check this out
04:49:13 mark
JUNE 19, 2018
House Hearing on Inspector General Report on Clinton Email Probe
https://www.c-span.org/video/?446817-1/doj-inspector-general-michael-horowitz-testifies-clinton-email-probe-report
APPLICABLE WHETHER IT'S KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT. CAN YOU THINK OF A BETTER WAY TO DETERMINE WHAT AN ACTOR NEW THEN TO ASK THE ACTOR WHAT HERE SHE KNEW. AM I MISSING SOME BETTER EVIDENCE THAN TO ACTUALLY INTERVIEW THE TARGET FOR THE SUSPECT YOURSELF? >THERE COULD BE INCIDENCES WHERE THERE WOULD BE BETTER EVIDENCE LIKE CONTEMPORARY US RECORDINGS. >> BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF THOSE IN THIS CASE. >> YOU JUST ASK HYPOTHETICALLY IS THERE A BETTER WAY. >> GIVEN THE RESTRICTIONS IN THIS CASE CAN'T THINK OF ANY BETTER WAY TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE OF KNOWLEDGE TO ACTUALLY YOU THE TARGET HERSELF? >> NO, I THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO INTERVIEW THE TARGET HERSELF. >> WHAT WOULD YOU ASK THE TARGET? HE WERE HIGHLY DECORATED – WHEN WE DO A, ASK IF THAT SUSPECT HAD KNOWLEDGE. >> YOU'D WANT TO START AT THE BEGINNING WHICH IS, WHY DID THE SERVER COME TO BE SET UP, WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE USED FOR, QUESTIONS LIKE THAT. SO MUCH OF IT WOULD BE FOCUSED ON WHAT THE INTENT AND RATIONALE AND THINKING WAS BEHIND CREATING EUROS SEPARATE SERVER OR DOMAIN NAME FROM THE ONSET. >> MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON THAT ISSUE, WHICH U.S. THE SUSPECT OR TARGET TO RECONCILE THOSE EXPLANATIONS? >> PRESUMABLY YOU WOULD ASK DURING AN INTERVIEW WHEN THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERING REPORTS. >> HAVE THERE BEEN FALSE STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION BUT YOU ASK TO EXPLAIN THOSE? >> IF YOU'RE INTERVIEWING ANY WITNESS YOU'D WANT TO ASK ABOUT INFORMATION THAT WOULD SUGGEST THERE WAS FALSE INFORMATION. >> WHEN I USE THE PHRASE CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONGDOING, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? >> IT MEANS YOU HAVE AN AWARENESS, PERHAPS UNSTATED THAT THE CONDUCT TO ENGAGE IN HIS WRONGFUL IN SOME WAY. >> WHAT ABOUT CONCEALMENT? >> THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT THINGS. COULD BE ACTIVE OR PASSIVE, IT'S KEEPING SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE ELSE. ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE? >> THAT CAN BE PERSONAL OR COULD BE KNOWING THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT BUT IT IS DESTROYING EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION. >> WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT, I WAS ASKED OVER THE WEEKEND WHETHER OR NOT I THINK SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. I CANNOT ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK SHE WAS INTERVIEWED PROPERLY. IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO GO BACK AND CONDUCT A PROPER INTERVIEW AFTER ONE HAS BEEN BOSCH. DID YOU SEE ON THE QUESTIONS WE JUST WENT OVER, WERE ALL OF THOSE ASKED OF HER AND THAT JULY INTERVIEW? >> A THREE OH TWO ONLY BE IN A SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS SAID THERE WAS NOT A TRANSCRIPT OR MORE DEFINITIVE REPORT ON ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. WE HAVE A SUMMARY AND THAT'S WHAT WERE WORKING OFF OF. IT'S EXTENSIVE BUT STILL NOT A TRANSCRIPT. >> GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE AGREE THAT TALKING WITH THE TARGET MIGHT BE SOME OF THE BETTER EVIDENCE ON KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT, HOW IS JIM COMEY ABLE TO DRAFT A EXONERATION PRESS RELEASE SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT TOOK PLACE? >> IT'S CLEAR THAT BY THAT POINT TO THE HAVE LARGELY CONCLUDED WHAT THEY HAD CONCLUDED. >> IF WHAT YOU'RE MISSING WITH KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT OF THE SINGLE BEST REPOSITORY IS THE PERSON YOU GET TO TALK TO, HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT CONCLUSION? >> I GIVE YOU THE ANSWER WAS SWITCH IS THAT WE KEPT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD FIND EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT. THAT WAS THE EXPLANATION. >> IF THAT WERE TRUE DID YOU FIND DRAFTS OF PREFERENCE RELEASES? >> WE DID NOT. >> NO MEMOS OR DRAFTS WHERE HE HAD DECIDED TO CHARGE HER. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE WERE TOLD THAT THEY DID NOT DRAFT ANYTHING. UNTIL AFTER THE INTERVIEW, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO WAIT BEFORE MAKING A FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE INTERVIEW. >> ISN'T THAT WHAT WE NORMALLY DO, BACK WHEN YOU DO TRIAL WORK TO YOU REMEMBER THE JUDGE EVER ADMONISHING THE JURY THAT YOU NOT TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND UNTIL THE LAST WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED IN THE LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED. >> TO REMEMBER THAT? >> I REMEMBER THAT VERY WELL. >> IT'S A BASIC PRECEPT OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. YOU WAIT UNTIL IT'S OVER UNTIL YOU DRAW CONCLUSION. I'M DUMBFOUNDED THAT HE WOULD CONDUCT A PRESS RELEASE AND INSIGHT WHEN THE SINGLE BEST EVIDENCE HAD YET TO BE TALK TO. I FIND THAT STUNNING. I'M ALSO OUT OF TIME. >> THE AMAZON JUNGLES I MENTOR TURN YOUR REPORT DOES NOT REPUTE THE WORK. REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION, WE'S KNOW WHO LISA PAGES, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHO FBI AGENTS ONE THROUGH FIVE ARE. >> REALLY WRITE THE REPORT WE APPLY PRIVACY ACT AND OTHER WAS TO DECIDE WHO WE CAN WHOSE NAME WE COULD DISCLOSE THE THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SOME NAMES IN HERE. WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE COMMITTEE WE SOUGHT TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE FBI TO SEND INFORMATION