Lisa Page and the FBI: the Gift that Keeps on Giving
Lisa Page and the FBI: the Gift that Keeps on Giving
You knew it was too good to be true. We’ve gone weeks, maybe even months, without Lisa Page being in the news. After all the liberal rhetoric about “The Wall”, maybe we ought to thank The Daily Caller and The Epoch Times for giving us something else to think about. Except then we have to wonder—yet again—at the apparent improprieties committed by the FBI during its investigations of not only President Trump but of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But there’s more.
If true, significant new info, such as: Lisa Page went on London trip, worked directly for DOJ's Bruce Ohr for more than 5 years, had met Nellie Ohr, who worked for Clinton-funded Fusion GPS. Bruce took Fusion/Steele's info after he'd been "fired" by FBI. https://t.co/IShFnluaXu
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 11, 2019
None of that is new, not really. We might not have had the transcripts, but we had the talking points. However, as disturbing as the information is that Brennan shared information with Harry Reid, we should once again ask ourselves—and the FBI–why they chose to ignore what Clinton did (and did not do) in favor of beginning a months, and years, long investigation into Donald Trump.
During her testimony, Page said her role was to “bridge the gap and transition between what we as a team knew and the evidence that we had gathered to date on the collusion investigation and sort of imparting that knowledge to the new special counsel team.”
Read that carefully. She was to help in the “sort of imparting” of knowledge to the new special counsel team. While you might be inclined to say she simply misspoke and didn’t mean they weren’t being completely honest with the new team or not giving over all the evidence they had gathered, remember this: she was the FBI’s assistant general counsel. She has been trained to consider her words carefully before speaking. Was this her being unclear or was it a slip of the tongue?
Page reiterated the talking point we’ve heard so many times, claiming there was and is no bias against Trump. However, she did admit the FBI put more emphasis on the Trump investigation than it did into looking at HRC.
If you were weighing resources with respect to which poses a graver threat to national security, which is more, frankly, important, there is no doubt—at least in mine or anybody else’s mind that I know—that the Russia investigation posed an incredible threat to national security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.”
Perhaps in the beginning, but that was how many months and years ago? And what does the FBI have to show for all the man-hours and taxpayer money they’ve spent on the investigation? Basically nothing. There have been a few plea deals but no real smoking guns. Only an ever-expanding fishing expedition because THEY HAVE NOTHING they can prove in a court of law. Because of that, they continue to try the President in the public eye with the help of the very complicit mainstream media.
The notion that there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton’s email server just simply don’t even enter into the realm of the same room of seriousness. The Clinton investigation involved activities that had taken place 3 years prior. It’s an entirely historical investigation.”
Wow, it’s really good to know how little value Page and the FBI placed on the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and CIA operatives Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Doherty and Woods were former Navy Seals. Really makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it?
Wait, let’s not forget this little revelation by Clinton during her own testimony in October 2015. She claimed to be unfamiliar with the markings on classified documents.
[O]ne of the highest ranking national security officials in the United States government – an official whose day-to-day responsibilities extensively involved classified information; who had secure facilities installed in her two homes (in addition to her office) so she could review classified information in them; and who acknowledged to the FBI that, as secretary of state, she was designated by the president as ‘an Original Classification Authority,’ meaning she had the power to determine what information should be classified and at what level – had the audacity to tell the interviewing agents that she did not know what the different classification symbols in classified documents signified.”
But that happened in the past and wasn’t important.
Clearly, it was about as important as the four lives lost in Benghazi and, from what we’ve seen, that’s not much.
Amazing what you can get away with if your last name is Clinton.
And it gets worse. In her testimony, Page discussed the Clinton testimony. She “believed it was neither appropriate nor necessary for two of Hillary Clinton’s aides to accompany the former secretary of state” in an interview she gave to the FBI. These aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, didn’t just ride with her to the interview location and wait outside for her. They were in the room with her during the interview.
I would agree with you that it is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend the interview.”
If Clinton and her aides had been appearing in court to give testimony, these aides would in all likelihood have been sequestered until time to take the stand. Why? Because rules of evidence recognize the possibility of witness testimony being tainted by what they hear from other witnesses on the stand. It gives them the opportunity to hear what someone else said and tailor their testimony to either conform to it or to counter it. By allowing fact witnesses who might very well have knowledge of the events Clinton was being questioned about, the FBI gave them the perfect chance to make sure what they said later complied with what HRC said.
Both lawyers were also witnesses in the FBI’s probe, having been interviewed multiple times separately by FBI agents about their handling of Clinton’s classified emails.
As Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Mills was both sender and recipient of numerous classified emails that landed on Clinton’s private email server. Samuelson conducted the review of Clinton’s server that determined which emails Clinton would turn over to the State Department.”
Coincidentally enough, both Mills and Samuelson received immunity so the FBI could obtain their laptops. James Comey’s explanation? “Having done this for many, many years, a grand jury subpoena for a lawyer’s laptop would have likely entangled us in litigation over privilege for a very long time.” So the women got free walks and the Clinton investigation was quickly swept under the rug. Not that it surprised anyone.
And yet, with less to go on, we continue to suffer through the Mueller fishing expedition probe. Why? Because they think the rumor and innuendo is much more serious than the deaths of four, than a Secretary of State who either didn’t know or didn’t care about the classification and security of documents.
Funny how she testified there was no evidence of collusion by President Trump six months after the investigation began and then, poof, with the Mueller appointment there are suddenly leads and evidence coming out of the woodwork.
But there was no bias. Lisa Page tells us so and we should believe her since she takes her vows so seriously—not. And liberals wonder why we fail to take their allegations against Trump, or pretty much anyone else, seriously. It’s hard to do when you have a modern day version of the Keystone Cops heading the case.