The Disappearing Evidence of Democrat Crimes

June 18, 2023

It is amazing how often the crimes of Democrats are ignored or disappear. It is amazing how often the Democrats claim to be the experts on everything, but when forced to testify under oath, their favorite phrases are “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know”.

Some of the disappearing evidence is from the Congressional House Intelligence Committee hearings regarding Trump and the Russian hoax after the 2016 presidential election. All those in the FBI and DOJ who had repeatedly gone on television to claim Trump was guilty of colluding with Russia were forced to testify in those hearings and to admit no such evidence existed. They weren’t really worried because hearings in the Intelligence Committee are held behind closed doors and the information is withheld from the public, and so the public wouldn’t know they had lied.

Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff sat on that committee and in all those hearings. Everyday, he would rush to the nearest microphone to declare, while he couldn’t state exactly what the evidence was since it was confidential, he could, with confidence, state he knew of overwhelming evidence of Trump’s guilt.

Schiff and many who testified were later stunned when those testimonies were declassified, such as many in Obama’s administration:

– Defense Intelligence Agency Director James Clapper,
– Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
– FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCade,
– Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting Ben Rhodes,
– Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chair John Podesta,
– National Security Advisor Susan Rice,
– U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates

These testimonies were declassified and made available to the public on one of the U.S. government websites, accessible to anyone who wanted the truth for themselves. And there it was, in black and white… every single one of those people admitted they knew of nothing that would prove Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the election from poor, mistreated Hillary Clinton.

In fact, as all the following investigations proved, the Russian hoax was cooked up by Hillary and her campaign, presented to President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey and Advisor Susan Rice by the then CIA Director John Brennan. Hillary went on to pay former British MI6 Agent Christopher Steele $12 million to fabricate the dossier used to frame Trump and Steele later presented it to FBI Director Comey to implicate Trump. The ironic part is, the FBI later offered to pay Steele another $1 million to verify the dossier was true. When he couldn’t, it didn’t matter, because the FBI presented to the secret FISA court anyway, declaring it was verified four separate times. Not a whole lot of justice in secret courts…

So what happened, to all 53 of those testimonies? They have been moved from their original location, but anyone who really wants to know the truth can find them: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/features/2753-53-hpsci-transcripts

Below are excerpts from some of the relevant testimony and then the entire testimony for your convenience.

James Clapper, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was questioned. On pages 26 and 27, the Q and A stated:

MR. ROONEY:
“On point number two, with regard to the parameters, which the ranking member mentioned in his opening, deals with collusion and the Russian activities, including links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns. You had testified in the past that you saw no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. Is that still the case or has that changed?”

MR. CLAPPER:
“Well, no, it’s not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence, But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings”

On page 29 of the testimony of then DOJ Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

“Q:
Sure. And would the same answer be for former (redacted) Christopher Steele, who is widely reported to in public reporting to have created the so-called Trump dossier and the salacious allegations therein? Was any of that information utilized in a FISA application for an American citizen under your leadership as Attorney General?

A:
You know, I don’t have any recollection of being briefed on any matters involved Mr. Steele in terms of things that were brought to my attention. And so since I did not review and wasn’t briefed on the FISA applications that may or may not have been authorized in this case, I am not able to speak to the information contained in them”

On page 208 of the testimony of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

MR. GOWDY:
Or have you seen evidence?

MR. MCCABE:
Right, have I personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump’s involvement in the DNC hack?

MR. GOWDY:
Yes.

MR. MCCABE:
No, sir.

MR. GOWDY:
His involvement in the accessing of John Podesta’s email?

MR. MCCABE:
Do I personally see information or evidence that points to President Trump’s personal involvement in the hacking of John Podesta’s email, no, sir.

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair John Podesta had 2 interviews. Page 12 of the first testimony:

“MR. ROONEY:
With your time with the campaign or independently of the campaign, did you learn of anything specific that you knew that there was coordination between actual campaign officials and Russia and the timing of these releases other than just saying I hope that they release more emails because it’s good for me that he does that?

MR. PODESTA: You know, as I said, I think there’s a — there was reporting ongoing at the time, but I have no specific facts or information relating to conversations that may have been had between people from the Trump campaign and either Assange or representatives of the Russian Government, other than what I’ve read in the paper. But there’s a lot in the paper.”

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair John Podesta, pages 47 and 48 of his second testimony:

“MR. CONAWAY:
So back to your firsthand knowledge that the Russians and the Trumps colluded —

MR. PODESTA:
I didn’t say that.

MR. CONAWAY:
‘- conspired, coordinated.

MR. PODESTA:
I didn’t say that. I said that —

MR. CONAWAY:
So no answer to a question to anything Mr. Swalwell asked would speak to that.

MR. PODESTA:
I said the Russians actively interfered in the election.

MR. CONAWAY:
Okay.

MR. PODESTA:
And they did it on behalf of Mr. Trump.

MR. CONAWAY
How do you know they did it on behalf of Trump campaign?

MR. PODESTA: I said on behalf of Mr. Trump.

MR. CONAWAY:
Well, how did .-

MR. PODESTA:
Because it was one-sided, it was purposeful, it was constant. And I think — my law professor always told me never to say “res ip so loqueter” (ph) – but I think the evidence for itself that they were interfering in the election and they doing it on a one-sided basis to hurt Secretary Clinton and, at least by implication, to help Mr. Trump.

MR. CONAWAY:
So implication about help the Trumps. I mean, no – this is your inferences, based on what they did, how they did it, and when they did it, that it was targeted to help the Trumps, but not anything with respect to whether the Trumps might have been —

MR. PODESTA:
Well, I know that —

MR. CONAWAY:
— colluding, coordinating, or conspiring with —

MR. PODESTA:
Well, you developed some information about this, but –

MR. CONAWAY: I’m asking about your information.

MR. PODESTA: Well, I think that — you know, there’s a lot that’s occurred post-election about, you know, what — who talked to who. But I don’t have – I can’t provide the committee with firsthand knowledge.”

On page 15 for Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting Ben Rhodes

“MR. GOWDY:
So do you or have you seen evidence of collusion between Donald J. Trump himself and the Russian Government, had evidence from any source, regardless of whether it’s been corroborated or not corroborated, of collusion to impact or interfere with the 2016 election cycle at either the primary or general election stage?

MR. RHODES:
Again, I wouldn’t have received any information of any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information.

MR. GOWDY:
You say you would not have seen that. To the layperson, given your title and given the responsibilities you had in the White House, they might be surprised that those intelligence products would not have crossed your desk. Why would they not have?

MR. RHODES: Because if — again, if the information involved a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. person, that information would not have been briefed to me as a White House official. That was put in a different category than the routine intelligence briefings I received on a day-to-day basis”

Pages 26-28 of the testimony of National Security Advisor Susan Rice:

“MR. GOWDY:
Okay. Before you separated from service, did you have any evidence or had you come across any evidence, or intelligence, for those who don’t like the word “evidence,” that Donald Trump conspired with the Russian Government to interfere with or influence the 2016 election?

MS. RICE:
Donald Trump himself?

MR. GOWDY:
Yes, ma’am.

MS. RICE:
Sorry, what was the verb you used?

MR. GOWDY:
I think I said “conspire,” but I better write them down.

MS. RUEMMLER:
And I think you should limit your answers to intelligence, because that’s what you would have been privy to.

MR. GOWDY:
Well, but your lawyer raises a really good point. When I use the word “evidence,” how does that differ from the word “intelligence,” in your mind?

MS. RICE:
lntelligence would be material provided by the lntelligence Community, in most instances classified, but something that l would receive as part of my intelligence take, as opposed to something I’d read in the newspaper or as opposed to something that I might hear on the street.

MR. GOWDY:
Well, your lawyer raises a good point, but it’s going to require me to ask you about both. Because if I don’t ask you about the other, then some of my friends on the other side may accuse me of not asking all the right questions. So we’ll use the word “conspire.” And right now we’re just talking about Donald Trump. And we’ll start with intelligence, and then we’ll move to evidence.

MS. RICE:
So, to repeat the question, do I recalt seeing any intelligence prior to my separation from government that indicated or suggested that Donald Trump per se conspired with Russia?

MR. GOWDY:
To interfere with or influence the 2016 election.

MS. RICE: I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior – of conspiracy prior to my departure.

MR. GOWDY:
Now, it could just be the way I’m hearing it and not the way that you’re saying it, but you emphasized one of the words in that sentence. You emphasized the word “intelligence.”

MS. RICE:
Isn’t that what you asked?

MR. GOWDY:
lt is.

MS. RICE:
Okay.

MR. GOWDY:
But it’s going to lead me to ask, was there something that you don’t consider intelligence, other forms of evidence? And I realize people don’t like the word “evidence.” I just don’t know what other word to use.

MS. RICE:
Not that I specifically recall.

MR. GOWDY:
All right.
Insert the word “coordinate.” Evidence that Donald Trump himself coordinated with the Russian Government. lntelligence first, and then evidence second.

MS. RICE:
As opposed to people close to him?

MR. GOWDY:
Yes, ma’am

MS. RICE:
I don’t recall intelligence or evidence to that effect.

MR. GOWDY:
All right. Well, I’ll skip the next question then.
We’ve done “conspire.” We’ve done “coordinate.” How about we do “collude?

MS. RICE:
Same thing.

MR. GOWDY:
Same answer?

MS. RICE:
Yes.”

Pages 22 – 23 of the testimony for U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates:

“MS. YATES:
Yeah. Let me try to approach it this way. And certainly John Carlin and Mary McCord are going to be better sources for you than I am on this because that’s all John McCord and Mary McCord did every day. I mean, they were in the National Security Division, They were focused just on this. And this was an important topic, but I had the whole Department of Justice that I’m also trying to be involved in. So I relied on the National Security Division to be more in the weeds on this.

That being said, this was obviously an important topic, though. ‘ Let me see if I can try to I approach it this way: At the time that I was at the Department of Justice, it was at the beginning stages of when the FBI was looking into the issue of, were there any U.S. citizens that were involved with the Russians and the Russians’ efforts to impact the election? So it was the very
beginning stages. And at that point, they were primarily looking at trying to determine what the relationships were. You know, before you figure out whether there was any illicit agreement, you’re trying to figure out who has got a relationship with who? And that was the primary stage that we were in at that point, was determining what individuals associated with – and I guess that means you all need to go. ls that what the –

MR. CONAWAY:
Not yet.

MS. YATES:
What individuals associated with the Trump campaign had relationships with individuals in Russia and specifically that were involved in attempts to influence the election. So it was in the early stages of what I would call determining – trying to determine relevant facts, rather than being able to reach a conclusion about whether there was any of the three Cs that you’ve got
there: coordination, collusion, or conspiracy.”

I do find it amazing that after four years, countless investigations, millions of documents submitted by President Donald Trump and his campaign, all proving neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election, some are still running around claiming Trump colluded with Russia. Some of them are even talking heads on various news outlets. It is like that old saying: “Tell a lie often enough, people will believe it is true.” No matter how much evidence you share to the contrary, some people are just too embarrassed to admit they fell for the lies. I have had to make that admission myself a few times, but then it just makes me more determined to learn the truth for myself.

I am sure there are many Americans as frustrated as I am, that now that the Durham Report has been released, proving Hillary, Democrat party, FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI, etc. were all behind the frame job and crimes, the statute of limitations has expired and they all walked away scot-free. Deleting 33,000 emails, smashing phones and removing sim cards (some with the help of FBI agents)… they always say the cover-up is worse than the crime, but in the end, it is who you know that can keep your butt out of jail… and so the corruption grows.