Ok so I'm going to just pull things from yesterday's Comey / Senate Oversight hearing that interest me... oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl… because it is more fun than working. #ComeyHearing
Mr. Gowdy. Let me see if I can ask the question more artfully. Did he (Strzok) help you prepare or edit your July 5th press statement? (statement essentailly clearing Hillary)

Mr. Comey. July 5th press statement? Yes, he did help edit that.
Mr. Gowdy. Lisa Page, she was an attorney with the FBI in 2016. Is that right?

Mr. Comey. Lisa Page, yes, that is correct. Lisa Page was an attorney I think before 2016, but certainly during 2016 assigned to the Office of General Counsel.
Mr. Gowdy. What role did she have with the Clinton Espionage Act investigation?

Mr. Comey. Lisa Page's role in the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information was in capacity as a lawyer assigned to support Dep Dir of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
Mr. Gowdy. Did she (Lisa Page) assist you in drafting or editing your July 5th press statement?

Mr. Comey. I believe she did assist in drafting -- or editing the statement of July 2016.
(Oh MAN I'll be Comey wishes he knew everything Lisa Page spilled to the Senate in HER closed door hearing about now...)
Mr. Gowdy. So, from January 2016 up until your July 5th
press statement, it is fair to say that both Special Agent Peter
Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page were working on the Clinton
Espionage Act or mishandling of classified information
Mr. Comey. The reason I'm hesitating, Mr. Gowdy, is I've
never applied the label of Espionage Act investigation. It was
an investigation into the mishandling of classified information.
I don't mean to quibble, but that's how I thought of it and talked
about it.
Mr. Comey (cont).
Yes, they each participated in some respect in that
investigation or in our public statement about the investigation
and things like that.
Mr. Gowdy. February of 2016, Lisa Page wrote: Trump simply
cannot be President.
February of 2016, Peter Strzok wrote: Trump's abysmal,
hoping people will just dump him.
Mr. Gowdy (cont). February of 2016, Lisa Page wrote: She might be our next
President. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for
March 2016, Lisa Page wrote: Trump is a loathsome human.
March of 2016, Strzok wrote: Trump's an idiot.
Mr. Gowdy (cont). March of 2016, Strzok wrote: Hillary should win 100
million to zero. Do you recall whether the Democrat primary was still ongoing
in March of 2016?

Mr. Comey. ...Do I know whether the Democratic primary was ongoing in
March of 2016? I think so, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. So, in March of 2016, Peter Strzok is
investigating Secretary Clinton -- we'll use your phrase -- for
the alleged mishandling of classified information. And at least
according to this text, he has her winning the primary and/or
the general election. Is that fair?
Mr. Comey. I can't answer that because I don't know the text or what the intention was. So I'm just not the witness to answer that.

Mr. Gowdy. How about the plain language of the text, what
do you interpret that to mean?
Mr. Comey. I really can't without knowing them and knowing
the context of them. I'm just not your best witness to answer

(😂😂😂 He just admitted they assisted him in drafting the statement on Hillary but now says he doesn't know page/strzok or context of their texts)
Mr. Gowdy. July of 2016, do you know which agent
interviewed Secretary Clinton?
Mr. Comey. I believe two FBI agents participated in the
July interview of Secretary Clinton, one of which was Peter
Strzok, and the other was another veteran special agent.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you know the other veteran special agent's name?

(Following are Comey and his lawyers saying that if agent isn't SES level or above they can't reveal the name - I take this to mean it was a junior officer and Strzok was the senior officer involved.)
Mr. Gowdy. For the meantime, we'll just refer to that person as FBI Agent 1.
Director Comey, after the Clinton interview on July 2nd, if memory serves, 2016, FBI Agent 1 wrote: "I'm done interviewing the President," dash, and then typed 302.
Mr. Gowdy (cont).
Another FBI employee responded: You interviewed the President? question mark.
And FBI Agent 1 wrote back: You know, HRC.
Mr. Gowdy (cont). A couple days later, you (Comey) were before Congress, and you said, among other things, "The decision was made and the recommendation was made the way you would want it to be, by people who didn't give a hoot about politics."
Following this Gowdy and Comey have a pretty long back and forth, Comey insisting he was completely oblivious to the political leanings of Page, Strzok and "agent 1" but admitting that if he had known, he wouldn't have had them investigating the case.
(This 👆👆 could be a trap for Comey - imagine if Lisa Page has told the Senate that Comey was well-aware of Page/Strzok/Agent 1's political leanings?)
Mr. Gowdy. Would you have left him on the investigation had you known about these texts?

Mr. Comey. I would have been open to listening to any explanation, but when you're the leader of a justice agency, the appearance of bias is as important as the existence of actual bias.
Mr. Comey (cont). And although I have seen no evidence of any bias in any of
the participants in that effort, the appearance of bias would have been very important to me. So I ... would imagine my judgment would have been you can't remain on the case.
Mr. Gowdy. When Special Counsel Mueller was made aware of
the texts, he did immediately kick Strzok off of his team. Do
you have any reason to disagree with his decision?
Mr. Comey. No. I don't know the details of his decision,
but, again, I've seen the open source reporting to that. And
if that's true, it's a reasonable decision by a reasonable
Mr. Gowdy. And you believe, as we sit here today, that had
you been aware of the texts contemporaneously, you too would have
kicked Strzok off of the Midyear Exam investigation?

(The way Gowdy is hammering this makes me think they set a trap for Comey and he walked right in...)
Mr. Comey. I think I answered that one already. I would
certainly be open to an explanation that I don't know, can't
imagine sitting here. But absent an explanation, the appearance
issue would have been very important to me, and it's unlikely
I would have left him on the case.
Mr. Gowdy. Had you known about the texts
contemporaneously, would you have allowed Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page to move from the Espionage Act or mishandling investigation
to the Russia investigation?

(Hammering this point home a 3rd time)
Mr. Comey. I would have thought of it the same way, in that
if either bias or appearance of bias, political bias, is very
important to not have as part of your investigative work.
Mr. Comey (cont). So I would have thought that way about any investigation that was likely to touch the public interest in the way that investigation did. So most likely I would think about it the same way.

(3x "I would have thought about it the same way... 😂😂)
Mr. Gowdy. You -- if I understand you correctly, you believe you would have
not kept them on either investigation, but you would be open to
an explanation, but you can't think of what that explanation
could have been that would have persuaded you to keep them?

(Gowdy 4x time)
Mr. Comey. That's right. I try as a leader always to be
open to things I might be missing, but absent something like that,
I think it's likely... I wouldn't have kept them on the case for
that reason, the reasons I said.
Mr. Gowdy. If you had gained familiarity with a text from
Lisa Page where she said, "Please tell me Trump won't ever be
President," and Strzok responded, "No, no, he won't, we'll stop
it," do you think you would have kept them on the investigation?

(🔥🔥 Gowdy - 5th time!!)
Mr. Comey. ...assuming you're recounting
actual texts, I would think of it in the same way I thought of
the ones you recounted earlier. I'd be concerned about bias or
the perception of bias, and -- so I think about it the same way
I thought about the earlier text you laid out.
(New line of questioning "what is the Russia investigation")

Mr. Gowdy. Okay. We'll go with that. Late July of 2016,
the FBI did, in fact, open a counterintelligence investigation
into, is it fair to say the Trump campaign or Donald Trump
Mr. Comey. It's not fair to say either of those things,
in my recollection. We opened investigations on four Americans
to see if there was any connection between those four Americans
and the Russian interference effort. And those four Americans
did not include the candidate.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI's initiation
document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you know who approved that draft of an
initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. That Peter Strzok approved? I don't know one
way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Drafted and approved it.
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Have you read that initiation document?
Mr. Comey. I don't think so. I don't remember ever seeing it.
Mr. Comey. Do you recall seeing the phrase "Trump campaign" in initiation document?
Mr. Comey. Well, I don't remember seeing it, ever seeing
it, so certainly don't remember any portion of it, because I don't
remember ever seeing it.

(😂😂 me-thinks he doth protest toooooo much...)
Mr. Gowdy. If it said Trump campaign, do you still have the same answer you had when I asked you whether or not it involved
the Trump campaign?
Mr. Comey. That's a question, Mr. Gowdy, I can't answer
without having seen the document. So I'd be speculating about
a document I don't think I've ever seen.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I want to be fair to you and make sure
I understand your testimony. You have not, did not read the FBI
initiation document that launched the Russia investigation, or
you read it and do not recall what it said?

Mr. Comey. I don't remember ever seeing it.
(Comey then goes on to essentially say all this was done at LOW LEVELS and wouldn't have required his approval or even knowledge... he must think that Gowdy and the rest of us are CHUMPS 🤣🤣)
(Gowdy then asks who the 4 individuals are that the investigations WERE opened on and essentially Comey's lawyer flips congress the bird...)
Mr. Gowdy. Let me make sure I understand the Bureau's
position. The former Director, actually the Director at the
time, can confirm publicly that there is a counterintelligence
investigation, but he cannot now tell us who that
counterintelligence investigation involved?
Ms. Bessee. That is correct.
Mr. Gowdy. Director Comey, can you tell us the factual
predicate that may have led to the launching of that
counterintelligence investigation?
Mr. Comey. I don't think that I can describe the factual
predicate for two reasons: I don't remember precisely; and to
the extent I remember, I think those are classified facts that
implicate the concern the Bureau just expressed.
Mr. Gowdy. Some of our friends in the media use the word
"collusion" from time to time. What is the crime of collusion?
Mr. Comey. What is the crime of collusion? I do not know.
I've never heard the term "collusion" used in the way it's been
used over the last couple years before that. I don't
know of a crime that involves collusion. I think in terms of
conspiracy or aiding and abetting.
Mr. Gowdy. With counterintelligence investigations, is
there always a criminal component or sometimes a criminal
Mr. Comey. Counterintelligence investigations involve an
effort to understand the plans and intentions and activities of
a foreign adversary.
Mr. Comey (cont). Sometimes that leads to the use of criminal
tools to disrupt. Sometimes it involves other tools to disrupt.
So criminal is an element of counterintelligence investigations
always because it's a potential tool to disrupt.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall your March 2017 testimony in an
open setting before the House Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Comey. In a general way.
Mr. Gowdy. It was when I believe the Bureau first confirmed
the existence of a counterintelligence investigation.

Mr. Comey. Okay. I remember that. I remember generally
it was in March, but sure.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall in what way you used the word
"criminal" and at what point in your testimony?

Mr. Comey. Without looking at the testimony, I don't.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall Rod Rosenstein's memo appointing
special counsel?

Mr. Comey. No, I don't.
(DAMN this guy remembers nothing about anything and never saw it to begin with 😂😂😂)
Mr. Gowdy. What is the difference between collusion and
Mr. Comey. I don't know because I don't know what collusion
means. It's a term I haven't heard in my career in the Justice
Department, so I don't know.
Mr. Gowdy. Let's assume collusion and conspiracy are
synonyms, and use the word "conspiracy" because the
word "collusion," has no criminal consequences.
Would it be a crime to access the DNC server or Podesta's
email without permission or in an unlawful way?
Mr. Comey. That's a hard one to answer in the abstract.
It's potentially a crime whenever someone either, without
authorization, enters a computer system or conspires to enter
a computer system without authorization.
(So then there's a couple of interchanges where Gowdy is asking whether the FBI had any evidence to suggest Trump campaign hacked DNC or Podesta... Comey says he can't answer either way and not to imply that means either yes or no...)
Mr. Gowdy. You can't tell us, or you won't tell us?

Mr. Comey. Probably a combination of both; that is, as I
said in response to your earlier question, I don't remember
seeing the opening memos on counterintelligence cases opened in
late July...
Mr. Comey (cont). so I can't recall exactly what the predication was.
But, to the extent I recall facts @ investigation of Russian interference and the potential connection of Americans, I think it's a question the FBI
doesn't want me answering. So it's both a can't and a won't.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you believe your firing is evidence of
obstruction of justice?
Mr. Comey. I don't know that I can answer that question
because I'm not -- because I'm a witness, in a sense. I don't
know the universe of facts that would reflect on that, so I can't
answer it.
(uhhhhhh 🔥🔥🔥)

Mr. Gowdy. Have you ever had conversations with Rod
Rosenstein where he indicated that he did not believe the
contents of the memo he drafted?
Mr. Comey. I've never had any conversation with Rod
Rosenstein about the memo he drafted, assuming you mean the memo
that related to my firing.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes.
Mr. Comey. I've never had any conversation with him about
that at all.
Mr. Gowdy. Have you read the memo?

Mr. Comey. Yes.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you think it lays out a defensible case for
terminating you as the FBI Director?
(uhhhhhh 🔥🔥🔥🔥 Gowdy back and forth with lawyer Bessie seems to reveal that Comey is part of SCO investigation into obstruction of justice here...)
Mr. Gowdy. Well, you just said witness. Is there an
obstruction of justice investigation?

Ms. Bessee. I believe there is an investigation that the
special counsel is looking into.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, we all know that. Is it an obstruction of justice investigation?

Ms. Bessee. Mr. Chairman, can you rephrase the question, please?

Mr. Gowdy. Yes. We all know that. Is it an obstruction of justice investigation?
Ms. Bessee. Can you rephrase the question for the witness?

Mr. Gowdy. Yes. Director Comey, you're familiar with the memo drafted by Rod Rosenstein. You have not talked to Rod Rosenstein, as I understand your testimony.
Mr. Gowdy (cont). Do you believe the memo, just on the cold four pages of the memo, four corners of
that document, do you believe it provides sufficient basis for
your termination? Even if you would have done it differently,
is it a basis for your termination?
Mr. Comey. I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman, because it
requires me to get into the mind of the decisionmaker, who is
the President, and I'm not in a position to do that.

(Ah, there he is, innocent St. Comey 😂😂 )
Mr. Gowdy. Do you have any evidence the memo was subterfuge
to fire you, but not for the -- but for a different reason?
Mr. Comey. I have no evidence at all about how the memo
came to be created. I know that it was part of the documentation
that was attached, what was sent to me, delivered to the FBI on
the day I was fired. That's the only thing I have personal
knowledge of.
(Ok, Ratliffe is up now)
Mr. Ratcliffe. Director Comey, I'd like to ask you some
questions about the events surrounding your July 5th, 2016, press
conference to announce your decision not to charge Hillary
Clinton for the mishandling of classified information.
Mr. Rarcliffe cont) One of the things that happened the week before that press
conference was, on June 27th of 2016, a meeting between Attorney
General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, a meeting that
got a lot of attention. Do you recall that?
Mr. Comey. I do recall press coverage of a meeting on June
27th. Mr. Ratcliffe, one thing I have to make sure is clear.
You said my *decision* not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. (cont)
Mr. Comey cont. I made a *recommendation* on behalf of the FBI to the Department of Justice. I just want to make sure that's precise. I do recall
the coverage around that meeting.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And that is a meeting that took place on
a tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona?
Mr. Comey. That's my recollection, yes, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you agree that any discussion about the
Hillary Clinton mishandling classified information
investigation, as you called it today, between the Attorney
General and the spouse of the subject of the investigation would
have been inappropriate?
Mr. Comey. Any discussion of the substance of the
investigation? Potentially inappropriate. Again, I'd have to
understand whether there was some other appropriate basis for
the communication, but it would be concerning.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Potentially inappropriate is your answer.
Also potentially illegal?
Mr. Comey. Well, that one's a hard one to answer. Any
conversation is potentially illegal, depending on what people
talk about. And so it would be potentially inappropriate,
absent some explanation that would move it into the range of
Mr. Ratcliffe. Highly unusual for an Attorney General to
meet with the spouse of the subject of one of her investigations.
Do you agree with that?

Mr. Comey. I would agree with that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And important to find out as much detail
as possible about that conversation. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Comey. I don't know that I would agree with that
because the fact of the communication is in some ways more
important than the substance of it. ...
Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you recall that Attorney General Lynch
subsequently admitted that her actions in meeting with former
President Clinton cast a shadow over the Department of Justice?
Mr. Comey. I actually don't remember that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you remember what you said about the
meeting on the tarmac?

Mr. Comey. I don't. I mean, if you give me more context,
maybe I'd remember.
(If you'd give me some context... maybe they should just start giving you dementia pills because you don't remember anything and never heard anything and don't know anything and never saw anything. No wonder your ass got canned!! 😂😂😂)
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall saying it was part of your
decision, one of the factors in your decision to take the, I
think, unprecedented step of holding the press conference on July
5th of 2016?
Mr. Comey. Yes. I remember it being a factor, an
important factor in my decision to step away from the Attorney
General. I think I've talked about it in a variety of different
contexts. But I was very concerned by the appearance of that
Mr. Ratcliffe. You mentioned it was one of a number of
things that caused you to take that action, correct?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. One of those I believe you've testified
previously was the fact that the Attorney General had asked you
to refer to this investigation as a matter, correct?
Mr. Comey. That is correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. One of the other things that you were
concerned about was material or documentation, as yet
unverified, indicating some possible agreement between Attorney
General Lynch and the Clinton campaign about the investigation,
Mr. Comey. Not that second piece because I've tried to be very careful in public comments about this. There was material that had not been verified that I believed if it became public would be used to cast doubt on (cont)
Mr. Comey (cont). whether the Attorney General had acted appropriately with respect to the investigation. I haven't gone -- I don't think I'm allowed to go beyond that in characterizing that material.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was information that would, you believe,
if released, have caused some to question the objectivity of the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Was there anything in that information that
also would have raised questions about your objectivity or
Mr. Comey. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you share with the Attorney General or
the Deputy Attorney General or anyone at Main Justice your
concerns that this information raised about the Attorney
General's either real objectivity or the perception of her
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Who? Who did you raise that with?
Mr. Comey. My recollection is that, at some point in the
first half of 2016, both the Deputy AG was briefed on the nature of that material, and after that, the AG was briefed and interviewed
about the nature of that material.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you know who the Attorney General was
interviewed by?
Mr. Comey. I don't know.. believe one of the participants in the conversation was the Deputy Director. At that point, it was Andrew McCabe. But there were others present as well... I was not there.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Was there a discussion about the Attorney
General needing to recuse herself as a result of that
Mr. Comey. Not to my knowledge.
(A bit of back and forth in Comey justifying why he thought it was ok that Lynch did not recuse herself - essentially because she agreed to take his recommendation - refer to ABOVE where he said he didn't "decide" but only recommended - his recommendation WAS the decision...)
Mr. Comey. I remember being concerned about whether she should remain
involved, especially after the tarmac visit, tarmac
conversation. But before I had an opportunity to discuss that
with anyone, the AG announced she would
not recuse but would accept my recommendation...
Mr. Ratcliffe. And 5 days after that tarmac incident, the
FBI and prosecutors from the Department of Justice did, in fact,
interview Secretary -- former Secretary Clinton, correct?
Mr. Comey. I think it was 5 days.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was on July 2nd.
Mr. Comey. It was the Saturday after that tarmac meeting.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You mentioned some of the agents earlier.
Do you know how many folks combined, from the FBI and the
Department of Justice, were present for the interview of
Secretary Clinton?
Mr. Comey. The DOJ team for the interview of Secretary
Clinton I think -- I could be wrong, but I think was five people:
two special agents from the FBI and three lawyers from the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You did not participate in the interview?
Mr. Comey. No, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Who drafted the questions that Secretary
Clinton was going to be asked?
Mr. Comey. I don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you participate at all in the
Mr. Comey. No, I did not.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Why wasn't that interview recorded?
Mr. Comey. The interview wasn't recorded because the FBI
does not record noncustodial, voluntary interviews.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Why wasn't that interview conducted before
a grand jury?
Mr. Comey. I don't recall exactly. I think for a number
of strategic reasons. You'll know, as an experienced person,
that the grand jury is often a limiting way to conduct a
wide-ranging interview, but I don't remember for sure.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me see if I can refresh your
recollection. I think you had a conversation with Inspector
General Horowitz about that. On page 141 of the inspector
general's report --
Mr. Ratcliffe. Reading for the record: Comey told us he did not remember discussing the possibility of subpoenaing Clinton before the grand jury. However, he stated: At that point, I really didn't think there was a there there. And the question was, is she going to lie to us?
(Ratcliffe) Did I read that correctly?
Mr. Comey. Yes, you read it correctly.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Does that refresh your recollection?

Mr. Comey. It really doesn't. I'm sure I said this
because it's a transcript from the IG interview, but I don't -- I
honestly don't remember saying that. It seems reasonable,
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, as you read that, if it's
accurately -- if you're accurately quoted, it sounds like you
had your mind made up about whether or not Hillary Clinton was
going to be prosecuted for the mishandling of classified
information before her interview.
Mr. Comey. I don't think that's exactly right. My
judgment going into the interview was that we had not found
sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution for any substantive
offenses related to the mishandling of classified information.
Mr. Comey (cont). Still a possibility that she would lie to us and give us an opening to prosecute her or that there would be further investigation.
But going into it, based on almost a year of investigation, I
didn't see a substantive case there.
(Good to know the lawmen at the top levels of government go into every investigation with the mindset that they already know the answers to their questions. Seems legit.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall... you appeared before House Judiciary
Committee Sept 28 2016, and I asked you: Did you make the decision not to prosecute or not to charge Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified
information before or after her July 2nd, 2016, interview?
Mr. Ratcliffe (cont). And your answer was: After. Do you recall that?

Mr. Comey. Yep.

(YEP??? 😂😂😂 Comey, your hostility is showing!!)
Mr. Ratcliffe. When I asked you how that could possibly
be the case, your response was: If colleagues of ours think I'm
lying, please have them contact me privately.
Mr. Ratcliffe (cont). Now, I will tell you, Director, when I asked you that
question and you gave me that answer, there were a number of
things that I was not aware of.
Mr. Ratcliffe (cont). One of the things that I didn't
know was that the day before the interview, the Hillary Clinton
interview on July 1st, Lisa Page texted Peter Strzok about
Loretta Lynch and her decision to follow your recommendation,
and said, quote: (cont)
(Ratcliffe) (Lisa Page said) Yeah, it's a real profile in courage, since
she -- meaning Lynch -- knows no charges will be brought.
Do you recall reading that text anywhere, or hearing about
Mr. Comey. I don't remember I read it. I think I've heard
about it in the media.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It's also in the inspector general report.
Did you read the inspector general report?

Mr. Comey. I did, so I must have seen it there. Yes, I
read it, so I must have seen it there.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, the text doesn't -- doesn't say that
Hillary Clinton might not be charged or that charges probably
won't be brought. It says that the Attorney General knows that
charges won't be brought. 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you have any explanation for why Lisa Page, Peter Strzok,
and Attorney General Loretta Lynch might have known that Hillary
Clinton wasn't going to be charged before her July 2nd, 2016,
interview if you hadn't made the decision yet?
Mr. Comey. I don't. I don't know what she means in there
or what the nature of the communication was.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Could it be based on one of the other things
that I didn't know when you and I had that exchange, and that
was the fact that I didn't know that 2 MONTHS BEFORE that July
2nd interview, on May the 2nd, you had actually circulated a draft
memo... (CONT)
(Ratcliffe cont). ... of a public announcement stating that neither you nor any
reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton with the
mishandling of classified information. Do you recall that?
Mr. Comey. I'm sorry. Recall what, Mr. Ratcliffe?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Recall that memo?
Mr. Comey. Sure. I recall a variety of drafts in May of
that memo.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you agree with me that that draft of
that memo certainly would be or its contents would appear to be
inconsistent with the testimony that I just related that you and
I had in September of 2016?
Mr. Comey. No, I don't agree.
(Can we scroll UP right now to all those pious remarks Comey made about how much he cares about even the APPEARANCE of bias???)
Mr. Ratcliffe. Who's Jim Rybicki?

Mr. Comey. Jim Rybicki was my chief of staff. As -- I'm
Mr. Ratcliffe. One of the things that I didn't know when
you and I had that exchange was how Mr. Rybicki was going to
testify. And he testified...(cont)
(Ratcliffe cont)... that the only charges that could
have come out of her interview would have been false statements
to an FBI agent, not any violations of the Espionage Act.
Would you agree with Mr. Rybicki's testimony?
Mr. Comey. No, I would not. I'm not familiar with it, but
assuming it's what you just summarized, I would not.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I think I've related to you that at
least a number of folks -- Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Loretta
Lynch, Jim Rybicki -- all seem to have the idea that Hillary
Clinton wasn't going to be charged for the mishandling of
classified information -- she might be...
(Ratcliffe cont) ... charged for lying to the
FBI -- but that she wasn't going to be charged for the mishandling
of classified information.
Do you still think that the answer that you gave me on
September 28 of 2016 was an accurate statement?
Mr. Comey. I do.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you think that that statement was at all
misleading to me or other Members of Congress?
Mr. Comey. I guess I can't speak to your mental state. It
wasn't intended to be misleading.
(Did Gangsta Jim Comey just try to GASLIGHT a US Senator in closed hearings??? 😂😂😂)
Mr. Ratcliffe. You didn't answer my question when I asked
it by saying: Well, I had pretty much made the decision that
she wasn't going to be charged because everyone knew I had
circulated a draft memo.... (cont)
(Ratcliffe cont)
You didn't say to me what you said to the inspector general,
that you really didn't think there was no there there. You just
said no. Do you think that's a candid statement?
Mr. Comey. I do. I do.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So your testimony + today, that when you / FBI and the Department of Justice went in to interview Hillary
Clinton, a decision had not been made about whether or not to
prosecute her for anything and all charges were still on the table
at that point?
Mr. Comey. Correct. The final decision of what our
recommendation would be had not been made.

Mr. Ratcliffe. The final decision. 🔥🔥
Mr. Comey. Well, sure. You'd be incompetent if you didn't
have a view of the case after a year. As I said to the IG it didn't look to me like there was a substantive case there. .... (cont)
(Comey cont) But you're about to interview the
subject, and so you want to keep your mind open to the possibility
that you will develop something that needs to be pursued.

(WELL GEE, JIM, which is it? You already had a view or you were open-minded? )
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, that's a great explanation. Why
didn't you give me that explanation in September of 2016 when
I asked you that question?
Mr. Comey. It's an explanation, Mr. Ratcliffe, that's
entirely consistent with the answer I gave you. I don't remember
you asking me to explain why I say that. If you did, I'm sorry
if I didn't answer that question, but they're consistent.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So it was a serious interview with Hillary
Clinton that was about to take place intended at getting at the
truth of everything that was troubling you?
Mr. Comey. That's not how I thought about it. It was about
interviewing the subject near the close of a year-long
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, when the team of FBI agents and
lawyers interviewed Hillary Clinton, what questions did they ask
Secretary Clinton about the tarmac meeting?
Mr. Comey. I don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Would that be reflected in the 302 or in
the FBI summary of the interview?
Mr. Comey. I would expect so. You're asking about whether
they asked Hillary Clinton about the meeting that Bill Clinton
had with Loretta Lynch.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Comey. I don't know whether they asked that. I would
expect if it was asked, it would likely be reflected in the 302.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you like to review those?
Mr. Comey. Not unless you really want me to.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I've read them,There's no mention of "tarmac" or "Loretta Lynch" anywhere that appears in the 302 or the summary that the
FBI has made publicly available. So my question is, do you know whether or not any questions were asked about that tarmac meeting?
Mr. Comey. It's the same answer; I don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So 5 days after the AG meets with the spouse of a subject on a tarmac, the meeting that raised concerns enough to cause you to take the actions you took in holding the press conference, no one
in the room thought about asking Hillary Clinton questions
about that?
Mr. Comey. I don't know what they thought. And, as I said
earlier, I don't know whether she was asked about that.

(Let's just say right now that Comey is either the spawn of the devil or the most incompetent FBI director in history...)
Mr. Ratcliffe. Would that have been a reasonable question
to Secretary Clinton, what did your husband discuss about this
case, if anything, 5 days ago with the Attorney General?
Mr. Comey. I don't know the answer to that. As it relates
to her mishandling of classified information as Secretary of
State, I don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I thought you were looking for any
crimes, not just the mishandling of information.

Mr. Comey. The FBI doesn't investigate people to find any

(Next follows pages of doublespeak by Comey with Ratcliffe reminding him of things he's already agreed to and Comey saying none of that applies...)
Mr. Ratcliffe. So, as you've already mentioned, one of the
things you thought might happen or you wanted to find out was
whether or not Hillary Clinton might lie during that interview.
Knowingly making a false statement to the FBI is a crime, correct?
Mr. Comey. That is correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Making a false public statement ordinarily
is not a crime, correct?

Mr. Comey. That is correct. Thank goodness, for a lot of
Mr. Ratcliffe. But false statements made in public can be
evidence of knowledge or intent, absence of mistake, or provide
all kinds of other evidentiary context, correct?

Mr. Comey. Potentially, yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't
David Petraeus' comments, false comments in public a basis for
why you argued that he had knowledge or intent to commit the crime
of mishandling classified information?
Mr. Comey. I don't remember that about the Petraeus case,
that public statements figured in it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You don't recall, or it didn't happen?
Mr. Comey. Well,...it's possible I'm just not remembering or that it didn't happen. As I think about that case, I don't remember anything
about public statements as a factor in that case. I remember
a lot about lying to the agents during an interview, but not
public statements.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. So let me ask you about Hillary Clinton's public statements. Do you recall Secretary Clinton publicly stating that she neither sent nor received classified information?

Mr. Comey. I don't specifically in her public statements, so I don't specifically.
Mr. Ratcliffe. If there were those public statements,
would you have expected the agents to ask her about that during
her interview?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. I would expect them to ask about
what she was thinking when she communicated in the way she did,
but whether to ask her, "Did you say on the campaign trail X or
Y," I don't know. That would be up to their judgment.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall Secretary Clinton making that
same statement under oath before Congress?

Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Ratcliffe. on October 22nd of 2015, in response to Congressman Jordan, Secretary Clinton said,
"There was nothing marked classified in my emails either sent or received,"
Does that refresh your recollection about Secretary Clinton
making that statement?
Mr. Comey. I don't -- it doesn't help me with her
testimony, but I actually do remember being asked, maybe by
Mr. Jordan, when I testified about whether that was accurate or
Mr. Ratcliffe. Is it accurate?
Mr. Comey. My recollection is there were in some emails a letter C deep in the email to mark some of the paragraphs that looked to us like portion markings, as I recall. And I'm sorry if I'm misrecalling that, but I have the recollection of that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I have your public statement on July
5th. I think you mentioned the fact that there were actually
three emails that were marked classified.
Mr. Comey. When I talked on July the 5th?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Comey. Okay.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Any reason to --
Mr. Kelley. Do you have a copy of that statement we can
take a look at?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I do.
(Ratcliffe) Do you have -- as you review that, do you independently have
a recollection about Hillary Clinton's July 2nd interview where
agents asked her questions about those classification markings,
whether it appeared on one document or multiple documents?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You don't have any recollection?
Mr. Comey. No, I don't have an independent recollection,
sitting here, of what they asked her about that. I have some
recollection that the topic came up, but I don't remember what
was asked or said about that.
(And that, my friends, was the first portion, next up Democrats which will probably be nothing but Dems making verbal love to Comey so don't expect me to repeat any of that drivel...)
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to I'm supposed to be working right now.
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!