Lisa Page Continues to Show Contempt

Lisa Page Continues to Show Contempt

Lisa Page Continues to Show Contempt

Lost amid the shrieks and cries of outrage over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be the next member of the Supreme Court has been this little tidbit: Lisa Page will defy a Congressional subpoena. Yes, you read that right. Page, a former FBI lawyer and former member of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe team, is refusing to testify in a closed door hearing because she hasn’t had enough time to prepare. Despite the fact she has known for months that she would be called to testify, she needs more time. Right — not. She is stalling but for what purpose?

It is no secret she and Peter Strzok, former lead agent investigating the alleged Trump-Russia connection, were in Hillary Clinton’s corner during the election. You remember Strzok, he’s the one who helped James Comey “dumb down” Comey’s original statement about Clinton’s private e-mail server. He and Page were enjoying an extra-marital affair at the time of their many text exchanges about both Clinton and Trump. Their texts made clear their bias against then-candidate Donald Trump.

If that isn’t enough to show bias, don’t forget this exchange:

In one Aug. 8, 2016 message, Page asked Strzok: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Those are just a few of the many texts between Page and Strzok about Trump and his campaign. Now Page, who was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees today, has said she will be a no-show. In a statement Page’s attorney, Amy Jeffress, claims they were not given sufficient notice of her appearance. Page was subpoenaed four days ago. That hasn’t given them enough time to prepare and to review the “materials that were previously produced to Congress relating to her proposed interview.”

So, even though they’ve known she would have to testify sooner or later, they haven’t been given enough notice. Okay, that by itself could almost fly. After all, four days to rearrange a schedule, make sure your attorney is available to help you — even though you, yourself, are an attorney — might not be enough. However, the argument pales when it comes to not having time to review materials she had already produced and given to Congress. Surely, she kept copies of the originals she handed over to Congress. Why couldn’t they have been reviewed? Why hadn’t Page been reviewing them in preparation for this day, even if she didn’t know exactly when she would be called to appear?

Jeffress complained in her statement that she and Page had waited a whole three hours for the FBI to provide them with copies of the documents and were provided with nothing. So they left. What she doesn’t say is if she or Page gave the FBI notice they would be there and for what purpose. Nor did she say if the FBI had responded to that notice. All that sort of begs the question of whether or not they just showed up, hoping the FBI would keep them waiting and they could then shovel the blame for Page not obeying the subpoena on the agency Page used to work for.

Her lack of respect for Congress or for the subpoena it issued will cause another firestorm on Capitol Hill. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte has stated Page has “no good reason” for not appearing. He added, “We will use all tools at our disposal to obtain her testimony.” As they should.

Page couldn’t have been blindsided by the subpoena. Last month, Strzok appeared behind closed doors to testify much as she had been subpoenaed to do. He is scheduled to appear in a public hearing Thursday. If those two events weren’t enough to give Page notice her time was coming, she either had to be living under a rock or sticking her head in the sand.

There can be only one reasonable explanation for why Page is dodging her testimony. She is stalling. But for what purpose? Gee, could it be because she wants to see what Strzok has to say in his public testimony so they get their stories straight? It does make you wonder, doesn’t it?


Written by

  • GWB says:

    *My* answer would be “Sergeant-at-arms? Go find this young woman and compel her to appear. Use whatever resources are necessary (but probably not the FBI).”

  • Peter says:

    I thought a subpoena meant you were required to show up. There really are two sets of rules.

  • Skid Marx says:

    Laws? Those are for the deplorable kulak republican scum in flyoverstan. Should you have to testify use the haven’t had time to prepare excuse and see how that works out.

  • Mr. Bojangles says:

    Watch out now…Trey “Howdy” Gowdy is on the case. Page trembles in fear.

  • William Dickman says:

    She has taken an oath to protect the citizens and the constitution of the United States. She has committed treason. Her name should be next to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner