Posted on 01/14/2019 7:37:57 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Of course with firing of Comey, it was busy with meetings throughout the day. In the evening of the 9th through next morning of the 10th the following messages were sent.
Strzok to Page at 1851: Oh yes sorry, She and I talked. We were talking about whether there are things we need to do immediately.
Strzok to Page at 2000: So Sally took off but has her cell
Strzok to Page 2014: And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting
Lisa Page does not respond to any of the evening messages
Strzok to Page 2056: Ack dammit I'm DYING down here
the next morning Lisa responds
Page to Strzok (10th of May) 0529: We need to lock in (REDACTED) in a formal chargeable way Soon.
Some commentors believe the redacted is POTUS.
But it was the exchange between Lisa Page during her testimony which I believe in part triggered the New York Times article. The following exchange took place during her testimony in Congress.
Unidentified Representative: “Were there discussions about opening an obstruction-of-justice case or any other case against Donald Trump prior to the firing of Jim Comey on May 9th of 2017, as reflected in the Comey memos?”
FBI legal counsel: “Congressman, to the extent that goes into the equities of the ongoing investigation that the special counsel is now conducting, I will instruct the witness not to answer.”
Normally, this line of questioning ends with inferences having to be made, but, in this case, what appears to be an honest error on the part of Page hinted firmly at the true answer:
Rep.: “I don’t want any of the details. I just want to know whether there was a discussion about the possibility of opening that prior to the firing of the director.”
Page: “Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the time frame you have described.”
Rep.: “OK. Then—”
Page: “I think. One second, sir.”
[Discussion off the record.]
Page: “Sir, I need to—I need to take back my prior statement.”
Rep.: “Which one?”
Page: “Whatever the last thing I just said was. Sorry. That there were no discussions of obstruction, yeah. That is—I need to take that statement back.”
Rep.: “So there were?”
Page: “Well, I think that I can’t answer this question without getting into matters which are substantively before the special counsel at this time.”
Rep.: “Well, I think you’ve just answered it by not answering it. Was Andy McCabe privy to those same conversations?”
Page: “I can’t answer this substantively, sir. I’m sorry.”
Rep.: “Well, were these related to some charges, whether obstruction or other charges, potentially against Donald Trump?”
Page: “I can’t—I can’t answer that question, sir, without getting into the substance of matters that are now before the special counsel.”
Rep.: “Again, I think you’re answering it by not answering it.”
At a later point in testimony, this issue was potentially further clarified:
Rep.: “Comey has admitted that he told the president, I think, that he wasn’t under investigation during that timeframe.”
Page: “That is not inconsistent, sir. … Somebody could not be under investigation, but there still could be discussions about potential criminal activity, and that is totally consistent with FBI policies and would not be unusual with respect to any investigation.”
This provides a perfect explanation as to why Comey refused to tell the press that Trump wasn’t under investigation—and the nature of the text messages.
This to me is verification criminal charges were being considered before Comey was fired. Certainly acted upon after his firing. In a warp sense of irony, was a constitutional crisis avoided by the appoinment of a special counsel??
The FBI retaliated against THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Is more like it.
Fox just reported that Andrew McCabe authorized it.
Before the election dirty agents at DOJ and Intel gave Hill and Bill many passes - for personal gain or political favors. After DJT was elected, the dirtballs feared being discovered and began their “insurance policy” attack-defense. Hillary’s lawyers are on the team to make sure anything implicating Hillary uncovered by accident can be summarily sent down the memory hole. Not to save Hillary, but to save their own sorry hides.
That’s how it seems to be unfolding.
Absolutely.
The FBI is -- and has always been -- at best duplicative, and at worse, worthless and evil.
I can't think of a single crime they solved on their own from their inception. They are experts at swooping in at the 12th hour and taking investigations away from other authorities -- along with the credit for arrests.
The FBI has become a strong-arm of a corrupt government -- no different than mob enforcers. And I don't want to hear any of this Hannity "Rank and File" crap. This fish truly rots from the head to the tail.
It needs to be completely abolished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.