LOOK WHAT I HAVE!! THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMEY HEARING!!!
Yes, I’m going to share it with Notes from the Front members; no, not today (probably tomorrow, so y’all have some light holiday reading); yes I had to pay a pretty penny for it; no, I haven’t read the whole thing yet; and yes, I had to track down the court reporter on a holiday week to get it (and she was very nice about it).
Here’s just a taste to whet your appetite (Whitaker is the attorney for the administration):
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. I was involved in 25 receiving in camera provisions of the grand jury transcripts and tapes, and it became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript of the Comey presentation by Ms. Halligan which preceded and came after her presentation of the witness testimony in the case. There also is a missing section of what occurred between 4:28 and the return of the grand jury indictment, and it appears to me that there was no court reporter present, or if he or she was present, did not take down what happened during that time period. So how does the attorney general ratify and say that she has reviewed the grand jury transcripts when they did not exist in the records of the Justice Department at that time?
MR. WHITAKER: Well, it’s true that — it is true,
Your Honor, you’re right, that we didn’t have the intro and back end of the grand jury transcripts when we presented that.
THE COURT: What the sole prosecutor and the grand jury said.
MR. WHITAKER: But I think all that’s necessary — but that is not what ratification doctrine requires for a principal to ratify.
THE COURT: It may not require it, but she’s done it. She said that she reviewed it and that on the basis of her review, she ratifies it.
MR. WHITAKER: Well, she said she reviewed the proceedings.
THE COURT: She could not have.
Source