LISA PAGE BOMBSHELL: FBI COULDN’T PROVE TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION BEFORE MUELLER APPOINTMENT

edited September 20 in General
SUMMARY FROM VARIOUS NEWS ARTICLES

***NOTE: THIS IS THE SAME LISA PAGE THAT WAS FIRED FROM THE FBI BECAUSE OF HER ANTI-TRUMP TEXT WITH FORMER FBI AND MUELLER LEAD INVESTIGATOR PETER STRZOK***

9/15/2018
By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messages she exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia.

Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer years from now, her most consequential pronouncement may not have been typed on her bureau-issued Samsung smartphone to her colleague and lover.

Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

I reached out to Page's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress.

It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

For those who might cast doubt on the word of a single FBI lawyer, there’s more.

Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer.

Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance.

Strzok added that, while he raised the idea of impeachment in some of his texts to Page, “I am, again, was not, am not convinced or certain that it will,” he told the inspector general.

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special counsel probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special counsel?

Page’s comments also mean FBI and Justice officials likely leaked a barrage of media stories just before and after Mueller’s appointment that made the evidence of collusion look far stronger than the frontline investigators knew it to be. Text messages show contacts between key FBI and DOJ players and The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The New York Times during the ramp-up to Mueller’s probe.

And that means the news media — perhaps longing to find a new Watergate, to revive sagging fortunes — were far too willing to be manipulated by players in a case that began as a political opposition research project funded by Clinton's campaign and led by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, who despised Trump.

Finally, Page’s statement signals that the nation’s premier intelligence court may not have been given a complete picture of the evidence — or lack thereof — as it approved an extraordinary surveillance intrusion into an American presidential nominee’s campaign just weeks before Election Day.

There was no fault to the FBI checking whether Trump was compromised by Russia; that is a classic counterintelligence responsibility.

The real fault lies in those leaders who allowed a secret investigation to mushroom into a media maelstrom driven by leaks that created a story that far exceeded the evidence, and then used that false narrative to set a special counsel flying downhill ahead of his skis.

No matter where Mueller ends his probe, it is now clear the actions that preceded his appointment turned justice on its head, imposing the presumption of guilt upon a probe whose own originators had reason to doubt the strength of their evidence.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller

Comments

  • Per the Daily Wire: LISA PAGE TESTIFIED THE FBI HADN’T SEEN EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BY THE TIME MUELLER WAS APPOINTED

    HIGHLIGHTS
    *Former FBI attorney Lisa Page testified in July that the bureau had not seen strong evidence of Trump-Russia collusion 10 months into the investigation.

    *Page made the admission after being asked about a text message she received from Peter Strzok in which he expressed concern that “there’s no big there there.”

    *Page and Strzok have both come under fire for sending anti-Trump text messages.

    FBI officials had not seen strong evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government by the time Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page told Congress in July.

    Congressional sources say that Page made the admission during a line of questioning about a text message that she exchanged with Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who led the Trump-Russia probe.

    “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there,” Strzok wrote to Page on May 18, 2017, a day after Mueller was appointed special counsel.

    In the text, Strzok was contemplating whether or not to join the Mueller team. He eventually did so, but was removed from the investigation in July 2017 after his anti-Trump text messages with Page were discovered.

    Page testified that Strzok’s text message reflected his uncertainty with the outcome of the investigation.

    “I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page told Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, according to a transcript of her testimony reviewed by Fox News.

    “I think it’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” she said at another point in her testimony.

    Page was questioned over the course of two days in mid-July by members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Reform Committees.

    “It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point,” Page continued.

    “But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn’t ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum.”

    “It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point,” Page continued.

    “But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn’t ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum.”

    “We didn’t have an answer. That’s obvious. And I think we all sort of went back and forth about like what — what the answer was really going to be.”

    Page’s testimony reflects what a source close to Strzok told The Daily Caller back in January, after the release of the May 2017 text message.

    The source said that Strzok had not seen strong evidence of collusion involving members of the campaign and that he was concerned about joining an investigation that could go nowhere.

    The collusion investigation was formally opened on July 31, 2016 after the FBI received information from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding then-Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Downer claimed that Papadopoulos said during a May 10, 2016 meeting in London that Russia had derogatory information about Hillary Clinton.

    Two weeks earlier, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud told Papadopoulos that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands” of her emails.

    Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in jail on Sept. 7 for lying to the FBI about the extent of his contacts with Mifsud. He has not been accused of conspiring with Mifsud, and he denies handling any Clinton emails.

    The FBI’s lead on collusion appears to have drawn heavily from the infamous Steele dossier. The bureau cited the dossier extensively in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

    The dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC, alleges that the Trump campaign coordinated directly with the Kremlin to hack and disseminate Democrats’ emails in order to influence the 2016 election.

    The dossier accuses Page, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen of taking part in the clandestine negotiations. All have denied the allegations.
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/lisa-page-mueller-collusion-fbi/
  • What does it means?

    Simple, the FBI couldn't find any evidences to link Trump and his campaign to Russia or collusion with Russia in its year long investigations into Trump even before Mueller was appointed. If 35,000 people in the the FBI couldn't find anything what makes you think Mueller and his 17 democrat lawyers could? The FBI has forensic department and counter intelligence department the intelligence branch the cyber branch and all couldn't find anything yet this democrat witch hunt think it can.

    When the FBI couldn't find anything the anti Trump agents within the FBI and DOJ leaked the Clinton dossier. A dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Clinton Campaign as campaigns opposition against Trump.

  • its a freaking witch hunt.
  • edited September 21
    These are my favorite takeaway from this testimony she made under oath in front of the Senate.

    "With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling".

    Even with a secret FISA order to spy on the Trump campaign electronically and tapping their phones and email they couldn't make a case of collusion.

    Here's another one....

    "Shortly after he was fired, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified".

    Comey admit there wasn't any credible evidences to justify investigating Trump or his campaign for collusion.

    And also this....

    “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there,” Strzok wrote to Page on May 18, 2017, a day after Mueller was appointed special counsel".

    Here The FBIs lead counter intelligence agent who lead the special counsel investigations against Trump acknowledged what we know all along, and that is the investigations will lead to nothing because there was no collusion.
  • There will be hell to pay when Mueller conclude his investigations. The conclusion will be no collusion. And democrats will be the ones paying the bill. If this all wraps up i expect the republicans and Trump especially will pay back his democrats colleagues 100 times worst. He is a strong believer in fighting back hard and fighting back with no punches being held back. If the GOP retain their majority in both the houses or in the senate after mid terms expect them to reopen the clinton campaign and pursue what democrats did in ukraine with Russians help. It will be magnificent.
  • We were all watching her testimony here at the office on Guam. And when she testified that they had nothing me and 9 guys in my division all looked at each other and shake our heads. Our section chief is a liberal leaning former Navy puke so we didn't say anything.

    We all met at our favorite bar at Gaum and started laughing our asses off. We knew it was all bogus from the beginning plus our friends in the FBI office branch here in guam said it was all nothing a year ago.

    Liberals tears are flowing.
  • i watched it too and i was and when it was all done i light up a fat blunt and went back inside and watched it again on YouTube. MAGA
  • With this testimony i am now certain that this entire Russian investigation is a circus. It is now clear why Mueller hasn't implicated anyone from the Trump Campaign or Trump himself or anyone from his inner circle because he has nothing.
  • And all of a sudden the liberals all became quiet. They know in the end run The special counsel will find nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.