Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Lisa Page Transcripts: FBI had ‘Paucity of Evidence’ for Russia Investigation, Discussed Trump ‘Insurance Policy’

Lisa Page Transcripts: FBI had ‘Paucity of Evidence’ for Russia Investigation, Discussed Trump ‘Insurance Policy’

DOJ told FBI not to press charges against Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released pages of transcripts from their interview with ex-FBI attorney Lisa Page, which included admissions of the FBI beginning their Russian investigation with little evidence and an insurance policy in case now-President Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

Page also confirmed the DOJ told the FBI not to charge Hillary in the email investigation.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins spoke with a few Fox News hosts on Tuesday after he announced he would release the transcripts from Page’s interviews. You can view the pages here.

Collins told Sean Hannity that the transcripts would show a “two-tiered system” that reveals the corruption ran deep:

“When you have the… corrupt triumvirate of [former FBI Agent Peter] Strzok, [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe and Page, when they have been involved from day one from the email controversy, through the original Russia investigation, through the appointment of [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller, this just shows that there is a two-tiered system,” Collins said. “And, we’re going to say, we’re going to get this out and we’re going to put it in ways that people can easily understand, not a large dump, we’re going to take it methodically as we go, as we get them cleared, and we’re going to get them out to the American people.”

The transcripts came out on Wednesday. I have to say that Collins was not wrong. From Fox News:

Page first entered the spotlight in December 2017, when it was revealed by the Justice Department inspector general that she and then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. The two were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election, and later served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

Among their texts was one concerning the so-called “insurance policy.” During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned at length about that text — and essentially confirmed this referred to the Russia investigation while explaining that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at “total breakneck speed” and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn’t be elected anyway.

Further, she confirmed investigators only had a “paucity” of evidence at the start.

Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Page about this text she sent to Strzok (emphasis mine): “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Page told Gowdy:

“So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” Page said. “And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”

Page continued that, “if the answer is this is a guy just being puffery at a meeting with other people, great, then we don’t need to worry about this, and we can all move on with our lives; if this is, in fact, the Russians have coopted an individual with, you know, maybe wittingly or unwittingly, that’s incredibly grave, and we need to know that as quickly as possible.”

Page explained that the text message reflected their “continuing check-in” as to “how quickly to operate.”

“[W]e don’t need to go at a total breakneck speed because so long as he doesn’t become President, there isn’t the same threat to national security, right,” Page explained, while saying that if Trump were not elected president, the bureau would still investigate.

“But if he becomes President, that totally changes the game because now he is the President of the United States,” Page told lawmakers. “He’s going to immediately start receiving classified briefings. He’s going to be exposed to the most sensitive secrets imaginable. And if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”

Page stressed that those in the FBI in these discussions did not think Trump would beat Hillary. Honestly, who did?

She admitted the FBI had only “‘a paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path’ of vetting the allegations.” The agents “knew so little” if any of the allegations against Trump were “true or not true.”

But she explained this is not out of the ordinary. In fact, “it is entirely common, particularly in a counterintelligence investigation, that you would only have — you would have a small amount of evidence.”

In another interview, Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) “that ‘the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.'”

In other words, go easy on her.

More from Fox News:

Page also testified that the DOJ and FBI had “multiple conversations … about charging gross negligence,” and the DOJ decided that the term was “constitutionally vague” and “had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago,” and so “they did not feel they could sustain a charge.”

I Googled “Lisa Page transcripts” and came up with only a few hits. Sen. Rand Paul is 100% correct:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So far there have been no Russian spies found in the Trump administration. I can think of at least 4 FBI agents who have been Russian spies and there have probably been many more.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to floridaman. | March 14, 2019 at 10:21 pm

    Until about one trillion bits of evidence to the contrary, I’m concluding “Lisa Paige” IS A RUSSIAN SPY!

    That’s my opinion and I’m sticking it to those Democrat-Deep State Traitors!

So DOJ told FBI not to prosecute Hillary for negligence, yet Comey said no one told him what to do nor did anyone know what he was going to say? Paging Diogenes.

    fscarn in reply to Obie1. | March 14, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    The “Obama DOJ” is as vague as it gets.

    Did she name the names?

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to Obie1. | March 14, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    Gen Flynn was unavailable to comment about going easy on Hillary. These people are sick and disgusting. The same Congressional blowhards that claim obstruction on PDJT of course give a pass to PBHO.

OK, for a real howler….Mueller dumps his report, clears Trump, and indicts – Hillary, McCabe, Comey, Page and etc….watch the heads explode!

I really should not drink this early….

So where were these “allegations” that got this whole thing started? It stank from the get go. They knew there was no “Russian collaboration” (unless we’re talking about DNC and Fusion GPS collusion–that’s very real and also being very ignored).

Who, specifically, at DoJ said not to consider charging Hillary? I want a name preferably, on the wrong end of an indictment.

Hey! I can dream!

How circular does the reasoning due to lack of evidence have to get, before it becomes a violation of the rules of law?

They don’t have anything on him, but they choose to assume a candidate for President from the opposition party is a security threat, so they open an investigation to find something on him in case he gets elected (because they don’t have anything on him)?

And the upshot is, because they have no evidence, they lied to the FISA court saying they have evidence, in order to get evidence.

The result of very case any one of these unethical people has touched is now questionable.

This was no “common” counterintelligence investigation, the corrupt 0bama administration used federal resources to investigate and spy on a political opponent based on lies and no evidence. This so called “investigation” on a political opponent running for president would have to be known and approved by 0bama himself since it involves such high stakes. This abuse of power and criminal acts by 0bama administration sets a very dangerous precedence where a future administration can use the same corrupt tactics on their political opponents.

    TrickyRicky in reply to Kevin Smith. | March 14, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    The Obama administration corrupted every thing it touched. Weaponization of the IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, non-existent “shovel ready jobs”…….ad nauseam. The list is long and depressing. He vowed to fundamentally change our country, and he did. We have a very narrow window and a Herculean task to stem the tsunami, much less reverse it.

Look…how many times have we been down this road before? Some new “blockbuster” facts come out, we get all riled up, only to see absolutely NOTHING happen. There’s no accountability anywhere and I’m skeptical that there ever will be.

    fishstick in reply to snopercod. | March 14, 2019 at 1:22 pm

    the problem is all this corruption is being rooted out by House and Senate committees

    with none of THIS being backed with the authority of the DOJ and FBI

    a Senator can cry foul all they want but they have no legal standing to press charges, hold people in contempt, and all that other jazz that comes with being an agent of the law

    a Senator or House member only have the power of “referral” which the DOJ and FBI departments can (and have been) duly ignore

      snopercod in reply to fishstick. | March 14, 2019 at 2:15 pm

      I’m hoping that after the Mueller report exonerates Trump, he’ll clean house at the DoJ and FBI.

        fishstick in reply to snopercod. | March 14, 2019 at 5:10 pm

        the Mueller report will in no way shape or form exonerate Trump

        they can’t afford to come out and say – yeah we couldn’t find diddly there

        what the investigators will come out to say is – well we could not find any “direct” evidence of such collusion but they will delve on and on about “indirect” conjecture of shady Trump dealings with sworn statements from these guys we did convict (you know of crimes nothing do with Russia or collusion or the election itself)

        I guarantee it will be written like a science thesis where Mueller knows e = mc^2 but the Feds will still need all Trump business transactions from the past 10 years (possibly 20) to know why

        i.e. – Mueller is going to frame his report that Trump’s business dealings from the past 10 years is all suspect and should be divulged so the Feds can figure out where the process crimes are

        and of course – without any of the above sounding quite like that

Questions yet to be explored: What about the FISA court? Were the judges part of this conspiracy? Were they duped by the DOJ/FBI? Wouldn’t a reasonable person be angry at having their office used in such a reprehensible manner? Where is the outrage from/toward this phony court? Just askin’.

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to bear. | March 14, 2019 at 1:08 pm

    And what did CJ Roberts have to do with all of this? Remember he oversees the FISA courts….

      AmandaFitz in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | March 14, 2019 at 2:16 pm

      Apparently, the Deep State has Roberts by the short hairs- ever since they pressured him over Obamacare. Some said it was about the adoption of his children??

    fishstick in reply to bear. | March 14, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    the FISA judges have to be in on it because at some point they have to ask the question “where’s the evidence”

    judges that act as a rubber stamp can potentially be held liable for their (in)actions

    now the question is – will anyone in the DOJ or FBI actually open an inquiry to hold them accountable?

    considering we hear nothing of AG Barr and still nothing from FBI head Wray… well don’t hold your breath

That has been my hope for a good while. But as the old saying goes “don’t hold your breath”.

They were required to destroy Trump to save Trump.

I think Brennan and Clapper cashed in on Page and Storkz TDS (and hate for anything conservative) using McCabe as their puppet. Brennan and Clapper are covering up something much bigger including something about Obama or Clinton. Maybe it is wishful thinking but I think the ribbon and wrapping paper out of the cupboard. Notice Andrew Weissmann has left the Mueller team. A conflicted soul I believe.

    My2centshere in reply to MarkSmith. | March 14, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    Weissmann leaving is more related to the March 15th deadline by Jordan and Meadows to Barr about Weissmann’s conflict of interest.

    fishstick in reply to MarkSmith. | March 14, 2019 at 1:39 pm

    but we already know what that “something” is – spying on the Trump campaign during an election cycle

    that is what all of THIS has been about – trying to mitigate the fallout of a worse than Watergate scandal for the Democrats going forward to 2020 and beyond

    if ZERO of the responsible parties never see jail time out this – then it is a success for the D-party and their media fanbois going forward

    because the Democrats will just claim afterwards – so what?

    heck – anyone who has been paying attention has seen the multiple FBI and DOJ members (and the media) literally admit the Obama camp had been spying on the Trump campaign and transition team

    but they do it through the lens of –Trump was up to no good anyways– so all THAT really isn’t THAT bad

    one of the reasons why the Mueller probe has been going for for so long it has is because the Democrats are desperate to create a “crisis” to distract the voters from their own scandal

    but that itself is another topic

      MarkSmith in reply to fishstick. | March 14, 2019 at 2:13 pm

      Nope, spy gate is the Achilles heel to it all. I think it is bigger than that. The attack on Trump is a cover to something bigger that Trump can expose. The CIA has been a bad actor in a lot of things going back to the 50’s. The story of the Falcon and the Snowman briefly touched on the CIA activities in other countries elections. Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee are in some ways the Snowden of the 70’s. The CIA has some interesting bedfellows including the Bushes. The fight against Trump is not about Trump, it is bigger. Trump is the distraction to keep telling you “look squirrel” Follow the money and power and you have Brennan up pretty high.

      It bothers me that Obama and Hillary college records are not public knowledge. Why?

My initial thought was why did they believe Trump was trying to get information on Hillary from the Russians?
We know now that Halper was hired by the FBI to plant the idea that such information was available, via Pappodopoulis, perhaps as early as mid 2015. But that would indicate that the FBI knew Trump had no Rissian sources.
Does the underlying premise that the Russians had such information indicate the FBI had reason to think that Clinton’s server was hacked by the Russians and all of the communications were in Russian hands?

    MarkSmith in reply to puhiawa. | March 14, 2019 at 2:28 pm

    I believe that too. Halper was hired to plant false information. Also, Weissmann is linked to giving the dossier to the FBI. I am troubled by Manafort and his relationship with the Podesta brothers. How come he got nailed and they did not? It would appear his crimes are similar to theirs. I think Page and Mccord are going to blow this thing wide open. The question is “how deep does it go?” Prepare for a lot more squirrels in the next few weeks. After the Mulluer report, I think Trump will be in a position to do something. I bet that Trump might not want to push it, if he is cleared and use what he knows to leverage. There is something about Sessions that I can’t figure out either. Time will tell.

Let me get straight to the point. If the DoJ instructed the FBI to stop developing charges against Hillary Clinton for gross negligence, making clear that the DoJ prosecutors that would have to actually bring the charges weren’t remotely interested…

…How do you explain the Rosenstein memo cited as just cause to fire FBI Director James Comey? How?… Did Rosenstein not know? Did he know, but artfully omitted mention when describing how Comey usurped the role of the Attorney General?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3711188-Rosenstein-letter-on-Comey-firing.html

Page stressed that those in the FBI in these discussions did not think Trump would beat Hillary. Honestly, who did?

Anybody paying attention could, and some did.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend