Replies

From Lisa Page's testimony Page 91:

[Mr. Meadows.] So let me go back, because one thing gets really
concerning. So you give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan
is giving a brief. It's not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one,
from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that
point.

Bongino claims it was a gang of 8 briefing which included NP which is why she backed off impeachment.

Somebody is wrong..

I thought the Meadows questioning of LP about the "defensive briefing" was very interesting. Starts on page 86. He really has her tap dancing.

[Ms. Page] We want to do this in secret. We want to do this the
way we do it. I don't know what Harry Reid was told or why or what
the purpose of Brennan -- you know, this is way out of my pay grade.
But like that's not how we want to proceed. We do things effectively
when they're in secret. And so I think that that, you know, it's
unavoidable, I guess, is, you know, well, these things happen, but not
on our watch.

What????

LP also claims there are reasons they might not have given the "defensive briefing".

#1 There's no there there...

[Ms. Page.] No, not exactly, sir. You would want to know for sure
what you had in front of you.

[Mr. Meadows.] So you wouldn't want to falsely accuse somebody?

[Ms. Page.] You wouldn't want to -- well, you would want to
know -- you would want to be able to say: We believe that so-and-so
is, you know, an agent of a foreign power or we believe that so-and-so
may be working with, you know, a hostile foreign source.

[Mr. Meadows.] And so that did not happen prior to November 8th
of 2016 at least, because you would have done a defensive briefing,
based on

[Ms. Page.] Not -- there's no -- no, sir. There's no
hard-and-fast rule. I don't -- I don't -- I don't want to leave the
impression that once you meet X criteria a defensive briefing occurs.
This is fluid and happens at the sort of discretion and judgment of
senior counterintelligence officials and, frankly, the deputy or the
Director himself with respect to certain high-level individuals.
It's -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm a little constrained. I feel a little
constrained in terms of what I can say. Let's try to speak
hypothetically.
One of two things might lead you not to conduct -- multiple things
might lead you not to conduct a defensive briefing. One of them might
be insufficient evidence.

[Mr. Meadows.] Which is what you said at least at this date, you
had insufficient --

[Ms. Page.] Certainly in August, I would agree with that. 
A couple weeks in, we don't know what we have. I think that that's fair.
On the opposite spectrum, it might be inappropriate for
investigative reasons to provide a defensive brief.

[Mr. Meadows.] But that would only be if Donald Trump was the
subject of your investigation.

[Ms. Page.] No, sir.

#2 Trump may have been the subject of the investigation..

[Q] And I just want to be clear of the nomenclature. When we
talk about the Russia collusion investigation in this time frame,
candidate Donald Trump is not the subject of that investigation. Is
that correct?

[A] That's correct.

#3 Trump knew about the collusion...

[Ms. Page.] So the reason I am trying to tread lightly here is I
don't think that Donald Trump would need to be the subject of the
investigation in order for us to make a decision that a defensive
briefing is not appropriate.
But there are certainly gradations shy of subject which,
if true -- and I'm not suggesting that they are true -- but if
hypothetically, and I truly mean this in the hypothetical, if we thought
that Donald Trump is not the subject, we're not suggesting that he's
the person in touch with Russia, but maybe the evidence suggests that
he knows that his people are in touch with Russia.

So I guess it's multiple choice... ???