some guy from reddit wrote:One thing I found interesting so far is that she wasn't even allowed to read the 302's.....so how in the hell can she question someone without knowing the full scope of the investigation. It becomes pretty clear that they sort of sectioned her off by limiting the information she had access to, to the point where they could say she did her job, without actually giving her all the tools to do her job. They kind of hid her as just being an attache to Comey/McCabe, so everything was going through them, with very little going through her, while presenting her as an FBI lawyer looking into things, without actually given much access. They basically put blinders on her like you would a horse, and trotted her down Investigation Lane, only able to see straight forward.
Page 30-31 is also interesting. She was instructed by the FBI not to answer a question about Comey/McCabe after Comey's firing. It was in regards to a text Strzok sent to her: "We need to open the case we've been waiting on while Andy is acting". I'm not sure if this text was redacted or not previously. I don't specifically recall it (and I read ALL the Strzok text documents, all 500 pages or so). But it's clear that after Comey's firing, the FBI was scrambling to do what they could to go after Trump, while they could. It's just proof that they didn't go after Trump because they had any evidence to, they went after him because Comey was fired and they were losing power, and knew leadership might change soon. They knew eventually McCabe would be unseated, because he was just in the thick of it as Comey.
-Placeholder to look up to see if this Strzok text was redacted: Check May 8th to May 10th in Strzok texts.
LISA PAGE TESTIMONY: COLLUSION STILL UNPROVEN BY THE TIME OF MUELLER'S SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTMENT
It's also clear by her testimony that they started Mueller up in order to have a way of attempting to charge Trump with obstruction of justice over Comey's firing, but the obstruction of justice part may have simply been a cover for what the special counsel turned into: A deep dive into "Russian" collusion and all the people surrounding Trump, in order to go after Trump. The investigation never had anything to do with election tampering, but for the fact that Trump was elected and they wanted to pin him as a Russian Manchurian-candidate.
So with that in mind, there was literally no Russian collusion basis for the case, even if you consider the contents of the Dossier. So no matter what Democrats say, when they say Mueller's investigation is just about election interference, what they really mean is it's a special counsel started up because Comey was fired, that was specifically designed to look into Trump for collusion.
Page 35 is where they start discussing the "Path in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected" text. It continues on to page 39 and beyond. Interestingly, there is some redaction here, particularly to do with the date they are discussing and witness interviews. She seems to be "not allowed" to discuss this by FBI. And then the FBI lawyers pause the interview altogether to talk to Lisa Page in private. Furthermore, she won't speak about even which country this mysterious interview(s) took place in. And the place of the interview seemed to be "protected" and Gowdy was asking why. Her lawyers then basically shot down Gowdy with "This is an ongoing investigation so we won't discuss it" crap. I'm not sure if this interview stuff is a new thing we previously didn't know about, or something that correlates to something we already know. But since it's redacted, I'm leaning toward this interview stuff being another linch pin that has not been released previously.
Page 42, Gowdy is arguing with the FBI lawyers over their use of "on-going investigations" to not reply to answers. Interestingly, the FBI lawyers outright admit (or use the excuse) that they are acting under guidance from Mueller himself to not answer these "mysterious interview" questions. They had no reason to not answer Gowdy's questions either, because he was only asking the location and date of these interviews, nothing substantive like the context or what was said.
Q: Did you travel abroad much?
A: Abroad, once
Q: And where to?
A: REDACTED (London)
Q: And what were the dates of that travel?
A: REDACTED
Q: And that was for official business?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell me what you did in REDACTED while you were there in early REDACTED?
A: I can't do that sir, I'm sorry.
Q: Pardon?
A: On advice of my counsel...blah, blah, blah
Page 57, Very interesting. Jackson asks Page is she's ever seen anyone applying political bias in an investigation at the FBI. And Page answers yes. Except, the twist is that she says some "senior executives" who were anti-Clinton, were telling people on the Hillary investigation, that they "had to get her" and were "counting on them to get her", her being Hillary. The names of these "senior executives" at the FBI are Sandy Kable and Randy Coleman. It seems like Page was referring to something Strzok had told her, because these "senior executives" were talking to "subordinates" on the investigation. And since they're senior executives, they're obviously still below people like Comey and McCabe. So the "subordinate" had to of been Strzok or someone else around Strzok. Seems like Jackson is trying to make a flimsy case for bias in the other direction, and ignore the fact of bias on Strzok/Comey/McCabe/others part. Jackson's entire line of questioning is just to run cover and to muddle things by trying to get Lisa Page to answer non substantive questions that she can then turn around and use as talking points to say "See, no bias here....but there was bias on the other side!", even though these "senior executives" didn't actually have anything to do with the case, it was just said in passing. But it does prove that there was support at the FBI for going after Clinton. But support at the FBI for prosecuting Clinton is treated and written off as "political bias", how convenient. Ironically, it's pointed out that Lisa Page herself showed bias in a text she wrote trashing the Russians. So here she is, part of a "Russia" investigation, trashing Russia, trashing Trump, saying other people showed bias by merely saying "you need to get Hillary". Not to mention all the other people on the investigation that also trashed Trump. But we're supposed to worry about 2 senior executives saying "you need to get Hillary", who aren't even on the case?!
Page 60, Sheila Jackson asks Page if she leaked the existence of the investigation, she says no, then goes on to ask who would be in a position to leak and such. But we already know today that the leak was McCabe/Comey. Lisa Page goes on to say why she wouldn't do that, and explains how against policy and wrong such a thing would be (basically confirming that was McCabe/Comey did was illegal). On page 61, Page claims they have "incredibly damning information that could have been released" that wasn't leaked in that leak. I don't know if that's information we don't yet know about, or just nothing burger information we already do know about that the FBI tried to portray as damaging. My guess is she's referring to the phony Dossier. But again, Sheila Jackson is only using this line of questioning in order to contrast how damaging the leak of Hillary's investigation was. She doesn't actually care about the leaks in the "Russia" investigation.
Page 63-64, Page says that because of speculation of the secret Russia investigation in the news, on Comey went to the DOJ to get permission to reveal its existence, which was revealed on March 2017. Dana Boente was acting Deputy AG at the time.....who is coincidentally general counsel at the FBI at the point. So Deputy AG who OK'd Comey's leak of the Russia investigation, went on to become FBI special counsel? Seems pretty fishy to me. This was also around the time that Yates and Clapper were testifying before Congress.
Page 66, Not quite verbatim; Lisa page: "We didn't take any steps to ensure the investigation was secret but we were careful due to the extraordinary sensitivity of the case. I can't say if actual steps were taken to hide the investigation, we just made sure people who did not have a need to know, did not know what we were investigating".
