>>9134665 (Q, lp)

>>9134686 (lp)

>>9137054

>>9137060

This Anon has been waiting for these two one-year delta Q posts to come around. I remember the linked video as if it was yesterday. And I've had some text waiting to post. But the bake moves very fast. Loved Admiral Rogers portion of the same hearing. TY tons Admiral Rogers!

>It might also give us context of TG role then and soon-to-be (even though he is getting a little hammered right now).

Yes, this is important. Thought it would be worthwhile to include one of the commentor's summary and further context of Gowdy and Comey exchange from the Real Clear Politics site since that was where I first saw it and made anonymous comments too.

>Sorry…it is quite long. Shout out to whomeever Ran72ger is from 3 years ago.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/20/trey_gowdy_grills_comey_who_has_the_power_to_unmask_a_us_citizens_communications.html

PART 1

>Ran72ger • 3 years ago:

In Monday’s House Intel committee hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy laid out the structure for an investigation to follow into the leaking of classified material revolving around what happened to Mike Flynn. It is a question that commentators on this site have asked since early January, who authorized the “wiretap” on Flynn’s conversation and why. Gowdy structured the basis for an internal FBI investigation in his question and answer session with James Comey, head of the FBI. Most notable, he proved in Comey’s own testimony that the FBI must investigate the FBI and the Comey was a potential leaker, one of a few people able to gain access to the leaked information. Gowdy went on to establish how such an investigation should be conducted and set the stage for the second House hearing pointing out that the three witnesses appearing before them at that time (James Clapper, John Brennan, and Sally Yates) are also the potential leakers.

Gowdy’s rational for doing this is summed in one statement he made. “The names of US citizens that were supposed to be statutorily protected (by FISA allowed general collection of information) are no longer protected”. What follows is a step by step of how Gowdy laid the foundation for the following investigation that Comey must now conduct. Unlike the Hillary investigation, he has no President Obama or AG Loretta Lynch to act as a screen for him.

Monday, Comey used secrecy and criminal investigation as reasons to not answer questions. But now President Trump is in office. President Trump with one sentence can remove Comey from using either secrecy or criminal investigation as an excuse when he testifies before the House Intel Committee sometime in the future. If President Trump removes either reason, Comey would also be subjected to answering the wild accusations of the Dems on the Intel committee as the Dems continue their attempts to obstruct justice. In a sense Comey is safe until something happens that cause the Dems to go silent and stop confusing the issue; but after listening to the Gowdy/Comey exchanges, that may not be necessary.

1. Gowdy established the fact that Comey had people inside the FBI including Comey who should be suspects in the leaking of classified information collected without court order on Americans under a general collection process authorized by Congress.

1. Gowdy established that Comey agreed that it was vital and indispensable for the House to know the universe of people inside the FBI who could be potential leakers. Comey replied that the House Intel would get that info. Gowdy expanded the list to CIA, DOJ, and the White House.

>>9134665 (Q, lp)

>>9137365

>Sorry about the large amount of text in multiple posts.

PART 2

1. Gowdy refused to accept Comey’s argument that by application of training, the FBI had established a culture and re-interrated that the House Intel committee wanted FBI names of potential leakers included in any list, not just the 20 named by NSA.

1. Gowdy established with Comey the other potential leakers of the intelligence community who had access via request to NSA to “unmask” to be included in any list sent to the House Intel committee and cut Comey off from submitting the 20 NSA names only.

1. Gowdy then outlined with Comey how Comey would conduct an investigation into finding the leakers. Gowdy next moved to do you think Director Clapper knew the name that appeared in the NYT and the Post and reluctantly drew from Comey that Clapper could have had access (and thus is a potential leaker). Gowdy then established that Brennan, Rice, Lynch, and Yates were all potential leakers. Comey could not confirm Rhodes. As a result, Gowdy set the expectation for the names of the potential leakers to be on the list submitted. As a result of this exchange, Clapper, Brennan, and Yates have been established as potential sources of the leaks publically before they appear before the House Intel committee next week.

1. Gowdy then asked if Comey if he had briefed President Obama on Michael Flynn; Comey took the position that to answer that question would impact other investigations. When Comey was asked at a different point in the hearing did you (Comey) give the dossier to then President Trump at the intelligence briefing given in Trump Towers to then President Trump, Comey answered that he could not for similar reasons divulge that he was at the meeting. When asked didn’t the video of him going into the elevator confirm already he was in the meeting, Comey said that you don’t know what I did once I went up the elevator. My feeling it was at that point that Comey lost the confidence of the Republicans on the committee. He was obstructing, not cooperating. Comey must have guessed what was coming next. And it came. How with only four people in the Trump Tower briefing room and you (Comey) giving Trump the dossier; how could that fact be known by the press 20 minutes later and be circulating the media reports? Comey may not have said the words, but everybody now understood that one of the four people briefing President-elect Trump had to have leaked the info on the dossier.

1. Gowdy would later ask Comey if there an exception in the law (on the felonious distribution of classified information) for current or former US officals who request anonymity (to release classified info)? Comey replied no. Is there an exception in the law for reporters? That is a harder question for reporter criminality Comey answered. Gowdy asked Comey the FISA statues do use the word publish doesn’t it? It does, but the DOJ has struggled with that was Comey’s answer. Lots of people have struggled with it, Gowdy replied, but are you (Comey) aware of an exception in the current dissemination of classified information that carves out an exception for reporters. Comey answered that he was not aware of an exception but no reporter has been prosecuted. Gowdy replied there have been a lot of statues at bar in this investigation like the Logan Act for which no one has been prosecuted.

This exchange is why if you notice all the leaks naming the intelligence community as a source have dried up in the past two days. The reason that has happened it that it sets the stage for reporters, most likely at the NYT and the Washington Post, to be subjects of an FBI investigation. Gowdy then went on to establish how a reporter or reporters could be charged for a felony.

>>9134665 (Q, lp)

>>9137365 < Part 1

>>9137380 < Part 2

>Assuming that many folks are newbies and haven't encountered this material or remainder of the Gowdy/Comey exchange. BTW: Thanks fellow Anons for all that you do!

This is also a huge shout out to Trey Gowdy. The recent transcripts that he was a part of were TONS more fun to read than any others. Almost entertaining, right Anons!

PART 3

1. Gowdy next set out to show that neither criminality or espionage were reasons for unmasking the leaking material, the two reasons allowed under the FISA law. This is important to eliminate any claim that the government was helped by the leaks. Gowdy started by saying since Comey and the FBI had the leaked info they did not get help by the reporting of the same material in any matter of criminality; and that Rogers and the NSA had similar access to the leaked material so the leaks did not help NSA and the intelligence community. Both Comey and Rogers agreed. Gowdy then concluded with those two motives gone, and that leaves some other nefarious motive.

1. Gowdy next went to the need for the investigation into the leaks stating first asking Comey if there is an investigation. Comey waffled behind the excuse he can’t comment on an on-going investigation. Gowdy said that he was trying hard to not get Comey to discuss the “facts at bar”. The names of US citizens that were supposed to be statutorily protected are no longer protected Gowdy stated. Gowdy then eliminated the Comey excuse that 90% of the leaks were false, but that 10% are really really important. He set the scope of the investigation not giving Comey an out to expand and confuse. Further Gowdy narrowed it to the leaks in the past two months. Comey did not respond to that.

1. Gowdy then asked if Comey can assure the American people that he will investigate the leaks. Comey waffled, but Gowdy would have none of it. Gowdy said he was not going to argue with him today, this rises to level of a crime. He needs to seek authority (from Sessions?). It suddenly became important that Comey may not have sought such authority since Sessions took office. Did he ask Yates? Gowdy continued with we (the American people) have granted you certain powers to keep us safe, when those powers are misused and the motive is not criminal (or espionage-my words), I will bet you that my fellow citizens are re-thinking their side of the equation because that citizen could be them next time…until we start seriously investigating what Congress thought was serious enough to attach a 10 year prison sentence to.

1. Comey then stated that two things that he thought it was serious also and that he wanted to note that the pending program in front of the House called the “702” was not the same as this program we are talking about. Comey should never have gone there. Gowdy replied you are correct, but it is a distinction that most of the people watching would not recognize. But it is another government program with the people are authorizing with the promise they would be protected. It is another program, but those watching it is another government official leaking the name of another US citizen. You want it re-authorized, but it is in jeopardy if we don’t get this resolved. The 702 program will be decided by August or late summer. Now Comey has a time window to conduct an FBI investigation into leaks. If he wants “702” funding, he best have answers by late August.

>>9137402

Yes. We've all felt that we were let down throughout this process.

However, I learned a lot from the Benghazi hearings. Without them taking place we wouldn't have known about HRC emails, etc.

Knowing specific details of the context of the attack ("Stand down", "No support needed"), I was ticked off at the report initially. Heck, I remember looking at the number of view on the YouTube video at the time and there was only something like a 145 views when it was being initially being blamed for the attack.

But I learned that the Committee and Gowdy did their job. We weren't quite aware of how corrupt those that were supposed to take the next step (FBI/DOJ) were.

We needed a new Sheriff in town too!

We've needed a whole bunch of new people/opportunities in place and likewise the exit of many others.

We didn't realize the level of attacks that would take place once over the target.

Did we really know how bad the MSM would get?

>>9137407 (Agree)

>POTUS, Gowdy, Nunes, et. al., have to play by the book and follow the law. Takes time unfortunately.

>>9137412

Yep…some habits are hard to drop and some are hard to learn. Particularly, the "small" ones…haha…

small = small

>Eventually I'll get the hang of it. TY Frens.

>>9137240

>>9137142

>>9137104

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/66b731b597329bb8dc5ba412784d54e4fd5f69fa8f221c78d6d686405cf464b1

Does it or does it not link up?

Well…this is what links up when the file name is entered. Haven't read through the email enough for any goodies yet.

>Got another one we can try?

In the meantime, Second the Notable

>>9137404 (Yes, ..but it is still applied by the original classification authority)

>>9137272

>>9137104

>>9137528

>>9137566

>Here's another one:

>https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/76e5eef37501086b1fd8f2bff51b1537d78acaf84dbc4f504860ccbe041846ae

>From the recent PANIC in DC Q Post image file name.

Again, a portion of the email had a B6 classification redaction.

>>9137272

>>9137528 (1)

>>9137582

>>9137584 (2)

>>9137593

>>9137660 (More?)

Here's another interesting one from the image file name on "Stealth Bomb-Drain It" Q post on 7 May.

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/5a9066b5aae605cd008b4648

"Stealth Bomb" and "Bomb at Sufi Shrine"…What?!

Note that I am not an expert is document classification details, but Hillary was an Original Classification Authority…hence, shouldn't this particular email be a classified email contained solely in a classified system? Well…likely…thinks me, because if our folks' systems have a classified incident…the SPILLAGE is noted and all is locked down during the immediate investigation.

So that's 3 for 3 image file names that have tied easily to Wikileaks and HRC email.

Are we just having fun on the Night Shift or is this useful Anons?

Baker, unless this image file connection has been covered in the past, suggest this might be Notable as a grouped set?

>Text from HRC Email:

----

BOMB AT SUFI SHRINE

From: Hillary Clinton

To: Jake Sullivan

Date: 2010-06-30 11:25

Subject: BOMB AT SUFI SHRINE

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05775315 Date: 08/31/2015

RELEASE IN FULL

From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.corn>

Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:25 PM

To: 'sullivanjj@state.gov '

Subject: Re: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Can you get me more info about the shrine?

Original Message

From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>

To: H

Sent: Thu Jul 01 18:24:02 2010

Subject: Fw: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Fyi

Original Message

From: Holbrooke, Richard

To: Sullivan, Jacob J

Sent: Thu Jul 01 18:07:11 2010

Subject: Fw: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Jake please pass to hillary. I will call. She may want to, especially given forthcoming trip. R PS–tell her I had a good (I think)u talk with Misha S today. Hope it helps trip.

Original Message

From: Nasr, S Vali R

To: 'HolbrookeR@state.govi <HolbrookeR@state.gov>

Sent: Thu Jul 01 17:32:48 2010

Subject: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Richard

3 bombs devastated the shrine of Data Ganjbakhsh (the most sacred Muslim place in all of South Asia, and the shrine S

was supposed to go to). Aside from loss of life, this is a major blow to Pakistan. I recommend that you call Qureshi,

Nawaz and Pasha (who will be here tomorrow). This will either break Pakistanis or will get them into the fight. This

shrine is deeply tied to the foundation of Islam in Pakistan.

Vali Nasr