Yates says Comey had the FBI ambush Michael Flynn in the White House ‘unilaterally,’ was unaware Steele sub-source folded on Trump-Russia allegations

[Billiejeens]

“I didn’t authorize that interview because I wasn’t told about it in advance… I was upset that Director Comey didn’t coordinate that with us and acted unilaterally.”

That was former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, telling Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in Aug. 5 testimony that former FBI Director James Comey did not clear with the Justice Department his plan to send FBI agents to interrogate then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 four days after President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

“Did Comey go rogue?” Senator Graham asked Yates.

“You could use that term, yes,” Yates responded, explaining later in her testimony, “Director Comey was part of the Department of Justice and I expect him to tell me about that…”

Yates says Comey had the FBI ambush Michael Flynn in the White House âunilaterally,â was unaware Steele sub-source folded on Trump-Russia allegations in Jan. 2017

By Robert Romano “I didn’t authorize that interview because I wasn’t told about it in advance… I was upset that Director Comey didn’t coordinate that with us and acted unilaterally.” That was former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, telling Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham...

dailytorch.com

BJ -
I always thought that Sally Yates might be one that wasn't going to go down with the ship.
She didn't have enough skin in the game.

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

 

[Billiejeens]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

 

[Billiejeens]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

 

[jwoodie]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

The substance of this particular comment is an inter-departmental argument with no relevance on the underlying crime Flynn committed.

 

[Billiejeens]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

The substance of this particular comment is an inter-departmental argument with no relevance on the underlying crime Flynn committed.

We have been over this
Flynn committed no crime.

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

The substance of this particular comment is an inter-departmental argument with no relevance on the underlying crime Flynn committed.

We have been over this
Flynn committed no crime.

I remember you making stuff up in order to pretend Flynn committed no crime.

But he definitely committed a crime.

 

[Billiejeens]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

The substance of this particular comment is an inter-departmental argument with no relevance on the underlying crime Flynn committed.

We have been over this
Flynn committed no crime.

I remember you making stuff up in order to pretend Flynn committed no crime.

But he definitely committed a crime.

I dismiss you.

 

[colfax_m]

This was not new information. I believe this was included in the IG report from last year that one read.

Thanks for your opinion.
The testifying under oath was new

It was a rehash of things we already knew. Theatre.

I dunno who we is.

Guarantee bubble people didn't know -

Unless Rachel covered it many still don't.

The information is publicly available, so we refers to the general public. Did you read the IG report?

How does your yammering have relevance to the substance of what she said?

The substance of this particular comment is an inter-departmental argument with no relevance on the underlying crime Flynn committed.

We have been over this
Flynn committed no crime.

I remember you making stuff up in order to pretend Flynn committed no crime.

But he definitely committed a crime.

I dismiss you.

You reply to me.