[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... ???
https://dougcollins.house.gov/strzok
Link to the Strzok testimony :-)
...annnd .. I’m babysitting this afternoon. No time for popcorn :-(
She’s in trouble and she knows it.