Search
Home

Opinion| The leak wars have begun.

This requires observers and investigators to evaluate the credibility of what they’re reviewing.  That will be difficult for everyone currently entrenched in their political foxholes, but let’s open the discussion here and now.

Jeff Carlson writing in the Epoch Times claims he has seen the leaked transcripts of two-closed door sessions in which Lisa Page testified before Congress.  Here’s Carlson’s account of what Page claimed with our comments on the believability of her assertions.

Page steadfastly maintained there was no bias present in either the Clinton-email investigation or the Trump-Russia investigation on the part of anyone within the FBI or the DOJ while…

At the same time, Page repeatedly and openly admitted to placing a greater emphasis and weight on the Trump-Russia investigation than the Clinton-email investigation:

“If you were weighing resources with respect to which poses a graver threat to national security, which is more, frankly, important, there is no doubt—at least in mine or anybody else’s mind that I know—that the Russia investigation posed an incredible threat to national security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.”

[…]

“The notion that there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton’s email server just simply don’t even enter into the realm of the same room of seriousness. The Clinton investigation involved activities that had taken place 3 years prior. It’s an entirely historical investigation.”

“In the assessment of the Counterintelligence Division, they still don’t even come close to the threat posed if Russia had co-opted a member of a political campaign.”

Really?  She actually said that with a straight face?

From the Department of Justice website, in 2016 the FBI employed 3100 intelligence analysts and 13,084 agents with a budget of nearly $9 billion.

“If you were weighing resources.” Unless the resources being weighed by Director Comey were restricted to small group of corrupted Obama-Clinton acolytes already known to Comey, and not the wider universe of more than 16,000 highly-qualified analysts and agents, there would be no excuse not to have run parallel investigations.

Why weren’t parallel investigations conducted?  Unless Comey, McCabe, et al were determined to limit the scope of human resources with knowledge of their activities (criminal activities?) it’s fairly difficult to believe Page’s claim of limited resources.

“the Russia investigation posed an incredible threat to national security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.”

Ahem.  The threat to national security that resulted from Hillary Clinton’s reckless use of her private server, that Comey admitted had likely been hacked by foreign enemies, potentially exposed highly sensitive and vulnerable sources and methods.

Determining the extent of this damage to our intelligence assets would normally have been deemed of the highest priority.  According to Page, it wasn’t. In fact the FBI never seized the server so as to conduct a forensic analysis.

Instead Comey allowed Clinton’s attorneys to determine what evidence they might see from the server before sitting back and allowing Team Clinton to destroy the hard drive thereby rendering a future forensic analysis impossible.

Then, when confronted with the discovery of the Weiner Laptop, that may have been a treasure trove of previously unearthed evidence, they sat on it until the election was over.

To date,  there has been no report that the FBI’s cyber forensic lab was busy with anything related to the Trump-Russia probe, so what more important use of their expertise could have rendered this investigative resource unavailable?

“Page steadfastly maintained there was no bias”

Sure.  Then please explain what FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok meant when he sent FBI Special Counsel Lisa Page a text that said:

“Hillary should win 100,000,000 to 1.”

Or this text exchange between Page and Strzok:

Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right?”

Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

This led Inspector General Michael Horowitz to write:

“[w]e’ll stop” Trump–“implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

FUBAR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.