,
14 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Was doing research on whistleblower Dennis Montgomery and his (in)famous lawyer, Larry Klayman, last week and found a few connections to #Spygate that I was going to share. But @tracybeanz stole some of my thunder with her must-watch video this weekend: .
However, I wanted share a couple additional nuggets that I don’t think were addressed in the video (I may have been doing some multitasking at the time). Specifically, I wanted to hit the 6/23/17 hearing in which the govt attorney states the hard drives are with the ICIG.
For background, Klayman filed the lawsuit at the beginning of June 2017, and summons were sent to the FBI on June 6. Keep this date in mind for later. 
On June 23, there is a hearing on a temporary restraining order. As @tracybeanz points out, Gilligan states the hard drives are currently at the ICIG’s office, and have been since August 2016.
In a later filing, Klayman attaches some emails between him and Gilligan. Klayman wanted Gilligan to officially inform the court that the 302s and video of Montgomery’s interview are safe and have litigation hold. Gilligan responds that they are safe but he isn’t filing anything
However, note that Gilligan states those are held at the FBI’s Washington Field Office, not the ICIG. Not super suspicious, but interesting nonetheless.
So I wanted to see what our friends Strzok and Page were discussing in August 2016, June 6 2017, and June 23 2017. And got a hit. On June 7, an interesting exchange which has raised eyebrows before. (Possibly some also in Aug/Sept 2016, but not what I want to focus on)
They are discussing where somethings are “physically.” I thought “transcripts” for a while, but now I think it’s “hard drives.”
Note - the “what Paul briefed” line looks off because it’s the same text overlay as the next line, and wanted to line up the first word of the next line correctly, so it’s just the spacing between the lines that didn’t match up. Move the overlay up a few pixels and it matches.
So I’m guessing Gilligan had bad info about the physical location. I’m not insinuating bad faith on anyone’s part here, just that he may not have been fully aware. It seems that PS/LP also discuss them another time as well. Still working on that redaction.
Another tidbit - in case it’s not well known - the two agents that interviewed Montgomery (William Barnett and Walter Giardina) also both ended up on the Special Counsel team. Coincidence?
Another tidbit - in Comey’s testimony last month, a Congressman (don’t remember who, and can’t find a link now that oversight committee’s servers have been taken down) quotes James Baker’s testimony abt private attorneys contacting him directly and how...
...irregular that is. Baker says that never happens, but then backtracks and says (basically) “well, there is one other attorney, totally different case, different client, but otherwise totally irregular.” Just another incident of Klayman making an appearance in all of this!
Finally, in what likely a coincidence, note Klayman’s letter to Nunes on 3/21/17, regarding his client. This is the same day Nunes made his impromptu rush to the WH to discuss what? Surveillance matters. The rest of the Nunes story seems like more than this letter, but who knows?
