Listen and follow very closely to the question put forth by Rep Grothman and the responce of IG Horowitz.

by mtk

[@01:27:55] Rep. Grothman asks questions about the “small group” within the FBI being “shocked” and “stunned” to discover the FBI Director leaked FBI investigative material to the media.

.

youtu.be/cH6ltqAD8dY

theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/18/inspector-general-michael-horowitz-testifies-on-matters-of-high-interest/

[@01:29:50] Rep Grothman yields the balance of his time to Jim Jordan. Rep Jordan then asks additional questions about exactly who was in the “small group” who had a debriefing immediately following the meeting between James Comey and President-elect Trump.

It is very subtle, but listen closely to Rep Grothman questioning IG Horowitz.

I believe it was the main theoretical reason for his yeilding his time back to Rep Jordan. To say in essence, with what IG Horowitz just stated in responce to my question, “I have heard enough.”

Listen and follow very closely to the question put forth by Rep Grothman and the responce of IG Horowitz.

Look I get it, IG Horowitz is making statements that requires a degree of threading the political needle.
Yet, just early when responding Rep. Jordan direct question, “Was the President elect under investigation at the time of Jan 6th, 2017, this is after Rep Jordan using the word ‘pending’ many times when formulating his line of questioning in regard to any form of investigation characterizations.
What was IG Horowitz responce, “I don’t know if I am in a position to say, one way or…”

So it is a question IG Horowitz does not want to answer.

It all revolves around line of many avenues of questioning that has been extensively cover by the CTH under the CYA memo of Sally Yates and the so called the outrage trap analysis. The license to lie is what I would call it, but I digress.

Then Rep. Meadows plays the ‘friendly’ interviewer hand by contrasting a role reversal of puting the OIG in a hypothetical similar circumstance of leaking to advance an investigation that is before the OIG.
Mr. Meadows then asks about comparing and contrasting what Congressional Oversight has been told and the OIG’s findings.
It is all a song and a dance designed to couch the only response the IG is sure to make. “Yes we, the OIG gets these types of Oversight ‘inconsistences’ all the time.”

Up next is Rep. Grothman, where I started to write.

Rep. Grothman, does not beat around the bush and gets right to the point. Mr Flynn was under investigation, yet the FBI Director Comey leaked materials his staff and advisors found shocking that he would do such a thing.
Remembering this investigation of Mr. Flynn was occuring well before the Trump adminstration took office. The leaks took place shortly after the incoming admistration took Office when it suited the needs of establishing the grander ‘collusion’ narrative the President would be shortly facing.

So on one hand, the FBI Director’s staff and advisors found this shocking, since Mr. Flynn was under an active investigation long before adminstration took office.

My question would be and the one question Rep. Jordan, Meadows and all others are not asking, “What did Mr. Comey have a second separate set of staff and advisors for the Jan 6th, 2017 Trump Tower Briefing.
That did not find it shocking they where all actively planning and rehearsing this Jan 6th Briefing. Or are these staff and advisors the one and the same.

Remember Rep. Jordan already asked questions of IG Horowitz about this meeting and whether the President was under investigation, to which the IG replied in the end, “I don’t know if I am a position…”

Then how about, “Did Director Comey’s staff and advisors find it shocking, the President-elect was not under ‘their’ investigative purview, when they role played the Briefing with the inclusion of Brennan and Clapper. Let alone there is no word on, “What the staff and advisors thought when Director Comey leaked the essence of Jan 6th meeting to the media verse their exclaimed ‘shock’ over the Mr. Flynn leaks.

How are we to reconcile this after all this time spent on Mr Mueller’s report finding, “No Collision, No Obstruction”.

Two things are at work here, eviserating the CYA license to lie, and the predicate that the entire ‘Collision’ narrative was built on REVERFIED ‘bought and paid for’ DNC/HRC opposition research.

Research, which from many sources and at many times their own internals prior to January 2017 where all saying the same thing, “This is political nonsense”.
Nonsense used to get FISAs. Even the love birds chit chatted about an ‘Insurance plan in the event…’

These people where all reacting to the stress of carring HRC across the finish line by keeping her viable during the election, In the words of the love birds, “There is no way she looses…”

Well, she lost. And, the political animals that they are launched an investigation to railroad the incoming adminstration for no other reason than fear, that the Trump adminstration would launch an investigation over the steps the FBI/DoJ took to keep HRC viable through the election.

What!!! Is there another conclusion that can be drawn or made.
Uhmm… What about that many parts of the collision narratives that where set in place many months before the election. How can the small group plotters, then reconcile that they didn’t premeditate and pull the trigger on Jan 6th Briefing and head down a road of no return as the next logical step of the dossier coolaid they had been drinking.

Because if the the launch of the ‘Collision’ witch hunt was not predicated by reactionary fears of the Trump adminstration reopening the email investigation, the alternatives are looking like CYA is going to be shot to hell.

In my opinion that is what occured today.