John Giacalone opened the case on HRC dubbed the MYE, and yet didn’t pursue “intent” or gross negligence claims during the MYE case due to him not seeing Secretary Clinton as a “wise guy” or a white collar criminal despite the destruction of devices under subpoena. He was unable to recall that intent was not a part of the relevant charges he was looking at, and could not even recall what passages in the criminal code he was basing his investigation upon.
Purely based upon his own perception of Secretary Clinton. And when you look earlier in the transcripts, he compares Peter Strozk to President Trump in having affairs and how it doesn’t relate to how you perform your job. He didn’t need to throw that in, yet he did. I believe he too had a disdain for Trump, and an overwhelming belief in the “good” HRC, so much so that even seeing acts he would normally view as being criminal, he ignored it.
Fucking criminal dereliction of duty.
https://dougcollins.house.gov/sites/dougcollins.house.gov/files/6.21.18%20Giacalone%20Interview_Redacted.pdf
pg 109-111
BY MR. BAKER:
Q We talked earlier, briefly, about a BlackBerry device, I believe it was, that was smashed with a hammer. And you indicated, you know, to the best of your knowledge, that's not necessarily cyber protocol for destroying something to keep it from being recreated. Take yourself out of your EAD role and transport yourself
back a few years in your Bureau career. Go back to the organized crime days.
A Okay.
Q You're working a case – I think you said you were Lucchese family?
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
110
A Yep.
Q You're working a case on the Lucchese family, and one of your subjects, one of the soldiers that you're after, you're looking at, all of a sudden they start smashing a BlackBerry device that you have developed an investigative interest in. Maybe they know you have the interest, maybe they don't. But there's a device you're interested in, and all of a sudden they smash it. What would you logically, based on your training, knowledge, and expertise, what would you infer might be going on?
A So, since I'm looking at organized crime people that were predisposed to commit certain crimes, I would think that there's something sideways.
Q Okay.
Mr. Parmiter. I might have a followup question about that. Mr. Giacalone. All right. I said "sideways" for your benefit.
BY MR. BAKER:
Q Now, let's go back to the transporter and come back again to your EAD role. You have a BlackBerry being smashed. Did that mean anything, or not really?
A So I could not, in good conscience, compare Secretary Clinton to a member of an organized crime family, right?
So I would think that the behavior was somewhat odd, to smash a device, but I don't know that I would draw the conclusion that what she was doing was illegal.
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
111
Q Okay.
A Whereas, with a wise guy – and I knew quite a few of them from my almost 12 years of looking at organized crime
guys – there were very few things they did that didn't have some criminal intent. So it's a little different.
Q And maybe we landed in the wrong place on the continuum. Say we went to a white-collar investigation, and maybe it's a healthcare fraud matter and a doctor is destroying it. It would be suspicious, correct?
A Yeah. It's something that you wouldn't normally see, somebody taking a hammer to a device.