With the world focused on President Donald Trump’s performance in Helsinki, FBI lover Lisa Page finally gave her testimony on Friday and Monday. During the second day, she dropped a bombshell that no one saw coming, and it could mean that Peter Strzok is finished — for good.
During a series of lengthy closed-door interviews to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Friday and Monday, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was said to have been “cooperative” — far more cooperative than her ex-lover, Peter Strzok, whose testimony last Thursday devolved into somewhat of a circus.
Republicans lit into Peter Strzok on Capitol Hill last Thursday, finally getting the chance to confront the discredited FBI agent in charge of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation — including a short stint as the top investigator on Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation — before his text messages came to light.
Although the stakes could not have been higher and Strzok should have been a neutral party, he had penciled Clinton in for the White House from the very beginning and even sent text messages to his mistress warning that the FBI could “stop” a Trump presidency.
A report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz contained shocking text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page, who testified on Friday and Monday. In the most damning exchange, Page texted Strzok asking, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok replied ominously.
This ground-breaking report led the House Judiciary Committee to demand Strzok appear before Congress to explain the obvious biases which should have led to his recusal. But last Thursday’s hearing turned into a circus as Strzok used a series of strategies to deflect attention away from his crimes, at times yelling, flat-out refusing to answer questions, or expecting the Democrats to coddle him through the ordeal, which, for the most part, they did.
Lisa Page’s closed-door testimony was far more cordial. In fact, Rep. Mark Meadows has claimed that they already have all the information they need from her. And perhaps the most damning of the information lawmakers were able to collect from Page were statements that directly contradicted what her former lover said under oath just days before.
“As I said before, she is a very forthcoming witness,” Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe told reporters after leaving the hearing room. “She gave us a lot of new information that we didn’t have before. So that will lead us to ask for some more people to make some more requests for information we do not yet have.”
“I think there are significant differences between their testimony about important material facts,” Ratcliffe added. “I think she has been as forthcoming as she can. I think she is trying to respect the real privileges that exist from her former employer and she is getting direction from FBI counsel about not answering certain things and she is trying to respect that. At the same time, I think she is trying to give us as much information as she’s allowed to do, which I think is a distinction and difference from what we saw with Peter Strzok.”
Ratcliff told Fox News that, contrary to Strzok’s testimony, Page claimed the incendiary texts between the two lovers meant “exactly what they say.” If you recall, Strzok told lawmakers that they should read the messages in context and that they were written late at night, so they shouldn’t suggest any bias was at play during the multiple election-related investigations Strzok headed.
Rep. John Ratcliffe reveals Lisa Page admitted her text messages with Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say,” contrary to Strzok’s testimony pic.twitter.com/Ne21aWa8HJ
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 17, 2018
Of course, that’s absolutely ridiculous, and Page’s own testimony confirmed as much. If those text messages do, in fact, mean “exactly what they say,” then Strzok should have recused himself. Still, Rep. Steve King said there’s a long way to go in digging up the truth behind those who led the investigation which ultimately exonerated Hillary Clinton, according to BizPac Review.
“I think we’re a long ways from where we need to go with this,” King told reporters on Monday. “What I want to see are — I want to see the names of everyone who interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. I want to see their notes. I want to consider bringing each of them forward to testify what happened inside that room and then see if their notes and her testimony matches up to the 302 document that in the end was the basis that Peter Strzok briefed James Comey.”
“I also want to see the name of the FISA judges and I want to see the FISA warrant requests and the support documents that brought those request forward,” said Rep. King. “Once we get all those names put together we might find that some of those folks are deeply engaged in other investigations right now too.”
Indeed, we have a long way to go in this investigation, but one thing is certain at this point: Peter Strzok will be lucky if he ever gets a job again besides flipping burgers at the local fast food joint.