WHATS THIS

https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/Rybicki%20011818%20Interveiw_Redacted.pdf

pg 117-120

Chairman Gowdy. Is it your testimony that the Director decided, after having that conversation with then AG Lynch, that he was going to have this press conference and announce the decision himself?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't know the answer to that.

Chairman Gowdy. Because that was in the fall of 2015, right?

Mr. Rybicki. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gowdy. Well before the drafting of the memo and well before the press conference?

Mr. Rybicki. Correct.

Chairman Gowdy. Had the conversation – all right. That was one of the factors. What was the other factor, or is it a matter that can't be discussed in this setting?

Mr. Rybicki. The other one is a classified matter.

Chairman Gowdy. When was that – I'm aware of that matter, and I appreciate the sensitive way in which you're handling it. When was the Director made aware of the other factor?

Mr. Rybicki. Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the exact timeline, but it was early 2016. I don't remember the first time he was made aware of it. I want to say early 2016, and continued on through that spring.

Chairman Gowdy. So we have a fall of 2015 request that it be referred to as a matter, not an investigation.

We have another factor, perhaps in early 2016, that the Director was very concerned about, but has not to this day spoken publicly about and cannot speak publicly about. And both of those took place before May.

>WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK WAS THIS SECOND MATTER!?!?!?!

Mr. Rybicki. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gowdy. All right. And they both fall under the heading of the public could not – could potentially not have confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department. Is that fair?

Mr. Rybicki. Yes.

A SECOND MATTER THAT WOULD AFFECT THE US PUBLICS VIEW OF THE DOJ AND FBI!?!?!

Chairman Gowdy. All right.

Mr. Rybicki. At that time.

Chairman Gowdy. At that time. We're not going to go into this because it's outside the strictures of our agreement, other than I would just bring to your attention that there have been other instances when the Director believed it was in the public's interest to take certain steps to trigger the appointment of special counsel. Are you familiar with what I'm referring to?

THIS SECOND CLASSIFIED “CONCERN” TRIGGERED A SPECIAL COUNSEL

Mr. Rybicki. I believe so, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gowdy. All right. Was there any conversation about taking steps to trigger the appointment of special counsel, given the facts that existed in the fall of 2015 and early 2016?

Mr. Rybicki. Not to my recollection.

So this secondary “concern” that is still highly classified did not trigger a special counsel, yet was perceived within the highest ranks of the FBI as having the ability to effect the public’s view of the impartiality of the DOJ and FBI, and was more than just the “matter” Comey and LL are arguing about

So what the fuck is it

>>6550588

Facts

1: Whatever it was, it did not cause him to trigger a special counsel

2: it came to his attention in early 2016

3: Comey was concerned it would affect the public’s perception of DOJ and FBI impartiality (regarding HRC email? or something else?)

4: Comey has never talked publicly about it - can not speak about it = Comey is still under a NDA regarding this “concern”

5: Bill and Loretta met on the tarmac in June of 2016, so it’s unlikely this refers to this meeting, but not impossible based on context of “early” 2016.

>>6550724

I think you may have nailed it, so we have an idea of when the memo/letter was sent?

It could be a piece of an entire conversation that Comey became aware of

>>6550588

Back to Trisha Anderson

She was worried that Comey updating Congress on the emails found on Weiners laptop would get Trump elected: (pg 143 &144)

Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Did anyone during that discussion raise concerns about moving forward, concerns about the election, concerns about telling Congress?

Mr. Rybicki. Yes.

Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Who?

Mr. Rybicki. So this – as to the statement, I know that Trisha Anderson raised a concern about – I think it was generally phrased as, you know, are we concerned that doing this will help elect candidate Trump to the presidency.

Ms. Sachsman Grooms. And did she say that in that initial meeting or a later meeting?

Mr. Rybicki. My recollection, it was definitely the same day. I just can't remember if it was, again, that same sitting.

Ms. Sachsman Grooms. And did she phrase it like that, as a question, essentially?

Mr. Rybicki. I can't say for certain. It was definitely words to that effect, but I can't say if it was phrased in the form of a question.

Ms. Sachsman Grooms. And what was the response?

Mr. Rybicki. The Director's response was, we just can't consider that. It would not be appropriate to consider that.

>>6550834

Peter Strzok emailed HRC talking points to Lisa Pages personal AOL account, who then forwarded it to Rybicki. So she was using a personal email to convey info. Who else did she send these emails to from that account?

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. Let me show you what we're marking as exhibit 7.

Mr. Rybicki. Okay.

[Rybicki Exhibit No. 7

Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Parmiter. Do you recognize this document, either page 1 or page 2?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't readily recognize it. I certainly recall talking about these cases. It appears to be an email to me, but I don't readily recognize it.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. And what is on page 2?

Mr. Rybicki. Page 2 appears to be – it's titled HRC talking points. It talks about the difference of the investigation vice, the David Petraeus and Berger cases.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. And do you know who prepared these talking points?

Mr. Rybicki. Based on the email, it appears that – the original email is from Pete Strzok to several individuals, and it looks like someone – and, again, based on the signature line, it would make – it would appear to be Lisa Page forwarded that to me.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. And just to clarify, earlier you referred to Ms. Page as in the deputy director's office right when we started the interview.

Mr. Rybicki. Correct. That's correct.

Mr. Parmiter. Was she there – is that her full-time job?

Mr. Rybicki. Yes. She's an Office of General Counsel attorney. Idon't know if she is formally detailed, but she worked in the deputy director's office.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. So would it be fair to say you were or were not involved in the production of these talking points?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't – I didn't type them, if that's the –

I THINK WE FOUND STEPHEN HALPER IN THE TRANSCRIPTS

The one of George Papadopolous infamy

Starts pg 169

Rybicki Exhibit No. 8

Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Parmiter. Do you recognize that document?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't readily recognize it, but it appears to be an email, again, with the same talking points and me forwarding it to

[redacted]

Mr. Parmiter. Who is [redacted]?

Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] was a special government employee of the FBI, who – he's a professor at – the institution popped out of my head, in New York.

Mr. Parmiter. [Redacted] Law School?

Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] Law School. A professor at [Redacted] Law School, who served as a special government employee to the FBI.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. So what is a special government employee?

Mr. Rybicki. It is a designation, so it's an unpaid position. I don't know all of the parameters surrounding it. So he had a memorandum of understanding and was working on various projects for the FBI. He had a clearance and badge access to the building, but

COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

170

didn't – you know, he didn't work full time or, you know, have an office in the building, that type of thing.

Mr. Parmiter. And what were the circumstances that led to Mr. [Redacted] being a – being brought onboard as a special government employee?

Mr. Rybicki. Director Comey had asked to bring him on to help with some special projects.

Mr. Parmiter. Is that fairly frequent? I mean, is that a rare occurrence or is it a frequent occurrence that special government employees come on at the behest of the Director?

Mr. Rybicki. He was the only one that we brought on during the time.

Mr. Parmiter. Are you aware of any other special government employees at the FBI at any time?

Mr. Rybicki. I am not.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. What was the nature of Director Comey's sort of relationship with Mr. [Redacted] while he was at the FBI?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't know if it would be fair for me to characterize it. I don't know the extent of their communications. Again, he was brought on to work on some special projects, mostly in an advisory capacity, but I don't know it'd be fair for me to characterize.

Mr. Parmiter. Were any of the special projects the investigation we've been talking about today?

Mr. Rybicki. No. The biggest special project was the Going Dark initiative.

>da fuq is the going dark initiative

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. So I guess if he wasn't working on this investigation, why were you emailing him the talking points?

Mr. Rybicki. Sure. It's likely that I was asked to send them to him, although I don't readily recall that.

Mr. Parmiter. Asked by Director Comey?

Mr. Rybicki. Asked by Director Comey or someone else. Again, I want to avoid being speculative because I don't have – I don't recall him actually asking me, but I also don't recall having a discussion with Mr. [Redacted] about it that would prompt me to send it to him.

Mr. Parmiter. Okay. What internal approvals are required to become a special government employee?

Mr. Rybicki. I would have to defer on that one. I don't know all the requirements. I know he had an MOU through the Office of General Counsel, and again, a clearance, but I don't know the process.

Mr. Parmiter. Did he have to take a polygraph examination like other FBI employees?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't recall the answer to that.

Mr. Parmiter. Did Director Comey have any – well, for one, I don't know if you're aware, but he identified himself on University's website as, quote, "currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey."

>Last one is a clue to his identity

>>6551030

PG 195

IG is investigating FBI agents who “conspired” against the president of the united states

Fucking boom

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And so what inquiry has the FBI done to determine who is the Andy in this text?

Mr. Rybicki. I believe that falls under the purview of the inspector general, sir.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And I get the role of the inspector general,

but if there's a text where it's a possibility that there are folks identified within the FBI who may be conspiring or may have conspired against the President of the United States, don't you need to immediately identify who those folks are?

And so if there's any question about who the "Andy" is before another email is sent, before another pencil is sharpened, before another witness is interviewed, don't you think that it's incumbent on the FBI to identify specifically who Andy is?

Mr. Rybicki. I believe, sir, the Bureau takes it very seriously, and I believe there's an active investigation by the inspector general into that.

Notice that the IG started his investigation when? So the FBI just said f it until outside organizations and people forced them to do this.

>>6551069

>>6551104

>>6551123

>>6551125

>>6551145

Upon retrospect, i agree

Daniel Richman

Comeys leaking butt buddy

>>6551150

Mention of “True Pundit” and their Heavy weight source inside the FBI

James Comey and Rybicki thought it was John Giacalone

Are you aware of any current or former employee of the FBI, quote, "on staff," at True Pundit?

Mr. Rybicki. I would hope not. No, that I'm aware.

[Rybicki Exhibit No. 11

Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Hiller. Thank you. I want to pass out exhibit 11. I should stop doing this like I'm dealing cards. So this is an email dated October 24th, 2016. It's initially from Deputy Director McCabe, later on you're copied on some of the Director's responses here. The initial email is forwarding an article titled, quote, "FBI director lobbied against criminal charges for Hillary after Clinton insiders paid his wife $700,000."

Without asking you to comment on the veracity of the article, are you familiar with this article?

Mr. Rybicki. Yes.

Mr. Hiller. In his forwarding of the email, Deputy – this is on page 3 of the handout, Deputy Director McCabe says to Director Comey, and to you, "FYI, heavyweight source." Do you know who Mr. McCabe was referencing as a quote, "heavyweight source."

Mr. Rybicki. I took it to be a reference to Mr. Giacalone, who

COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

218

served as the EAD for national security.

Mr. Hiller. Okay. Why – what leads you to believe that he's the heavyweight source?

Mr. Rybicki. He often joked about his weight, and that's – I remember reading it that way when I got it.

Mr. Hiller. So you read this to believe that he, Mr. McCabe thought that he may be the source referred to in this article?

Mr. Rybicki. He's referenced – when I read that, and I saw him in there, I think he was commenting on Mr. Giacalone in there.

Mr. Hiller. Okay.

Mr. Rybicki. I don't – I don't know if there's another source, but I just remember him being, Giacalone being referenced in there. Does that make sense?

Mr. Hiller. It does. So just above that on the page, Director Comey says, quote, "This still reads to me like someone not involved in the investigation at all, maybe somebody who heard rumors inaccurate about why John left. There is no way John would say he left because of the investigation, both because he agreed with the way we were handling it, and because so many of us know he was

REDACTED (?)

This strikes me as lower level folks who admire John, which is fine, because I do, telling yarns."

What did you understand Director Comey's response there to mean?

Mr. Rybicki. I don't remember having a reaction to it.