out the best time to take a $hit in the office, he is told one of his agents found a trove of Clinton e-mails on Weiner’s laptop. Caseless Clouseau’s response to being advised that perhaps this ‘Pink Panther diamond’ of evidence may, in fact, be somewhere in his office, is only to seemingly tell HQ. He makes sure to tell HQ two days later 347,000 (the number being most important of course) items have been identified. He learns of 650,000 e-mails, knows 30,000 are missing, and testifies from memory because he can’t find his index card!!!!!

          This same self-described news afficionado remembers, while driving, Wolf Blitzer of CNN reporting that Comey has been fired. Little wondering left how cliche’s like Famous But Incompetent were ever coined…

          Like

      • farrier105 says:

        You don’t want to disturb the original. The original is like the negative of an analog photo. It must be preserved until no longer needed as evidence.

        https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-61r2.pdf

        Like

        • Redzone says:

          Farrier- Accordingly, the investigators should still have the Weiner laptop in their possession. Correct? However, I remember reading here that the FBI Agent said they mirrored the hard drive and gave the computer back to Weiner. It doesn’t make sense to give back that laptop, especially given the circumstances.

          Like

          • farrier105 says:

            I think that has been returned. Weiner was prosecuted, given a wrist-slap of a sentence, and is back on the streets now. I’ll check for references to substantiate the return of the laptop.

            The people behind this nonsense are always popping smoke grenades. As one of theirs gets off for some crime, another is committed in order to mask the cover-up of the other crime. It’s either a real crime, a false flag, or some ridiculous hoax that draws off public attention as the media dutifully stampedes from one stupid story to the next.

            Like

          • farrier105 says:

            “If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device,” the document states on its final page, “the government will return the subject laptop.”

            https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/22/despite_comey_assurance_vast_bulk_of_weiner_laptop_emails_never_examined.html

            It was sort of like the AWAN BROTHERS case, another one that went nowhere which happened after the 2016 election.

            Like

  9. NJF says:

    OT per FOX, Nadler sent a letter to McGahn late tonight warning McGahn of “serious consequences” if he doesn’t show tomorrow.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Herbert Kroll says:

    At page 62 of the McCabe interview: “Majority Exhibit 1. This document indicates that on May 2nd, 2016, Director Comey emailed a draft of his eventual Clinton investigation statement to you, to Jim Rybicki, and to Jim Baker. The penultimate paragraph of the May 2 draft reads as follows: Accordingly, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters such as this, I am completing the investigation by expressing to Justice my view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

    Like

  11. zephyrbreeze says:

    Pg. 148-149

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    148
    Mr. Buck. You what?
    Mr. McCabe. I’m not sure I understand the question. You’re asking me to say what Secretary Clinton expected to do?
    Mr. Buck. Did Secretary Clinton receive classified information as Secretary of State?
    Mr. McCabe. In her position, absolutely, she would typically receive classified information.
    Mr. Buck. And was there any doubt about the fact that she had received seven streams, or whatever the number was, of classified material, classified at top secret or otherwise?
    Mr. McCabe. Are you referring to the — the emails that we found that were classified that had — that had been on the system?
    Mr. Buck. Yes.
    Mr. McCabe. Is there a debate as to whether or not they were on that system?
    Mr. Buck. And whether she had received those, whether she was — whether they were being sent to her system.
    Mr. McCabe. No, sir, not that I’m aware of.
    Mr. Buck. Okay. And was there any question about the fact that her personal system was not a secured system?
    Mr. McCabe. No, sir. Mr. Buck. There is no doubt about that?
    Mr. McCabe. That’s correct. Mr. Buck. Okay. So the question then is, the question that the FBI was investigating then, was the intent?

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    149
    Mr. McCabe. That’s correct. That was the — maybe the key issue that we were looking at.
    Mr. Buck. Right. So did she have the intent to receive classified information on an unsecured server?
    Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. I mean, that’s my — right.
    Mr. Buck. I mean, that’s ultimately the question. Mr. McCabe. That’s what we were looking at, right. Mr. Brower. I want to make sure the answer is clear.
    Mr. McCabe. So, to be clear, that’s what we were looking into.
    Mr. Buck. Okay. And you have been with the FBI for how many years?
    Mr. McCabe. Twenty-one.
    Mr. Buck. And you have received training throughout most of those years?
    Mr. McCabe. Yes.
    Mr. Buck. And you have 21 years of experience in criminal matters. How would you determine intent in a criminal case?
    Mr. McCabe. Many different ways.
    Mr. Buck. Give us some examples. Mr. McCabe. The things that people say, the things that people admit to, the documents or other pieces of evidence that would indicate what they were thinking or their intention at a time in the past. All kinds of ways.
    Mr. Buck. Would destruction of evidence be one indicia of intent?

    Of course they all knew what she did was highly illegal, and they helped her cover it up. All this pretense and lack of candor…so it has to be dragged out of them, word by word.

    Liked by 6 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      The “intent” was declared when she decided and implemented use of a non secure system with which she did classified official business as Sec of State…a job she knew required exchange at times….often, in fact, of classified info.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dutchman says:

        The espionage laws specifically preclude intent for a reason. A traitor is selling classified info to a foriegn power. The “drop” is they leave the info in a taxi, or bus for foriegn agent to recover.
        If ‘caught’ says “Ooops, it was a,ACCIDENT!” So, intent was specifically removed from consideration of guilt, in the legislation for that reason.
        By same token, the “I didn’t know” defence is preemptively eliminated by giving anyone a security briefing, where the espionage act, and their responsibilities is spelled out to them.

        At the conclusion, they sign a document that says “I understand,…blah blah.

        There were reports the signed documents, for security briefings for Hillary, Huma, Mills, etc. couldn’t be produced. Probably Sandy Burgered em out of the personell files at State.

        Like

      • NJF says:

        Bingo. The server in and of itself was the intent & regardless if there was classified info is actually irrelevant.

        She also broke protecol when she took it upon herself in determing what was personal (deleted) & what was SoS work product.

        Like

    • Dr.Jay says:

      Mr. Buck. Right. So did she have the intent to receive classified information on an unsecured server?
      Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
      I mean, that’s my — right.

      But, but, … Comey said she did not have intent !
      Clearly she had the intent to send, receive and store classified information on an unsecured private server. So what was her alleged non-intent about?

      She did not intend the Chinese to get a copy?
      She did not intend the Russians to get a copy?
      She did not intend Lazar* to get a copy?
      She did not intend some 7 others* to get a copy?
      OR
      It was not her intent that people would know about it!

      [* Lazar, from the top if my head that is how you spell the name of the original Guccifer who confessed to have broken into her server and had observed about 10 other IP’s connecting to her server ]

      Like

  12. WSB says:

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    223

    Scrubbing or reviewing FISA Collection

    .Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. McCabe, did you or anyone in upper level management ever ask lower level management and agents inside the Bureau to scrub or review FISA collection that has anything to do with political candidates, including candidates in the 2016 election?

    Mr. McCabe. Did I or anyone — I’m sorry. Can you repeat that? Chairman Goodlatte. Did you or anyone in upper level management ever ask lower level management and agents inside the Bureau to scrub or review FISA collection that has anything to do with political candidates, including candidates in the 2016 election?

    Mr. McCabe. No.

    Like

  13. CopperTop says:

    p49

    (NADLER) We understand that that
    investigation actually began before the election, in July of last year.
    Is that accurate?
    Mr. McCabe. I’m not sure if I
    “Mr. McCabe. I’m not sure if I can answer that question in this
    setting because it may call for a classified response.
    Mr. Nadler. As to when the investigation began?”

    TRANSLATION: No one has decided what the date is and we are therefor saying NADA.

    I’ll go through and see how consistent this is in each testimony. Pretty good odds this will be VERY consistent.

    Will be VERY interesting if it’s the Dems who ask this question most frequently.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. WSB says:

    Nunes on with Shannon Bream right now. There may be more criminal referrals by Nunes this week.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. CopperTop says:

    Side project: Look for every time something is referred to as classified…when it clearly has come out not much was classified

    pg 52
    Mr. Nadler. Okay. What were the reasons that Director Comey
    ultimately chose to make that announcement publicly?
    Mr. McCabe. So, to the best of my knowledge, and also without
    going into classified matters, Director Comey was greatly concerned
    about how we would make

    I don’t remember seeing redacted text(aka classified) that I’m dying to see over how Comey went public…

    Liked by 1 person

  16. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 221. Quid Pro Quo question…interesting in what Lee is interested in to question…

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    221

    Ms. Jackson Lee. This is my final question.

    Mr. McCabe. Yes, ma’am.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is repeating, but please allow me to make sure that we have heard it more than once. Just to be very clear: Did you or your wife ever solicit or receive any funds as a quid pro quo for any action that you might have taken running or running any quid pro quo for that — her running, you being her husband?

    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    222

    Mr. McCabe. No, ma’am, never.

    Like

  17. I Will Not Comply says:

    I can’t read this crap. Thank you all for sharing what you have read. I would rather watch a nail rust.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. JoD says:

    Toscas…Page 13..”Midyear Exam” ..HER email investigation..

    “I think at the beginning of the investigation there was some question about who could or should be involved because there may have been some questions flagged about potential need for recusals because there were different people in email chains that were involved in the investigation.”

    In addition to the above being a grotesque run-on sentence, if I’m reading it right, it does raise some interesting questions..
    Why are “different people” emailing HER on an illegal unsecured server?
    Why are these same “different people” now investigating HER for using an illegal unsecured server?

    Liked by 4 people

  19. Honest Abbey says:

    While reading these transcripts, do not forget what James Comey admitted to during his Town Hall on CNN last month.

    A person in the audience asked James Comey “Have you seen Hillary Clinton since the election and if so, what was that encounter like?”

    James Comey responded by saying “No, I have never met Secretary Clinton, I’ve never even spoken to her”. This revelation was shocking, and even prompted Anderson Cooper to ask “You’ve NEVER met Hillary Clinton?” and James Comey shook his head, said “NO….. I’ve never even been in her presence”.

    That literally blew my mind!

    Liked by 4 people

  20. WSB says:

    McCabe 215 -217 wife’s candidacy.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. So you were not dealing with that as your wife was being recruited or asked to run for office?

    Mr. McCabe. That’s right. She was contacted by an individual who was then the chief of staff for then, maybe still, Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam.

    [snip]

    Mr. McCabe. Yeah, that was the purpose of the meeting. They were — they were trying to find a candidate to run in the 13th District for state senate, and they were interested in having my wife do that. We went down there to talk to some folks to better understand what this all meant. We are not political people.
    _______________

    This is a complete lie. The Richmond Bull Elephant laid all of this out years ago. The candidate, a retired veteran, Army Colonel Tom Mulrine, was already in place but thrown out and given a cushy job to stand down.

    It seems that Lee’s questions are to assist McCabe in creating a narrative that is false.

    http://thebullelephant.com/mcauliffe-strong-armed-nomination-of-senior-fbi-officials-wife-for-va-senate-run/

    Liked by 1 person

  21. CopperTop says:

    Anyone else think the redacted text is reference to General Flynn…such as if at anytime during this briefing was the campaign made aware of an investigation ongoing about General Flynn…HMMMM???

    p56 McCabe
    Mr. Schools. Respectfully, Deputy Director McCabe has confirmed
    that the 0FBI had an investigation ongoing. People were aware of it
    at that time. Having confirmed that, that seems to be the relevant
    data point.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    . That question
    would be within the scope of this inquiry I would think.
    Chairman Goodlatte. I would agree with the gentleman from New
    York. It’s an appropriate question.
    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    56
    Mr. McCabe. Can you repeat the question?
    Mr. Nadler. Yeah. During this meeting — well, I asked you a
    question, and I think you answered.
    I think you said no.

    Like

    • CopperTop says:

      (go see the PDF for the redactions…they are pretty obviously referring to an ongoing investigation of someone besides PTrump, Kusher, Russians…)

      The fact that Goodlatte is equally interested as Nadler tells me it’s Flynn…

      Nadler “See…the campaign was ALWAYS with bad people”
      Goodlatte “See they were trapping Trump. Could have said this about Flynn before the election”

      Liked by 1 person

  22. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 213: Kallstrom’s name is mentioned. But no other context. I am reading backwards, though, so maybe something earlier.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. I do. Thank you. I want the record to be clear that Mr. Meadows is a fine colleague, and I know that he accepts my premise that his comments were not chastising. And I thank him for bringing some issues to our attention. And I want to thank our counsel for clarifying them on the record. Certainly I want to thank my colleagues very much for the astute questions that they have had. I want to clarify something else. As I was reading the comments of Mr. Kallstrom, I do want to indicate that they certainly were shocking to me. And for me, on the record, let me be very clear, I do not think the Clintons are a crime family. I’m saddened of the terminology. But that is just my statement on the record as I proceed…

    Like

  23. Sherri Young says:

    Bottom of page 4 of the William Sweeney interview: I think that is Trish Anderson’s name that is redacted. She was present as counsel for William Sweeney and identified herself as (redacted), “acting deputy general counsel for the Office of General Counsel, FBI.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • litenmaus says:

      Sherri: ‘Ms. Anderson’ is the legal representation during McCabe’s testimony. I have to assume that this was Trish Anderson as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      • steph_gray says:

        I’ve just speed-read about 100 pages of Trish interview because I didn’t notice anyone mention they had, in case I could be helpful (very long shot!)…

        I have to stop now, maybe more in the morning, but my overall impression is that her testimony is one long bland denial of everything. She supervised Lisa, but swears up and down she didn’t know about the affair; that seems unlikely to me.

        Everything was just ducky in Trisha’s FBI experience in those pages I got through. Everybody was wonderful and upstanding. Too cute by half, I would guess.

        I thought she also mentioned something about an agent who was a cyber expert. I neglected to make a note on which page, but I wondered whether it was by any chance the same cyber person Dan Bongino was been talking about whose role may have been to get inside the White House?

        Liked by 1 person

        • litenmaus says:

          “Too cute by half” has been my assessment to date as well Steph. Appreciate the feedback on your quick read… Night.

          Like

        • fabrabbit says:

          I saw that about the cyber expert (name redacted). Just joking but maybe it was an Awan brother!!!

          Like

        • Sherri Young says:

          I haven’t looked at her transcript. However, “cyber” may indicate Randy Coleman.

          Like

        • steph_gray says:

          Here’s more from some reading this morning – found it’s much easier to read the PDF when it’s opened in iBooks – the search works and flipping through the pages is fast.

          The person Trish mentioned on pg 53 was Jim Trainor, the Assistant Director for the Cyber Division at the FBI. He was in a meeting with her and a few others that she said related “to a classified matter that is discussed in the appendix of the IG report.” My suspicious cat woke up.

          Also, I noticed an egregious bit of phrasing by some staffer asking her the following question on pg 93:

          Q. I would like to ask you some general questions about a persistent conspiracy theory involving Department of Justice lawyer Bruce Ohr.
          To your knowledge, did Mr. Ohr have any role in drafting or reviewing the Carter Page FISA applications?

          She says no. It didn’t jump at me merely because she seems to deny throughout many things we now know to be true. It jumped out at me because of the horrendously biased question!

          Also, on pg 66, line 22, Trish states that “intent” was “part of the statute.” I seem to remember Dan Bongino’s being adamant that it is not?

          Still only about halfway through. A few tidbits:

          pg 66 discussion of Hilliary’s “intent” around here
          pg 74 discussion of “culling laptops” and about a disagreement on whether to use a “compulsory process” (no idea what that may be)
          pg 77 – discussion of Comey’s July 5 final statement
          pg 79 – “grossly negligent” versus “extremely careless”

          And very interesting on pg 104 – a statement that the President “has already declassified the Comey memos.” This was August 2018. What the?!?!?!?!

          Like

      • Sherri Young says:

        Just saw a TracyBeanz tweet in which she remarked that Trisha Anderson had an advantage prepping for her testimony since she was present for Andy McCabe’s interview (and Sweeney’s).

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Republicanvet91 says:

    Anyone see any sequence or reason why these transcripts are released in the sequence they have been?

    I am not thinking anything specific, but just wondering why they have been released in this sequence. It makes me think there was planning behind when certain transcripts were released and when.

    Like

  25. litenmaus says:

    McCabe Testimony – Pg 27, 28
    “The investigation, as you know, an effort to determine whether classified material had traversed a personally….a personal system, a non-governmental IT System”

    “The next challenge was in identifying, locating, and recovering all of the emails or material that may have traversed those systems. (Funny how Hillary emails transversed themselves onto Anthony Wiener’s laptop – undetected by the uber-smart cyber peeps at the EFF BEE EYE)

    “And then, of course, analyzing the material for classified content” (When does the FBI analyze State Department Documents to determine the State Dept classification?)

    Here all along, I thought that Hillary Clinton was guilty of perpetrating cyber-fraud on the American public and stealing millions of bytes of government meta-data. However, that looks like it wasn’t even part of the investigation.

    Like

    • Dutchman says:

      What about the ‘required’damage assesment, any time there is a breach or release of classified info.
      HAS such an assesment been done, and if so what were the conclusions?

      20 operatives killed in China, rendering us ‘blind’, for instance..a number of people critisising Assange for allegedly publishing material that got people killed, but nobody says boo about Hillary exposing intelligence assets?

      Liked by 3 people

      • fabrabbit says:

        They call these releases of classified materials “spills”.

        Like

      • litenmaus says:

        Dutchman, It still boggles my mind that after the 2010 State Dept email theft, the IC hid the fact that Hillary had a hidden unsecure server and made no effort to ensure the protection of future transmissions through that very same un-secure server that they left in place..

        Like

  26. Newhere says:

    William F. Sweeney (Assistant Agent in Charge of NY Field Office), pages 94-95:

    Q: As far as you know, did the New York Office ever handle Christopher Steele as a [confidential human] source?

    A: Yeah, I think he was.

    [Doesn’t know for what time period; further questions aborted by counsel]

    Not sure if that’s significant, but it’s news to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. trialbytruth says:

    Spoiler alert I did 200 pages of Mcabe and burnt out. I skipped ahead and went to Mr Sweeneys testimony (regarding Weiner laptop) I am 100 pages in and believe I have found an honest broker. Lots of frustration. A by the book guy (the real book) very proud of his field office, not easily distracted, and takes his authority seriously.

    No new news so far but we know where the 650 thousand email number comes from.

    Part of the problem I am having reading all of this is, separating what i know from what I believe, what is a fact and what has been postulated. I have been in the weeds for so long that i feel like I may be missing confirmations of theories believing them to be well know facts.
    Anyone else troubled by this?

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Mark Thompson says:

    Will anyone ever question obama over his off the record private black berry phone he demanded to have. What nuggets could the NSA deliver from it?

    Like

  29. WSB says:

    McCabe COMMITTEE SENSITIVE COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
    201

    Lee trying to discredit Kallstrom…

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you, by any chance, aware that Mr. Kallstrom leads a charity to which the Trump Foundation had contributed more than $230,000?

    Mr. McCabe. I was not aware of that.

    Like

    • fabrabbit says:

      Yep, smearing Kallstrom. She is such a blowhard and always does things like this. She has a template she follows whenever she questions someone.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Papoose says:

    Omigosh, will be on the road…
    Going to email this to me and link it @ wtpotus@ wordpress, Attn: Miri

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/20/doug-collins-releases-transcripts-of-nine-former-doj-and-fbi-officials/

    Like

  31. Linnéa says:

    This is released so internets sleuths and conservative pundits can parse and discover the truth?

    Only criminal charges matter. Mueller report – no criminal charges. Comey, Brennon, Strzok – if there are no criminal charges then the sleuthing and reporting will be viewed as hysteria or conspiracy theory. It doesn’t matter if internet sleuths or conservative pundits have deduced all the facts and are reporting on the details. Only criminal charges matter.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. WSB says:

    McCabe page 197

    Bone of contention with Meadows and McCabe on exactly how the McCabe recusal eventually came to pass. Meadows is trying to establish if McCabe and Comey were attempting to frame the recusal as being by the book.

    Like

  33. riverelf says:

    For any connoisseurs of irony out there, the Lynch transcript is nectar.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Papoose says:

    It all goes back to this: Usurpation 2008: Hidden Bona Fides, to this very day.

    Failed Coup January 20th, 2017…. May 2019, Epic Fail.

    Treason. Traitors are known by name and position.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 193

    Meadows presses McCabe on Comey being advised of Lynch before his press conference on July 5th. McCabe remembers that Comey had contact one hour before.

    Like

  36. Papoose says:

    Wow. I can’t wait to read all the comments. Awesome Post!

    Like

  37. WSB says:

    McCabe Page 186 to 190 ‘Grossly Negligent’. discussions, and redactions of the General Counsel’s name. ‘She’ is mentiomed. Can we make some assumptions?

    Like

  38. Deplore Able says:

    I hope we are getting very close to the time when Sundance will post the gif of the zippo lighter.

    Thanks Sundance for all that you have done.

    Liked by 3 people

  39. mtk says:

    Ad min if think I am in the bin.

    Like

  40. Nigella says:

    So far nothing “earth shattering” You can see they were careful in most cases to cover their butts…

    Like

  41. zephyrbreeze says:

    Snakes are hard to break. Trump is a snake breakers.
    Thanks everyone for your work.

    Like

  42. zephyrbreeze says:

    Loretta Lynch accuses Comey of misrepresenting key Clinton probe conversation, was ‘quite surprised’ by his testimony

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/loretta-lynch-james-comey-contradition-clinton-probe-matter-investigation

    Like

  43. Newhere says:

    George Toscas comes off as an unctuous turd. Rep. Jordan is a great interviewer. Fast, direct, on point. No bombshells but an interesting read (especially Jordan questioning).

    But boy is Toscas a piece of work. He remembers all sorts of Minutiae about MYE, recounting all sorts of “by the book” sounding decision making. But even though he was one of 3 “career” DOJ lawyers assigned to work with the FBI on Trump-Russia, from August 2016 until appointment of Special Counsel — he “can’t recall” a damn thing about anything discussed or who was ever involved or even what the focus of the investigation actually was. Can’t name who was at meetings, claimed he didn’t read dossier or ever hear the name Christopher Steele. From August 2016 through May 2017. Right. (Jordan was not buyin’ what Toscas was selling on the Trump investigation ….)

    Also a master at throwing others under the bus. FISA? Stu Evans. All Stu Evans. Allowing fact witnesses to attend Clinton’s interview as lawyers? Collaborative decision — oh, but of course, higher-ups relied on “line prosecutors and agents” to speak up if it were to impinge on anything “significant.”

    Grade-A dirt bag.

    Like

    • Newhere says:

      I should add that so far it hasn’t seemed Toscas was inner circle, and from Strzok-Page texts seemed often to be mildly in the way. A good example of how longtime careerists who get to the upper echelons become skilled at “silo-ing” — meaning they manage to “do their job” and even hold spheres of responsibility while maintaining constant plausible deniability on any particular item or decision. People wonder how a “small group” could pull off a conspiracy among other straight-arrow professionals. Well this is how. Institutions reward those who learn how to frame everything within a rule or norm, keep all their toes in their own lane, and can’t recall anything of substance that might draw a negative inference.

      Liked by 1 person

  44. Newhere says:

    Much of this appears to be focused on the Clinton investigation. What is the purpose of releasing these now? MYE isn’t exactly topical.

    Like

    • Redzone says:

      Hopefully, the point is to get the lighter stuff out of the way, so when the meat drops it doesn’t get lost in the forest.

      Like

  45. V says:

    Aaaaaaah, the crowd striking back. Marvelous!

    All they have are Five Eyes. Now Millions of Eyes are on them.

    Like

  46. Dr.Jay says:

    Hmmm, McCabe interview is just about Hillary emails stuff. Not about Russia Hoax or Mueller/Weissman episode.

    Like

  47. Newhere says:

    Loretta Lynch was represented during testimony by Ted Wells of Paul Weiss. Ted Wells of “deflategate” infamy — i.e., the complete hack who was paid millions by the NFL to author a shady and preposterous “independent report” on the stupid deflated football controversy. Set aside what you may think of the Pats — I read that report and how Wells represented it in court proceedings; the guy is a dishonest sleazeball. Let’s put it this way. He’s not who you call when you need someone to fairly and articulately tell your side. He’s who you call when you’re angling for shameless, dishonest smears and gutter fights.

    Like

  48. Elle says:

    I’m wondering why POLITICO feels the need to get out in front of this ASAP:: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/mueller-investigation-mccabe-strzok-1336694

    The article seems to be making the point that the newly released McCabe transcript are letting us in on what has been a super-DUPER-secret – that it was McCabe, not Mueller, who made the decision to remove Strzok from the Mueller probe.

    From the article:
    “But in a newly released transcript of a December 2017 interview, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe told lawmakers that he’s the one who made the call to oust Strzok from the probe, worrying that Strzok’s involvement could taint the special counsel’s work”

    Which is interesting mostly in it’s breathless whisper. However, I found this quote, [regarding how Strzok COULD have harmed Trump] to be far more intriguing:

    “When Strzok’s anti-Trump texts were released publicly in late 2017, he became the epicenter of allegations by Trump and his allies that the FBI’s Russia probe was a politically motivated effort to block his election. Strzok has rejected that characterization and told lawmakers in public testimony that his private political views never materialized in his work on either the Clinton or Trump probes. He noted that had he wanted to harm Trump, he could have leaked the existence of the investigation before the 2016 election, but its details remained secret until after Trump had won.
    Though the inspector general of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, said he didn’t find evidence to show Strzok’s politics influenced the Clinton investigation, he’s still probing Strzok’s work on the Russia probe.”

    In addition to how Strzok “could have” harmed Trump by leaking ahead of the election if he’d wanted to, I also find that last sentence interesting. Horowitz didn’t find Strozk’s political bias in the “Clinton investigation”, but Horowitz is “still investigating” the Russia probe. Is Horowitz saying Strzok was just following the orders of someone else for the Clinton investigation? Not sure, but they are saying something there.

    Anyhoo… that Politico feels the need to get out in front of this so fast is worthy of note.

    Like

    • Elle says:

      okay, I figured it out. They want to make he point that Mueller is “just a figurehead”

      Note how Poltico titled their article “McCabe reveals he’s the one who decided to remove Strzok from Mueller’s team”

      I’ve noticed the Mueller is only a figurehead point suddenly popping up lots of places. The question in my mind is why is the left making sure we all hear this Mueller-just-a-figurehead meme?.

      Well Sundance has answered the question on another post:
      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/21/doug-collins-democrats-want-the-work-of-mueller-but-dont-want-to-talk-to-mueller/

      “Jerry Nadler has not demanded testimony from presumed author of the special counsel report, Robert Mueller. It is likely the Judiciary Committee’s lack of interest surrounds the fact they know Mueller was a figurehead with no substantive control over the small group led by Andrew Weissmann. The special counsel probe, with sunlight upon Mueller, would be a risk to Nadler.”

      These people write nothing without orders or purpose.

      Like

  49. Newhere says:

    Loretta Lynch, p. 125-131: says that “information was first brought to her attention” by the FBI about Russia in Spring 2016; not an “investigation” but “information about issues;” had no knowledge of Christopher Steele during her time as AG.

    After several pages of slipping and sliding around to essentially say nothing, on page 131 says that continuing through summer and fall of 2016, she was briefed on issues related to Russia from the FBI and from “the National Security Council Level.”

    The NSC. That’s the White House. Presidential Daily Briefings. I believe this is what Ben Rhodes referred to (re Iran) as creating an “echo chamber.”

    P. 133-138 — Lynch explains she received FBI security briefings “thrice weekly” on cases, etc., including discussion of presidential daily briefings, but was not informed about Cross-fire hurricane; knew Bruce Ohr but not that he was supplying information on Trump-Russia from Steele to the FBI (i.e., her department); says that discussions of Russia interference shifted during the summer to the NSC.

    Just a leaf in the wind . . .

    Pps. 148-149: By statute AG must sign all FISA applications; by regulation can be delegated to DAG (Yates) or head of NSD (Carlin). Lynch says she didn’t sign the Carter FISA (or at least not that she recalls).

    P 181: Hasn’t been interviewed by Horowitz in connection with FISA report. [WHAT THE HELL??]

    Like

    • Redzone says:

      Lynch has to be lying at least about having no knowledge of Crossfire Hurricane. That investigation would require approvals at the highest levels and continuous updates.

      Like

  50. Amy2 says:

    Oh man! I may have to quit my job so I can stay home and read all the great comments. Thanks and have a great day guys!!

    Liked by 1 person

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