By Robert Willmann
Congressman Doug Collins (Repub. Georgia) has released more transcripts of committee interviews of people about the attempt to de-legitimize the election and inauguration of an elected president, and to create conditions for his removal. They can be viewed and downloaded for reading .
19 December 2018 interview of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 191 pages–
31 August 2018 interview of former FBI Principal Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson, 227 pages–
28 September 2018 interview of William Sweeney, FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office, 114 pages–
18 January 2018 interview of James Rybicki, former chief of staff to FBI Directors, 240 pages–
21 December 2017 interview of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, 259 pages–
16 August 2018 interview of George Toscas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division of the Justice Department, 173 pages–
24 August 2018 interview of Jonathan Moffa, a Deputy Assistant Director at the FBI, 236 pages–
21 June 2018 interview of John Giacalone, former FBI Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch, 146 pages–
23 October 2018 interview of Sally Moyer, an attorney in the FBI counterintelligence law unit, 204 pages–
Testimony of AG Loretta Lynch: pp 108-109
A So let me just, just to back up a bit. With respect to people who could potentially have been charged as a result of the email investigation, I’m sure you’re aware, it wasn’t just Secretary Clinton, there was a group of people, because always one does not send emails to oneself.
So I think the investigation appropriately looked at the universe of people who were involved in dealing with material that the State Department was sending back and forth via its email system and over Secretary Clinton’s system.
And I just give you that clarification, because whenever it’s discussed, people discuss it as if she was the only person involved in this, and it is really sort of an inaccurate representation of how the Department does these types of cases.
Certainly with respect to how the contours of the case were configured from the beginning, as I think I mentioned earlier, you look at the issues and you look to see what possible types of statutes apply there. And my understanding, based upon the presentation of the lawyers at the end of the case, was that they did look at several very specific statutes. I forget now whether it was three or four.
you read them all, Robert? A lawyer must be used to do that. Or just expect people to do.
I see as reality did the questions merge from the Clinton Email to the DNC and Wikileaks at al. And from there into the US political Orange King universe.
So far I of course considering the tarmac affair looked into the Lynch, got 2/3 through maybe? Would I have missed something important in the end?
Then more arbitrarily I choose Toscas and even more arbitarily Moyers.
How high do you judge the chances of either side to proof their own type of conspiracy theory. That, if so, no doubt could trigger some type of swamp cleaning, even one that the Orange King does not need to effect himself?
Lynch testimony: pp 108-109
RE: Clinton’s emails
1. People who could be potentially charged
2. There is a group of people
3. Investigation appropriately looked at the universe of people
4. Respect to how the contours of the case were configured
Is this code for Lynch’s assessment if you try to take down Clinton, you will be taking down Obama too? Obama was very much included in this “universe of people” sharing emails on Clinton’s unsecured home brew computer set up
If you enjoyed watching the live Watergate hearings, these documents make very interesting reading.
No, you do not need to be a lawyer to read them. You see how both sides of the aisle use their hearing time for political gain what imagery they attempt to create in the guise of questionings, how many times a witness gets away with claiming I don’t recall, remember, recollect, without papers in front of me I am reluctant to report……..ad nauseum
Missing in the questioning of course is asking how Lynch became such a self-professed expert in her agency’s entire operations at every level, while at the same time not remembering anything at any critical time in her short tenure. FBI and DOJ was pure as driven snow according to Lynch. And then she waffles on every single atttempt to get factual followup on clearly documented agency failures.
These are fascinating reading. Have fun with them – these are our own tax dollars at work. Let’s see what we are paying for.
Equally delicious and worthy of parsing for future reference are the words of high praise from Democrat panelists for Special Counsel Mueller, which are also thoroughly endorsed by AG Lynch.
Reading Lynch’s testimony and the Democrats’ line of questions now, compared to what has subsequently been revealed since the time of this hearing, additionally makes these testimony transcripts fascinating reading. This is popcorn stuff, if it were not so devastating to our form of government.
I read most of the McCabe pages but became dispirited by the party element.
The posturing of the Democrats was nauseating. Especially regarding the “years of service.” If it’s to have any worth in a democracy, public service has to be politically neutral.
If I done half of what these crooks done I would be in under Gitmo