Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FBI Couldn’t Find Trump-Russia Collusion, and Neither Could Bob Woodward

FBI Couldn’t Find Trump-Russia Collusion, and Neither Could Bob Woodward

Justice turned on its head: “imposing the presumption of guilt upon a probe whose own originators had reason to doubt the strength of their evidence”

Buried amid all the anti-Trump “Russia, Russia, Russia” derangement are a couple of potentially explosive revelations.

Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer and mistress of former FBI agent Peter Strzok, admitted that the FBI couldn’t prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia at the time Robert Mueller took over the investigation, and Bob Woodward admits that after searching “hard” for two years, he found no evidence of collusion, either.

In response to questioning during a congressional interview, Page told Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX) that as of May, 2017, the FBI had found no connection between Trump and Russia that pointed to collusion.

John Solomon writing for the Hill reports:

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.

. . . . “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 a special prosecutor 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.

Considering that Page was lead on the FBI’s Russia case in 2016 and helped with the transition to Mueller, this is a rather significant admission.

Solomon continues:

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 Hillary Clinton dirt from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance.

. . . . 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 prosecutor 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 prosecutor?

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.

Ultimately, as Solomon concludes, “[n]o 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.”

Read the whole thing.

It’s not just Page dropping this bombshell about the FBI being unable to unearth any evidence of collusion.  Veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward told Hugh Hewitt that during the two years he spent researching his recent book, he looked “hard” for evidence of collusion and found none.

Real Clear Politics reports:

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, ‘Fear,’ he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it “hard” and yet turned up nothing.

“So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?” Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.

“I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard,” Woodward answered. “And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.”

“But you’ve seen no collusion?” Hewitt asked again to confirm.

“I have not,” Woodward affirmed.

The prof wrote in April:

This is an all-out assault on Trump and the election result.

It’s no longer about Russian collusion, if it ever was.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that he was right on both counts and that it never was about Russian collusion.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Collusion walk into a bar….

They’re still faking, pretending that they’re not just putting lipstick on a pig, but that they even have a pig. Or, for that matter, lipstick.

“. . . had reason to doubt the strength of their evidence.”

That’s a serious bit of fluffing-up of the real situation—that they have no evidence at all. “Strength” of imaginary evidence doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome prosecutor?

Let me repeat this again. The Mueller investigation was NEVER ABOUT ANY TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION. It was designed to protect the people involved in the criminal activities which resulted in illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign as well as the other illegal actions which occurred during the Obama Administrations. If Mueller et al could not find evidence of an impeachable offense, then it attempted to bring pressure to bear to neutralize any investigation into the illegal activities during the last 8 years. So fr neither is working for them.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | September 17, 2018 at 12:36 am

    Youu mean like this LI foe is trying to protect themselves like the Clintons?

    Critics Question Motives Behind Bezos’ New $2 Billion Charity

    But for whatever reason (maybe it was the intensifying political pressure from Bernie Sanders’ “Stop BEZOS” act, or positive PR ahead of Amazon’s much-hyped HQ2 announcement, or even the fact that Amazon Web Services is jockying for an immensely valuable DoD contract), Bezos decided that he wanted to improve his public image.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | September 17, 2018 at 12:36 am

    Youu mean like this LI foe is trying to protect themselves like the Clintons?

    Critics Question Motives Behind Bezos’ New $2 Billion Charity

    But for whatever reason (maybe it was the intensifying political pressure from Bernie Sanders’ “Stop BEZOS” act, or positive PR ahead of Amazon’s much-hyped HQ2 announcement, or even the fact that Amazon Web Services is jockying for an immensely valuable DoD contract), Bezos decided that he wanted to improve his public image.

    Hawk in reply to Mac45. | September 17, 2018 at 9:32 am

    I agree! The Dems are scared _ _ _ less their criminal behavior will be outed. Big O will lose his legacy.

JusticeDelivered | September 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm

When the dust settles, will there be a special prosecutor for Mueller and the other clowns in this fiasco?

    Maybe -if his partner jeff sessions gets his corrupt ass kicked out of the AG office.

      This will only happen IF Republicans retain a majority in the Senate (and not just a fake majority with RINO’s but a proper FULL majority with proper conservative senators!).

        Stop it. We tried that in 2010, ’12, ’14, and ’16. It didn’t work then and won’t work now. We cannot purge a party in one or even ten election cycles. We need to understand the truth on the ground right now: if we vote crazy, we are ending the Trump presidency. Period. He cannot survive without at least one House of Congress. In November, I’m voting for every (R), RINO or not, because I know that a RINO is more malleable than a socialist democrat. Sure, a few RINO’s might defect, but why the hell would we intentionally elect those we know, beyond any shadow of any doubt, will always vote against Trump instead of one who might? This makes zero sense to me. ZERO.

        The 2018 midterms are not about party purity or unicorn dreams of a more perfect conservative union, it’s literally about the survival of the Trump presidency and every one of his campaign promises. Let that go, and there will not be any remaining vestige of conservatism because we ceded the moment, the power to socialist democrats. Conservatism can recover from Trump in a decade; we cannot recover from the Bernification of America in the foreseeable future.

If there was no basis for launching Mueller’s investigation, then everything that came as a result of it is fruit of the poisoned tree.

The reason we have this doctrine is to protect citizens from the abuse of government power, so how does this not apply?

    Milhouse in reply to Matt_SE. | September 17, 2018 at 3:35 am

    There is no such doctrine. It is not a constitutional principle, it’s just an internal rule that the Supreme Court adopted for the guidance of the courts under its supervision. It applies only within the confines of a criminal trial, and even then only with a list of exceptions. Its purpose is simply to create a disincentive for the police to conduct illegal searches; the idea is that if they know that nothing found will be admitted then they won’t bother.

    (That hasn’t worked out so well; police still regularly conduct illegal searches, and in the meantime solid evidence is thrown out and guilty people are released, which harms the public. It’s probably time for the courts to reconsider whether the rule is really a good idea, or should be dumped.)

      Jwayne in reply to Milhouse. | September 17, 2018 at 9:04 am

      +Millhouse … or, just perhaps the police could be trained to follow the law and conduct LEGAL searches … now wouldn’t that be special.

I’ve been reluctant to be on the Andy McCarthy bandwagon, but he’s finally absorbed the last two years of law enforcement farce over at NRO, so I’ll give him a recommendation. The Carter Page FISA warrant, going by the parts not redacted, was written as a law enforcement fishing expedition completely contrary to the intentions behind the act of Congress enabling it, and judges signed off like it was routine. Perhaps it is routine. All you need is a “significant” foreign intelligence purpose and you can fish for evidence for use in a criminal investigation.

It wasn’t targeted at Trump because it didn’t need to be. They could just trawl in his general direction and eagerly search for the proper mollusks. This is exactly what men like McCarthy assured us was highly unlikely because responsible officials at the DoJ and FBI would prevent such abuse by rogue agents. Unfortunately, when you reward people for corrupting a process, you ensure that people cool with that rise to the very top. Human nature is not strong enough to resist the temptation.

He owned up and said he owed Jamie Gorelick an apology. I respect that. After all, many were the calls after 9/11 that “the wall” between foreign intel and law enforcement was why the 9/11 attacks succeeded.

Abolish the FBI. Transfer all duties to DHS, independent of DOJ. Use the money to build the wall.

Dont you think this is kind of a MASSIVE fucking deal?

The media should be all over this like a fucking fat chick at a far farm smashing a packet of smarties! But you know they won’t be all over this. They will be the opposite of being all over this because their grubbing little fucking fat fingers are all over the collusion part with their Democrat handlers. This all happened because the media enabled it to happen but looking the other way as Democrats openly attempted to remove a sitting President for no other reason than because they got arse fucked in the election!

    Yes. I do think this is a “MASSIVE fucking deal.” What happens in November will largely dictate the fall-out. If Trump keeps the House and the Senate, all bets are off. This blatant attempt to cover up Obama admin corruption, law-breaking, and wrong-doing while conspiring to unethically, possibly illegally bring down a duly-elected President will be unearthed. If we lose the House (and the Senate is now purportedly in play–very alarming), it’s worked, they won, Trump is done. And with him, the hope that we can turn this thing around any time soon.

    We have to vote in November, all of us, and we have to vote for Trump. Ultimately, he’s better off with a RINO than a commie in Congress. I know many here disagree, but it’s pretty simple: if the GOP loses the majority in either House of Congress (or both!), MAGA is dead. Trump will be either removed from office or will be the lamest of lame ducks. No wall, no booming economy, no military support, no more reversals of Obama’s destructive “legacy,” no nothing.

      Not only do conservatives have to get out and vote BUT they have to win outside the margin of fraud!

      There will be blood on the streets if the Democrats get back in to power!

      America needs REAL conservatives in Congress and the Senate. The time for RINO’s has been and gone.

Bob Woodward: Revealing My Sources ‘Might Get Somebody Killed’
How do you kill an imaginary person???