Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

You all need to read Mr Sweeny's testimony.... US Attorney "Threatened Agent" over HRC

Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:30 pm
Posted by Jjdoc
Cali
Member since Mar 2016
53436 posts
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:30 pm
I know you are all reading the big names. But you need to read Sweeny.

He reported the Clinton emails in the middle of a SVTV meeting in which EVERYBODY was present. At that point, they had discovered 140K Clinton emails on Wienner's laptop.

Within 2 hours later.... That number was up to almost 350K.


Here is a quote:

quote:

Q

Yeah, it's my understanding that your case agent, the CDC,
somebody from New York, was interfacing with Southern District, and
I think very early on, it was very clear that they were not supposed
to be doing anything with those and that, you know, prompted or
facilitated the dialogue back to D.C. to figure out what they were going
to do.
When you were -- when you were having these discussions with
headquarters, your initial notification, any subsequent calls you had,
was it your impression that New York was supposed to do something and
get back with Washington, D.C., or that Washington was supposed to take
this information and do something, whatever that something might be,
with the New York field office?


A

My impression was Washington, D.C., was supposed to take it and run with it, not our -- it's not ours.


Q And did they do -- did they take it and run with it like you
thought they would, or should?


A

Later I learned, no, from reading this report. At the time,
I don't think I knew there was a potential issue until I'm told Southern
District is calling down to ODAG -- or I keep saying ODAG, but down
to DOJ.


Q

But at the time, you thought the information you and your
team were -- your subordinates, whatever communications they were
having with Washington, or FBI headquarters, you, at the time, thought
that everything that was supposed to be done in D.C. was, in fact, being
done? You may not have seen the fruits of it yet, but you assumed it
was being done?

A

Correct.



Sweeny is the head of the NY FBI office.

quote:


Mr. Breitenbach. Let me go back to the search warrant itself.
You had indicated you weren't sure where it was filed. We have the
search warrant, and actually, we can introduce it as exhibit 1.

[Sweeney Exhibit No. 1

Was marked for identification.]
BY MR. BREITENBACH:

Q

It was, in fact, filed in the Southern District of New York
on October 30th of 2016.

A
Okay.

Q

So we have a period where you first learned about this on
September 26th, there or abouts. You have then the actual laptop in
your possession in the New York field office for about a month. Is that correct
?

A

Yeah, that would be correct.





A MONTH!!! Are you FRIGGIN kidding me????


quote:

BY MR. SOMERS:

Q

Were you aware that they -- I mean, obviously your team knew -- I mean, obviously, but it would appear now that your team was aware the search had not been conducted up until late October?

A

Correct.

Q

Were you aware of complaints within your office about the fact that a search was not conducted?

A

No. The first -- the first time I think I become aware of an issue is when we were doing document production for the IG, and there's an email from the case agent to himself describing a conversation he had with an AUSA, and his concern that things weren't moving quickly enough and people were sitting on it.

Q

Can I just interrupt you? Is this a copy of that email?

A Yes. Yeah, I believe it is.




The case agents knew the they sat on it..

Finishing that answer:
quote:


A

Yes. Yeah, I believe it is. So I think I become aware of
this during the document production to the IG, and we actually report
this to our Inspection Division because I'm concerned that somebody
is telling him to keep his mouth -- I'm concerned that somebody from
the U.S. attorney's office is telling him not to report this.
So I'm
essentially now reporting an AUSA for trying to stymie this guy.

Q

But you are concerned with that end of it, not with him
actually wanting to whistleblow?

A

No, I had no idea he wanted to whistleblow at the time.

Q



DON'T TELL ME POLITICS WAS NOT INVOLVED HERE!


LINK

And not asking the individual's name, but the author of this
email is the case agent?

A

Correct.

Q

The case agent that originally discovered the --

A

Yep.




Posted by shoelessjoe
Member since Jul 2006
9894 posts
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:39 pm to
This is great to hear but I just was wondering why Twitter handle Paul Sherry was saying that Durham is reviewing Huber’s review who is reviewing Horowitz’s report and saying nothing is going to happen because it looks like things are just going round in circles.
Posted by Jjdoc
Cali
Member since Mar 2016
53436 posts
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:51 pm to
Then the Dems question:
quote:


Q

Do you agree with Mr. Priestap's characterization that a month
was not an unusual time for the FBI to process the data on the laptop and decide whether it would seek legal process to review the data on
the laptop?

A

No.

Q

You don't agree with Mr. Priestap. Why is that?


A

I don't think it necessarily takes a month to figure that
out.

Q

So you are disagreeing with his characterization that in
politically sensitive cases a month is not an unusually long amount
of time?


A

I think it depends on the case. It's a case-by-case
instance. But, obviously, we've taken action on things quicker than
month and longer than a month.





Posted by Jjdoc
Cali
Member since Mar 2016
53436 posts
Posted on 5/21/19 at 11:03 am to
Its happening
Posted by beerJeep
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2016
34937 posts
Posted on 5/21/19 at 11:04 am to
quote:

Mr Sweeny


The demon barber of Fleet Street?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 5/21/19 at 11:46 am to
quote:

saying that Durham is reviewing Huber’s review who is reviewing Horowitz’s report
That is factually wrong. There are elements/people Horowitz cannot investigate. e.g., Anyone/anything outside the DOJ is off limits to Horowitz. Huber was rumored to be pairing up with Horowitz to fill in the voids. It appears instead, Huber has done nothing. Durham began to investigate FBI leaks, either on his own or by order. Either way has already done more than Huber. So the more correct take would be Durham building on Horowitz's findings, while Huber is out of the mix.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram