And another thing: no PADAG testimony?

Now that I think more about it, why isn’t there more testimony, sworn statement or any interview information from the PADAG in question, whether it was Matthew Axelrod or someone else.

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Lisa Page and Strzok Man are in the OIG report, but nothing from PADAG, other than one footnote, about what he told OIG, that the PADAG call leak was accurate to what he recalled, but that

“…the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

What does it signify that PADAG is just a footnote?  Reminds me of the the tiny quote of Bill Priestap in the Nunes Memo.  Priestap’s quote signified that he was talking to OIG or Huber or both, and perhaps that he had flipped, being the only guy still in place in his original job and not demoted to HR or some such.  PADAG is out of government now?  Or it was someone other than Axelrod and still inside the DOJ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s