>>9086708

Intel Committee Transcripts

We can get through all of them quickly, efficiently and thoroughly - we've done this before:

Call one out, review, then post your findings/notes with:

Witness name, link to file, notes with page #s, screencaps if you need to.

Copypasta TEXT from the transcripts will be most helpful to collating these notes, that way no one has to go through and find the screencaps and retype relevant parts.--

You can tag them to this post just like when nominating a notable (red text like so).

Witness name Notes

We want to produce something more than just a list of posts. In other words assemble the MEAT from each transcript for BOOM output.

If we are organized, WE CREATE THE BOOMS

Carrying over to keep track. ALL links off-thread

Witnesses already being read, notes to follow:

>>9084448 Erik Prince

>>9084121 Volker

>>9084095 Vindman

>>9084057 Clapper

>>9084161 >>9084334 Yates

>>9084180 Christopher Wylie

>>9084222 Roger Stone

>>9084237 Bannon

>>9084256 Podesta

>>9084297 Christopher Anderson

>>9084443 Lynch

>>9084551 Simona Mangiante (PapaD's wife)

>>9084581 Don Jr.

>>9085042 Samantha Powers

>>9085070 Mark Sandy

>>9085099 Nix and Wiley

>>9085301 Jennifer Williams

>>9085470 Michael Sussman

>>9085152 Tim Morrison

>>9086071 Podesta

>>9086297 Andrew Brown

>>9086410 Christopher Anderson

Transcripts completed:

>>9085244 Summary of Loretta Lynch

>>9084808 >>9084816 >>9084907 Summary of Erik Prince

>>9086147 Christopher Wylie

>>9086268 >>9086307 >>9086342 >>9086362 Walid Phares

>>9086297 Andrew Brown

>>9086589 Samantha Power

For anons having trouble accessing the pdfs

ARCHIVE LINK:

http://web.archive.org/web/20200508192412/https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Committees.aspx?Code=IG00

1. REMOVE THE ARCHIVE PART

http://web.archive.org/web/20200508192412/

1. You are left with a clean, working link:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D003.pdf

This is Yovanovich. It works, I have it open. I have others open that people are having trouble with.

1. ???

2. Kill the DS.

Kind of a pain in the ass but it works. I have many open right now that others were having problems with.

If you would rather have the whole thing, this anon >>9086689 has combined them and uploaded them all in one file:

https://anonfile.com/98Z1q0x3oa/HPSCI_RussiaFiles_GOPCtrl_pdf

• Optimized and OCR'ed.

• 867 MB. Searchable.

When we work together we KICK ASS.

When we work together, we WIN.

I'm not tired of WINNING.

INTERVIEW OF: DAVID J. KRAMER

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D052.pdf

>>9089589

'This is an interview focused on the Steele dossier, Steele passing it to David Kramer, who in turn gave it to NoName, who passed it to Corney. I was looking at testimony for events occurring between 11/22/2016 and 1/18/2017 per Q post #4155.

>>9082360

https://archive.vn/xPkdy#selection-15397.0-15405.12

Steele explained to Kramer that his work initially started as a Republican-sponsored initiative for research on Donald Trump. lt then changed into a Democratic-supported, funded initiative, and he did not tell Kramer who those individuals were.

The reports were produced between June 2016 up until December 2016.

Steele told Kramer he had been in touch with an FBI contact whom he knew from before, and he had contacted that individual in July 2016.

"And his explanation was that the contact with the FBl, I think, continued from July up until, I would say, roughly September, October of that year, 2016, but then it sort of came to a stop. And so his concern was that the FBI was not taking the same approach that it had when he initially broached this with them."

Kramer received a copy of the Steele report and took it to a meeting with John McCain on November 30, 2016.

McCain asked Kramer what he thought he should do. Kramer suggested bringing a copy of it to the Director of the FBI and the Director of the ClA.

McCain meet with Director Comey on December 9 and gave him a copy of the report.

Mr. Steele was interested in whether the senator had met with Mr. Comey.

Steele and Kramer were in touch fairly regularly by phone. Steele was trying to get a sense of what was happening with the report.

Kramer was concerned about Steele's safety after the Wall Street Journal named him.

They then went on to discuss BuzzFeed:

"Since the publication of the Steele dossier in BuzzFeed – by the way, do you know who gave the copy of the dossier to BuzzFeed?"

"I met with Ken Bensinger of BuzzFeed at Mr. Steele's request. He contacted me around Christmas of December 2016, explained that he had worked with BuzzFeed in the past when Orbis, Mr. Steele's firm, had done work on the FIFA

investigation, found them to be a reputable outlet to work with, and said that Mr. Bensinger had contacted Mr. Steele or tried to reach Mr. Steele and asked - Mr. Steele asked me, can I give Ken Bensinger your contact information?"

Bensinger went to Kramer's office. "McCain lnstitute was closed that week, but I was there. Came to my office. He had asked me before if he could see the document, and I did show him the document. He asked if he could take photos or images of it with his iPhone, and I asked him not to do that. I said – this may reflect my own lack of technological savvy - but I said, I worry that things on an iPhone can go places where you don't necessarily anticipate, either intentionally or not."

Kramer left Bensinger in his office for 30 minutes to read the report. Of course, Bensinger took photos of the doc.

The Kramer-Bensinger meeting happened on December 29 and the BuzzFeed publication went out on January 10th 2017.

Q: Do you know if – or do you know anything about Steele's sources or subsources?

Mr. Kramer has been responsive information to that question, but for a variety of reasons that I would hope I don't need to elaborate, he is not going to provide source – the names of sources. … The basis is that providing that information, in our view, creates danger for the witness.

I think it would put any sources I would name in danger as well.

There have been people suspected, whether they are or not, one of whom was found dead in the back of a car in late December 2016.

Several others have been arrested.

MR. SCHIFF: Are you able to tell us whether any of these sources, to your knowledge, are in the United States, or

are they all in Russia or outside the country?"

MR. KRAMER: At the moment I'm not aware of any that are in the United States.

MR. SCHIFF: You described the dossier as raw intelligence, which that's how it comes across. Did you and Mr. Steele discuss whether he was sharing this raw intelligence with MI5, with his old offlce?

MR. KRAMER: He had indicated that he had been in touch with his former colleagues.

The report goes on to discuss the contents of the dossier. The main highlights are the Republican-Democrat-NoName origins, the early FBI involvement with Steele, Steele's orchestration of the BuzzFeed meeting, and Kramer not wanting to answer questions regarding sources for fear that people would be killed.

ANATOLI SAMOCHORNOV

28 NOV 17

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D072.pdf

>>9089017

Nothingburger really. NO misspellings/Kerfing

Samochornov was an interpreter (English/Russian) for MS. VESELNITSKYA at Trump Tower Meeting on 9 JUN 16.

Samochomov worked very occasionally as an interpreter for Veselnitskya from 2015-2016. Veselnitskya was a Russian Lawyer and had a meeting with DJT JR, Paul MANAFORT, Kavaladze, Akhmetsin and possibly 2 others who he cannot recall on 9 Jun 16 for the purpose of informing the Trumps that she had discovered that while researching the Prevozan case, irregularities by ZIFF BROTHERS (who were known tax evaders in Russia) that they made contributions to either the DNC or HRC's Prez campaign. Veselnitskya spoke for less than 5 min about this issue and the entire meeting lasted less than 25 min.

No booms that I could find.

JEFF SESSIONS

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D075.pdf

>>9088231

pg 37.

MR. ROONEY: The third bullet is, what was the U.S. Government'sresponse to these Russian active measures, and what do we need to do to protectourselves and our allies in the future?AIIORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS: Well, we've got a number of things todo: One, plainly, is about the election process. I have urged, and the FBI isworking on – and our Deputy Attomey General is working on, assuring that there'sno system by which actualvote tallies can be manipulated. The FBI said theywere not in this last election.We need to set up a better software review system.

REDLINE ( description of voting software problem goes here )

So you could have software that has problems.. And then you've got the question of intervening some way through falseinformation, or disinformation to impact a campaign. So those are three thingsthat I believe we as a country need to focus on and do a better job about.

MR. ROONEY: I think – this is my opinion, but lthink the most importantof those is obviously the integrity of the ballot

>>9087582

CHRISTOPHER WYLIE addendum

>>9088206

Pages 39-40

MR. WYLIE: Cambridge Analytica used algorithms, the algorithms that I am talking about that were developed using the misappropriated Facebook data, up until the summer of 2016. They then claim that they stopped using it. The problem with that claim is that, in order to develop what they developed, it took several million dollars and months and months and months and months and months and months of work. And so it's like saying we had a house that we built, and then we knocked it down and the next day we rebuilt it in a day. It - from a technical perspective, their explanation does not make sense.

MR. QUIGLEY: So let me try to summarize real quick. The Cambridge Analytical people had to know what they were using was information at least derived from the original -

MR. WYLIE: Yeah.

MR. QUIGLEY: - poisonous tree.

MR. WYLIE: Yeah.

ALEXANDER NIX, CEO of Cambridge Analytica, and his legal counsel, Mr. Muskens

December 14, 2017

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D061.pdf

>>9093933

The majority of the 98 page testimony from Mr. Nix, CEO of Cambridge Analytica, and his legal, Mr. Muskens, was tense at times but no real bombshells IMO.

Starting on page 95, the lawyer reports in-the-moment leaking from the proceedings. Keep in mind that this testimony was done virtually andsomeone on the committee's team was leaking.

MARK ELIAS, ESQ. - For JOHN PODESTA:

PERKINS COIE POLITICAL LAW GROUP

December 13, 2017

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D041.pdf

>>9087901

[Marc Elias, the Perkins Coie attorney who retained the services of Fusion GPS in 2016 to produce the discredited anti-Trump dossier at the behest of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, is one of those lawyers…. Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which in turn hired former British spy Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.]

MR. PODESTA: I think the hacks were conducted by the - by agents of Russian intelligence.

MR. ROONEY: What makes you think that?

MR. PODESTA: – by there has been a lot of forensics done, including by the U.S. Government, and, I think, 17 agencies to the U.S. lntelligence Community have included that the Russians were behind the hacks of both my emails and the DNC emails.

MR. ROONEY: Obviously, you implied that it was coordinated from Russia and Julian Assange. But was there anything that led you to believe other than, you know, an opinion that there was a coordination,between Russia, Julian Assange, and anybody from the Trump campaign?

MR. PODESTA: Well, I would say there are a couple of data points that are at least worth your exploring on this committee: One is that Mr. Trump, prior to the Wikileaks dump that occurred right before the Democratic convention, publicly asked the Russians to continue to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. And then shortly thereafter, I think in conjunction with when the Trump campaign fired Paul Manafort, he tweeted out that it will soon be John Podesta's turn in the barrel. I interpreted that to mean, particularly given the fact that he was going around speaking to different groups and arguing that Wikileaks was about to release damaging information, that those two things might be connected. I didn't know that, but that was like a reasonable suspicion on my part. I think he subsequently continued to kind of point towards release of documents that could occur throughout the period of September. And then, of course, the documents were released on October 7

>>9094242

MR. KING: There was no talk of an investigation at all?

MR. PODESTA: Are you talking about the FBI investigation?

MR. KING: Either the FBI or how about the Obama administration, so for the White House, anybody in the administration?

MR. PODESTA: No. The only person who I spoke with who was quite concerned, I think, about what was going on but was not specific in terms of what his level of information was was Senator Reid. I know that he had been briefed in August. I've subsequently read that he'd been briefed by the lntelligence Committee, but I knew that he had been briefed by the lntelligence Committee. He didn't tell me who he had been briefed by, didn't tell me the substance of the briefing, but he told me he was extremely concerned about the engagement and involvement. And I think in that conversation, we were talking about potential Russian interference in the election.

MR. KING: I didn't expect to be asking questions. I'm going off the top of my head with this one. I thought somebody, before the election or right afterwards, Mrs. Clinton made a reference that she'd been told that the Russians might be involved or look out for Russian involvement.

MR. PODESTA: By someone in the administration?

MR. PODESTA: I think - look, the first time the DNC leaks had – were reported, which was in June of 2016, by The Washington Post, after the forensic experts, who the DNC brought in to understand what had happened to their computers Crowd Strike yeah, Crowd Strike, had already identified, and there was a bunch of independent verification that two units of Russian intelligence, one from the FSB, one from the GRU had attacked the DNC computers. So she was certainly aware of that. But I don't believe – I am not aware that she was briefed by the U.S. Government about what they knew about what was going on.

MR. PODESTA: I think the one other fact, I guess, I would point the committee to and I'm not an expert on this, but I would point the committee to was the DCCC was also hacked. And certain information was dumped in the context of the Republican Florida primaries. Now, that - you know, someone – that, at least in my mind, raises the question of, you know, someone sitting in, you know, the former Soviet Union knowing what information to dump to take out a Democratic challenger to a Republican candidate in a House Florida race seems a high level of sophistication for Russian intelligence. But I don't know whether you're looking at that, but I would recommend that you – maybe somebody wants to take a look at that one.

MR. PODESTA: The DCCC was hacked in the Democratic primaries.

>>9087929

MR. SCHIFF: Yeah, and there's more on that we can go into. I think that there were opposition research files that were dumped also in a Florida race. But there were at least three vehicles used for the dumping of stolen emails. You had Wikileaks and Julian Assange. You had DCLeaks and you had Guccifer 2. The unclassified assessment - and I don't have the precise language, but essentially views Guccifer 2 and perhaps DCLeaks as more direct Russian cutouts as opposed to Wikileaks, which at least has either a complicit party, a useful idiot, or something in between. With respect to the more direct outlets of Guccifer 2 and DCLeaks, were there any aspects of the documents that they dumped, or the timing in which they dumped it that demonstrated a sophistication beyond what you would expect of a foreign intelligence service in terms of knowing the intricacies of the campaign and what would be most advantageous to the Trump campaign or disadvantageous to the Clinton campaign?

MR. SCHIFF: And I know it's impossible to say with precision, but in your view, is it at least possible, if not more than possible, that the combination of the daily dumping of emails and its commingling with the Comey letter and the email investigation ultimately proved to be a decisive factor in the loss?

MR. SCHIFF: I want to turn, if I can, to the issue of potential collusion, and go back over something that you mentioned at the outset. When did you first learn that your computer, your emails may have been hacked?

MR. PODESTA: We had some suspicion of that without full knowledge in early July, maybe late June or early July. [The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m.] Because some of those some of the earliest dumps that were done by DCLeaks contained documents that didn't appear belonged inside the DNC and, you know, housed in the DNC. So it was clear they had hacked the DNC and they were putting documents out from the DNC, but there were some documents that involved internal deliberations, fundraising strategies, et cetera, other documents that appeared to come from people inside the campaign. And I think the campaign, at that point, identified some as perhaps coming from my Gmail account, coming from Ambassador Marshall's Gmail account, and, perhaps, from other Gmail accounts, including some of the younger staff on the campaign who were basically advanced people on the campaign. So there was some sense that there was a group of documents that didn't sort of seem like they belonged at the DNC, and so our suspicions were raised, but we weren't certain at that point what had happened. And I think the we were, of course, on guard and trying to ensure that the hacking was, you know, kept out of the campaign, but that was probably the first moment where we thought that they may have happened.

MR, PODESTA: Well, I had no role in the cybersecurity of the DNC. I was made aware of the hack shortly before it became public information. lf my memory serves me, the California primary was June 6, whatever the Tuesday WAS Shortly thereafter, a few days thereafter, I was informed that the DNC - this probably would have been late that week – that the DNC's computers had been hacked; that they had engaged a firm called Crowd Strike; and that they were going to brief the press that this had occurred and they were taking measures to remedy as best they could the problems that this was causing. I was briefed on that before it was reported, but by a matter of days. I think that would have been Thursday or Friday, and I think the story appeared on Monday.

>>9094401

Could you possibly copy the text and paste it in a post? That way no one has to type it up and we can use it in articles, or graphics or even podcast/video output. Thank you.

>>9087945

MR. SCHIFF: 1Oth or 11th of June. I don't know if it's helpful, but June 14 is the date The Washington Post publicly reported that the DNC had been a victim of hacking.

MR. PODESTA: lt's just in advance of that.

MR. SCHIFF: So you would have learned about this for the first time just in advance of that?

MR. PODESTA: Yes

MR. SCHIFF: And are you in a position at all to comment on the allegations about whether the FBI or DHS sought the DNC server? Was that ever brought to your attention, that issue? So you can't comment on whether they ever sought it?

MR. PODESTA: No.

MR. SCHIFF: Director Comey testified that the FBI ended up getting the information they needed from Crowd Strike. Do you have any insight into that?