@RepDougCollins is tired of the BS and is defining real transparency, thank you sir keep up the good work

Going through the Lisa Page Transcripts now
@RepDougCollins 1/ Right off the bat, Gowdy was trying drill down on the 'insurance policy' text in August 2016. This would have been a few weeks after the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.
@RepDougCollins 2/ A lot of redactions but my takeaway of the non-redacted exchanges is the involvement of foreign intelligence.
@RepDougCollins 3/ Page is prohibited by the FBI counsel, who was instructed by Team Mueller to bar this testimony to say whether an interview with a witness happened inside or outside of the United States.
@RepDougCollins 4/ That could be SSA Mike Gaeta in Rome, of the Mifsud/Papadopoulus part of the scheme or it could be someone in British intelligence, Halper?

Gowdy got her to commit to levels of importance, versus likelyhood that Trump gets elected.
@RepDougCollins 5/ Page testified that there were several conversations about how far they should go, including the potential for 'burning' sources that would be useful in future COINTEL investigations. And the counter assessment to that was the probability of Trump being elected, meaning was…
@RepDougCollins 6/ …it going to be worth it to throw everything and the 'kitchen sink' at Crossfire Hurricane if the risk of Trump being elected was low and the threat that he was compromised by the Russians was meaningless.
@RepDougCollins 7/ Remember McCabe said he did not recall ever discussing the "insurance policy" with Strzok or Page.
@RepDougCollins 8/ I found that portion plausible but not persuasive as she has had months if not a year to craft that explanation. Further, the fact that foreign intelligence assets were immediately deployed as implied just literally days into Crossfire Hurricane, think about that a moment.
@RepDougCollins 9/ They are weighing the level of importance and the degree of aggressiveness to the level pursuit of Crossfire Hurricane, and they've already scrambled and deployed foreign sources interviews days into the investigation? From the looks of it they were already pedal to the metal.
@RepDougCollins 10/ So this sounds carefully crafted testimony to try and cover for their real intent. So to me this indicates those discussions were quite brief, if they happened at all. And this is in the August time frame in 2016.
@RepDougCollins 11/ When Ohr testified he met with McCabe, Page and Strzok about Steele's information. (Which she later denies in her Day Two testimony, that she didn't know anything about Steele or the dossier until September. So someone's lying.)
@RepDougCollins 12/ She was not under oath at this hearing but was warned about false testimony to Congress penalties. So being under oath in this setting is a moot argument, lying to congress is a felony regardless.
@RepDougCollins 13/

The last thing I found odd was that Page was supposed to keep McCabe abreast of what was happening in investigations yet she never personally read any of the 302s, relying instead on briefings from the line agents and prosecutors, according to her testimony.
@RepDougCollins 14/ But that's not what her text messages say as she and Strzok discussed McCabe's editing and approval of the Flynn 302 in February 2017. She's not very smart, nor was she prepped very well for these hearings.

Page claimed over and over there was no bias present in either…
@RepDougCollins 15/ …the Clinton-email investigation or the Trump–Russia investigation on the part of anyone within the FBI or the DOJ, and went to some lengths to illustrate that, which is laughable, the IG report indicated they saw bias, and the common everyday person reading these texts…
@RepDougCollins 16/ …would come to the same conclusion. Trying to explain it away by manufacturing context after the fat doesn't change the substance. And I haven't even gotten to the DOJ orders coming down the pike that Hillary wasn't going to be charged no matter what.
@RepDougCollins 17/ Here's a great quote that hammer's home what was more important as it was pointed out in the Horowitze report.
@RepDougCollins 18/ “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…
@RepDougCollins 19/ …security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.”
@RepDougCollins 20/ Doesn't get much more plain than that, then there's this.
@RepDougCollins 21/ “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.
@RepDougCollins 22/ The Clinton investigation involved activities that had taken place three years prior. It’s an entirely historical investigation.” Historical? Really? Most investigations are, there's a crime and then you investigate it.
@RepDougCollins 23/ “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.”
@RepDougCollins 24/ To be fair, Page admitted to a personal dislike for Trump, she also admitted to a less-than-favorable view of Hillary Clinton, noting that while she didn’t like Trump, she “wasn’t particularly fond or favorable toward Secretary Clinton.
@RepDougCollins 25/ Page said “I mean, given a Trump-Clinton race, yes, I was supporting Clinton, but I was not a particularly big fan of hers.”
@RepDougCollins 26/ Now a real important point I took from her testimony is the level involvement of Jonathan Moffa, Who by the way is still a deputy assistant director at the FBI, given Page's testimony was a lot greater than previously understood.
@RepDougCollins 27/ Page was very plain that their were two team working on two investigations. (Mid-Year and Crossfire) in the Clinton and the Trump/Russia investigations were separate from each other, in other words they worked on one investigation or the other.
@RepDougCollins 28/ But there were definite exceptions. Strzok and Moffa, both from the FBI’s COINTEL Div, worked on both investigations, as Page testified
@RepDougCollins 29/ “Really, it’s the people that met with Jim Comey" (who by the way lied his ass off about this). "Those are the only people that were really the same with respect to both teams."
@RepDougCollins 30/ "So it’s the same general counsel, the same deputy general counsel, me, Mr. McCabe, Dave Bowdich. The EAD for National Security Branch changed, but that was just because of regular personnel turnover."
@RepDougCollins 31/ “Bill Priestap was the same. Pete was the same. Jon Moffa was the same."
@RepDougCollins 32/ " But other than that, all of the rest of the personnel were, to the best of my knowledge, there could have been one or two, but all of the rest of the personnel on the Clinton team and the Russia team were different.”
@RepDougCollins 33/ Small caveat this is the same Jonathan Moffa that said before the Joint committees behind closed doors "FBI would use “media reports based on information they leaked” to “justify applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.”
@RepDougCollins 34/ though he never admitted directly that they did it on the "dossier" he openly admitted to a past pattern of the FBI doing just that. Moffa's Transcripts are going thru approvals to be released soon along with several other closed door hearings.
@RepDougCollins 35/ Collins isn't playing around with this any longer. he has submitted a stack of transcripts to be cleared to be released by the DOJ. Does anyone find it strange that all of sudden with Barr sworn in all these transcripts are being cleared and released?
@RepDougCollins 36/ DOJ lawyers are redacting minimally and clearing them for release as we speak. IMHO this is part of the plan of the roll out on what is coming. That gurgling sound you hear is the swamp draining.
@RepDougCollins 37/ Page's testimony revealed how they planned out how to handle the HRC inner circle interviews and how they were going to do them differently than SOP. Page pushed it off on the "hierarchy of the DOJ punching down on the FBI, and directing how it would all go down.
@RepDougCollins 38/ I quote, “as soon as the planning started to begin to interview some of the more high-profile witness, not just Clinton but also Abedin, Mills, Sullivan, and her sort of core team, the DOJ wanted to change the sort of structure and the number of people who were involved.”
@RepDougCollins 39/ Specifically David Laufman, a DAAG and head of COINTEL for the DOJ’s National Security Division at the time, pushed absolutely to be present for the higher profile interviews.
@RepDougCollins 40/ As Page testified, “Once we started talking about including David, then the U.S. Attorney’s Office also wanted to participate in the interviews, although they had participated in virtually none by that point.
@RepDougCollins 41/ And so, then the U.S. Attorney’s Office was pushing to have the AUSAs, who were participating in the Clinton investigation, also participate.” He pushed so hard that George Toscas, the DAAG in the NATSEC Division, approached McCabe directly He's Laufman's direct supervisor
@RepDougCollins 42/ And then Page goes on and makes it very plain, “And so now, all of a sudden, we were going from our standard two and two to this burgeoning number of people.”
@RepDougCollins 43/ About then Gowdy went in deep after the fact that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, both fact witnesses, were allowed to attend Clinton’s interview as her attorneys.
@RepDougCollins 44/ Page openly admitted, “I would agree with you, that it is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend the interview.” But the fact remains the same they went along with it regardless.
@RepDougCollins 45/ The decision to allow attendance of fact witnesses during Clinton’s interview came from the DOJ, But as expected Page fell way short of naming who and wouldn't even really speculate. Page said she wasn’t certain who had made the decision.
@RepDougCollins 46/ She was sure to cover her ass by saying that the "FBI protested the move but were overridden", so the decision must have come from a senior level within the DOJ.
@RepDougCollins 47/ But later in her testimony is where I lose all respect for anyone involved in this cover up. Page describes all this turmoil and discussion and then in her own words, “There was a great deal of discussion between the FBI and the department with respect to whether to…
@RepDougCollins 48/ …proceed, obtain the server which housed the bulk of Secretary Clinton’s emails, pursuant to consent or pursuant to a subpoena or other compulsory process.”
@RepDougCollins 49/ This is absolute bullshit, that's not what the FBI does, if they want evidence they go and take it. They get a warrant and kick in the front door. Ask Manafort and Stone. Abd Page went on to say,
@RepDougCollins 50/ “There were, I think, months of disagreement with respect to obtaining the Mills and Samuelson laptops. So Heather Mills and—Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were both lawyers who engaged in the sorting. Once it had been identified that Secretary Clinton had these…
@RepDougCollins 51/ …emails...I’m guessing it’s pursuant to the FOIA request, but I don’t really know...she...well, our understanding is that she asked her two lawyers to take the bulk of the 60,000 emails and to sort out those which were work-related from those which were personal and to…
@RepDougCollins 52/ …produce the work-related ones to the State Department." Again this is complete BS and completely void of any standard protocol by any federal investigator and damn sure no the FBI. You don't let the damn perp dictate to you what is evidence and what is not. PERIOD!
@RepDougCollins 53/ More Page testimony “They did so. That 30,000 is sort of the bulk of the emails that we relied on in order to do the investigative technique, although we found other emails a jillion other places.
@RepDougCollins 54/ We, the FBI, felt very strongly that we had to acquire and attempt to review the content of the Mills and Samuelson laptops because, to the extent the other 30,000 existed anywhere, that is the best place that they may have existed.”
@RepDougCollins 55/ What did they do though really? Nothing they just let the HRC team got to handle and sort all the evidence and handover what they deemed fit! This is complete crap and way you want to stack it.
@RepDougCollins 56/ Thousands of arrests, even more thousands of investigations in 50 years I've never let the perp do this and I've never even heard of anyone letting the perp do this.
@RepDougCollins 57/ It's like giving a Ponzi scheme suspect 48 hrs notice and loaning him a high speed shredder before a big document grab. Complete horse shit. And then pathetically Page admits after the fact in her own words:
@RepDougCollins 58/ “And notwithstanding the fact that they had been deleted, you know, we wanted at least to take a shot at using, you know, forensic recovery tools in order to try to ensure that, in fact, the sorting that occurred between, or by Mills and Samuelson was done correctly.”
@RepDougCollins 59/ Too little too late you twit. No one is buying this crap if they have any sense, they FBI wants something they go and take it. And to be fair, FBI cannot execute a search warrant without approval from the DOJ.
@RepDougCollins 60/ However in the normal world the FBI would go to the DOJ/IG and complain and the would have the authority to go after the servers without DOJ approval, BUT remember Sally Yates blocked Horowitz from being able to go after anything in the NATSEC div.
@RepDougCollins 61/ This was planned out way ahead of time, they weren't just flying by the seat of their pants. Besides the emails became a problem way before Horowitz was barred, back when Charles McCullough came to the FBI about her server and the breach by the Chinese.
@RepDougCollins 62/ More on this on the day two transcript.
@RepDougCollins 63/ So they can't hide completely behind Yates hamstringing Horowitz because they were alerted to a problem way prior to that and did nothing. That's on Comey and company.
@RepDougCollins 64/ I can sit and quote all the platitudes of Page's so called frustration with the DOJ but still they did nothing.
@RepDougCollins 65/ I hope Barr and them look into the possible obstruction charges if Lynch, Yates, Toscas or anyone at the OEO, (Office of Enforcement Operations) were restricting the FBI not to serve warrants to secure evidence as Page claims in her testimony.
@RepDougCollins 66/ Evey one of those in that chain of command should be put under oath and asked directly. I'm beating they through those below them to the dogs, and then the underlings will have to produce evidence to the contrary. An email, a text, something, or they go down with the ship.
@RepDougCollins 67/ Day two begins with a little tip toeing around subjects but just before yielding back Meadows took a shot to get a reaction by catching Page off guard and set up someone else to drill down further in this point. As I mentioned earlier about McCullough the IC IG.
@RepDougCollins 68/ Meadows asked why they weren't looking into intrusions or concerned with it. and Page was obviously rattled, you can detect the stammering in the transcript. Page said they never found any intrusion.
@RepDougCollins 69/ Meadows pushed it a little farther, and asked about the IC IG reporting it to the FBI.
@RepDougCollins 70/ If you recall the testimony of McCullough, that was backed up by the two people he sent to the FBI to inform them, his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief Strzok and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel.
@RepDougCollins 71/ Page has really backed herself in a corner with this one playing ignorant of this, because Gohmert got Strzok to admit to this meeting under oath when he testified before him.
@RepDougCollins 72/ It was washed over when Louie threw a shoe and went to the smirking at your wife comment and the committee train jumped the tracks. Page was the subject of that comment as well since she was the other woman.
@RepDougCollins 73/ tens of thousands of email exchanged between Page and Pete the Cheat and she had no idea that Rucker and McMillan had that meeting with her lover? Spare me the insult of even answering that, it's rhetorical.
@RepDougCollins 74/ But she goes all in with the I had no idea...
@RepDougCollins 75/ Meadows: “So what you’re telling me, it would surprise you to know today that, if there were anomalies, that the inspector general’s forensic team found those before it was referred to the FBI?” Page struggled to answer immediately.
@RepDougCollins 76/ "Uh wait, I uh oh well..." she was in trouble and she knew it, but she tried to recover. “To the extent that a foreign government or even a criminal outlet had had access to Secretary Clinton’s private email server, that would have been something we cared very much about.
@RepDougCollins 77/ And it’s my understanding that there was no evidence that would have supported that kind of conclusion.”
@RepDougCollins 78/ Meadows went for a body blow, “We have information from the inspector general of the intelligence community … that there were anomalies that would suggest that there were copies of every email going to a third party. … Is this news to you today?"
@RepDougCollins 79/ Page said it was “completely baffling to me.” Things are being teed up for someone else.
@RepDougCollins 80/ Meadows: "Well, that was the whole reason it was opened up, is my understanding, was him coming. They get it, they come to the
FBI. And so you're saying that's not the case?
@RepDougCollins 81/ He has Page on the ropes again. And there is no real good answer for her now that she's lied ans tried to cover it with playing dumb.
@RepDougCollins 82/ Page: "So my understanding -- and this is -- I am way out on a limb here, because this is not stuff I was involved in.
@RepDougCollins 83/ But my
understanding is that the IC IG did refer the existence of the server to the FBI, but that was because of the existence of classified
information on that server, not because of any anomalous activity, not because of potential intrusion activity.
@RepDougCollins 84/ Because it's not my
understanding that the IC IG conducted any sort of forensic analysis like that. My understanding is that- once it was made evident during the course of- I think, the FOIA production or maybe the production to
Congress that there was some classified…
@RepDougCollins 85/ …information which existed on a private email server, it got referred to the IC IG for those purposes, not related to intrusive activity." Page's hole just got 10 ft deep. She put herself in the cross-hairs of a prosecutable case.
@RepDougCollins 86/ You can bet they have all her texts, phone conversations and emails you name it. She's screwed.
@RepDougCollins 87/ Meadows: "Would that -- if that is indeed the fact, would that be a major concern to you?"
@RepDougCollins 88/ Page: "It would be a concern that we didn't know that or that that wasn't part of what they told us when they made the referral, but less so - - sir, honestly because our forensic investigators are so
phenomenal that - - notwithstanding whatever the IC IG may or may not…
@RepDougCollins 89/ …have conveyed, I know we looked extensively at this question.
Because that was a serious question.
@RepDougCollins 90/ And to the extent that a foreign government or even a criminal outlet had had access to Secretary
Clinton's private email server, that would have been something we cared very much about.
@RepDougCollins 91/ And it's my understanding that there was no evidence that would have supported that kind of conclusion."
@RepDougCollins 92/ Meadows time ran out but there was no back filling that hole she dug, even bragging how great their forensics guys were at the FBI
@RepDougCollins 93/ Arthur Baker, investigative counsel, House Judiciary Committee majority staff. wasn't going to let her off the hook that easy though.
@RepDougCollins 94/ Baker: "Regardless of how phenomenal forensic investigators might be, is it still possible that an extremely sophisticated foreign intelligence service could penetrate a server, could extract documents, could do a number of things without leaving a single forensic footprint?"
@RepDougCollins 95/ Page: "It's pretty -- I mean, everything is possible, but it's unlikely. I think Friday's indictments are revelatory of that. You don't get better than the GRU, and yet we have identified by name the people involved in theDNC hacking. So I think it's quite unlikely."
@RepDougCollins 96/ There was more back and forth between investigators and Page about the statute and grossly negligent and intent until Meadows stepped in
@RepDougCollins 97/ Meadows: "So let me ask you a clarifying question. Because I think this was an unusual case where Loretta Lynch, the AG, said that she was going to be independent of it and that she was going to leave it up to the FBI.
@RepDougCollins 98/ So, if you did no research and from a "grossly negligent" standpoint, how would you make the decision to prosecute or not if she was being independent of that?
@RepDougCollins 99/ Page: "So, sir, I think that what she said was that she was going to leave it up to the career prosecutors, not up to the FBI. So,
when she did her, kind of, half-recusal, she said that she was going to defer to the recommendations of the career prosecutors in the case."
@RepDougCollins 100/ Meadows: "So what you're s_aying is that she halfway recused herself but not really because there was other DOJ officials that were weighing in on that?
@RepDougCollins 101/ Page. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I can't speak to the recusal and whether it was appropriate or inappropriate or necessary..."
@RepDougCollins 102/ Meadows: "No, but your characterization..."
@RepDougCollins 103/ Page: "Oh, okay." Meadows: "And I agree it's a half-recusal. Because, at this point -- so are you saying that it was prosecutors at DOJ that made the decision on the 'grossly negligent' versus 'extremely careless' narrative?" Page. "No."
@RepDougCollins 104/ Meadows:"Or was that the FBI?"
@RepDougCollins 105/ Page: "No, no, no. So, I'm sorry, I understand your question now. With respect to whether a charge could be sustained under the 'gross negligence' statute, that's a determination made by the DOJ.
@RepDougCollins 106/ With respect to Mr. Comey's July 5th statement, when he -- in his
first draft of the statement back in May, he used the word 'gross negligence.' I don't know whether he used it intending to rely on its
legal definition or not.
@RepDougCollins 107/ With respect to the statement, we, the FBI, felt like it would
be confusing and misleading to use the word "gross negligence" when the information that we had received from the DOJ was that there was no charge sustainable under the 'gross negligence' statute.
@RepDougCollins 108/ And so we, the FBI, omitted the 'gross negligence' words in his press conference statement and moved up the paragraph that already contained the 'extremely careless' language into a different spot in his speech."
@RepDougCollins 109/ Meadows:"So, Lisa, why would you change that within 2 days
of -- you know, you admitted the other day, on I think it was May the 4th, where you said now there was real pressure to get the politics out of it.
@RepDougCollins 110/ And then we know within days that it was changed in what we call the exoneration letter. So why would that have changed at that particular point? Do you see how it looks bad?"
@RepDougCollins 111/ Page: "I do. But -- so it's the -- that's just when we had -- we, the whole team, had received the draft. Right? So the Director -- and I don't remember the exact date --"
@RepDougCollins 112/ Meadows: "But you received the draft before the text message that says, oh, my gosh, now he's the nominee. And so you had actually received it. We've got documents --"
@RepDougCollins 113/ Page: "Is that right? I just don't remember the dates exactly, sir."
@RepDougCollins 114/ Meadows: "And so receiving -- it was not after that. You got that, and then all of a sudden within 48 hours it's changed. And as
a reasonable person, you look, well, there's this statement and then all of a sudden it was changed.
@RepDougCollins 115/ And you're saying that that -had nothing to do with it?"
@RepDougCollins 116/ Page: "Yeah, I don't -- I'm not sure I'm totally following you, sir. I'm sorry."
@RepDougCollins 117/ Meadows: "Okay. Well, I'll be clear -" Page: "I'm sorry...."
@RepDougCollins 118/ Meadows: "because I want you to follow...." Page: "Yeah, yeah, yeah."
@RepDougCollins 119/ Meadows: "And you know that I've appreciated your willingness to help.
When you said that we had to get politics out of it and you changed --"
@RepDougCollins 120/ Page: "The pressure. I think what I said was that... Meadows: "-- the pressure ramped up."
@RepDougCollins 121/ Page: "now that it was a two-person race -- I'm going to try to find the text itself. But now that it was a two-person race, the pressure to finish it had sort of increased."
@RepDougCollins 122/ Meadows: "Right. So the memo was May 2nd."
@RepDougCollins 123/ Page: "Okay." Meadows: "Your text message that we've got to clear this up
was May 4th...." Page: "Okay."
@RepDougCollins 124/ Meadows: "And then we know it was changed by May 6. And that's a real problematic timeframe that would indicate that all of a sudden we've got to get this cloud from over, you know -- -"
@RepDougCollins 125/ Page: "Oh, I see." Meadows:" -- Hillary Clinton and we better change -- and it's
just -- it looks suspicious."
@RepDougCollins 126/ Page: "I see what you'resaying, sir. I don't know if this
is reassuring at all, but the decision to change the statement, to omit the 'gross negligence' language from the statement, was actually not
either me or Pete's recommendation. It was another lawyer.
@RepDougCollins 127/ I don't know if this is any consolation, but --"
@RepDougCollins 128/ Meadows: "Yeah. We've got the email chains. So who was the
other lawyer?"
@RepDougCollins 129/ Page: "I'm -- I - I..." Meadows: "That's a closed case. You should be able to tell us...."
@RepDougCollins 130/ Page: "I have been told by the FBI that people, other than
myself, who are GS-l5s, we're not, sort of, providing that. "
@RepDougCollins 131/ Meadows: "So you're saying this is someone lower than a GS-15 that made that kind of decision?"
@RepDougCollins 132/ Page: "Well, it's not a decision; it's just legal advice,
right? So there were a group of us --
@RepDougCollins 133/ Meadows: "You're saying someone lower than a GS-15 make a legal decision?"
@RepDougCollins 134/ Page: "No. It was a GS-15. It's not lower than. It was a GS-15. So we had received --" Meadows: "So was it Ms. Moyer?"
@RepDougCollins 135/ Page: "We had received the draft of the statement. A group
of us had gotten together in order to consolidate our comments so that we were not providing back to the chief of staff to the Director four separate drafts that they had to now reconcile."
@RepDougCollins 136/ Meadows: "Right." ....Page: "So the four of us got together. We were sort of
reviewing it, sort of, step by step. And the recommendation was: I don't think that we should use this phrase, 'gross negligence,' because it has an actual legal term. And it was our collective…
@RepDougCollins 137/ …understanding that the DOJ did
not think that -- and we agreed -- that there was not sufficient evidence to support both 'gross negligence' and that, more importantly, it was not a sustainable statute because it was unconstitutionally vague and never charged.
@RepDougCollins 138/
And so we, really, sort of, as a collective but on recommendation of counsel, removed that language and moved up the 'extremely careless' paragraph."
@RepDougCollins 139/ John Ratcliffe stepped in to ask, " Ms. Page, let me ask youa question. How well do you know Jim Comey?"...Page.: How well do I know Jim Corney?"....Ratcliffe: "Yeah."
@RepDougCollins 140/ Page. I mean, he's not my personal friend, but I've been in
a lot of meetings with him."
@RepDougCollins 141/ Ratcliffe: "Did any of the other folks that you're referencing in connection with making the change have more
prosecutorial experience than Jim Corney?"... Page: " No."
@RepDougCollins 142/ Ratcliffe. As someone that knows Jim Corney, is he a person that chooses his words carefully?" Page: "He is, yeah. But I...."
@RepDougCollins 143/ Ratcliffe: "Would he throw around a term like 'gross negligence' not really meaning gross negligence?"
@RepDougCollins 144/ Page: "In this case, I actually think so, sir, but only because it's a term that obviously he was familiar with in the statute, but as DAG I am certain he would not have ever seen such a case.
@RepDougCollins 145/ And the truth of the matter is 793(f) is not necessarily a particularly controversial statute; it's one that's used with some regularity. And so I'm not sure, as I sit here today, how familiar with the detail and the specifics of 793(f) he would have been.
@RepDougCollins 146/ So my guess is he's trying to use a term that makes sense, that has sort of a commonsense feel to it, which 'gross negligence'' does and obviously appears in the statute.
@RepDougCollins 147/ But it was sort of our assessment that to use that phrase, because it does have a legal meaning, but then to not charge gross negligence, as we knew it was not supportable, would just be confusing."
@RepDougCollins 148/ Ratcliffe: "But you knew it was not supportable because the DOJ told you that it wouldn't be supportable."... Page: "That's correct, sir."
@RepDougCollins 149/ Ratcliffe: "So you accepted that as the basis for which you wanted to make that change?" ... Page: "That's correct."
@RepDougCollins 150/ Meadows: "I think we're out of time, but one last question
real quickly. So you made that determination without having interviewed the last 17 witnesses and Ms. Clinton?"
@RepDougCollins 151/ Page: "Yes, sir, because the legal determination wouldn't have been affected by the factual -- the facts, sort of, that may have
come out of those investigations, right? So let's assume things are going swimmingly and, in fact, all 17 of those witnesses admit, "We did…
@RepDougCollins 152/ …it, it was on purpose, we totally
wanted to mishandle classified information," gross negligence would still have been off the table because of the Department's assessment that it was vague.
@RepDougCollins 153/ We would have other crimes to now charge, but gross negligence would not have been among them.
Meadows: "Thank you."
@RepDougCollins 154/Most of day 2 of Page testimony she spent it throwing the entire DOJ under the bus, but in my mind this line of questioning was the most important & it involved the Page FISA & Woods Procedures. They're talking about the dossier & the herculean effort to try and cooborate it.
155/ They never were able to verify any of it through herculean efforts and yet they still presented it to the FISC and that is a direct violation of the Woods Procedures. And fro all I can tell that is a felony to the affiant in the preparation of this application.
In the Day 2 testimony of Lisa Page, pages 33- 37 is a very interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) which is the mishandling of classified information statute where the legal term gross negligence comes into play.
She has to tip toe to try to differentiate between using a grand jury to obtain subpoenas and search warrants under that statute but not being permitted to indict anyone under it because of DOJ's opinion that it is unconstitutional, to be exact, the gross negligence part.
It is counter-intuitive and complete BS to say a statute is unconstitutional for one purpose but not for another purpose.
She has to really parse the statute and consult with the FBI counsel to try to explain it, while it would have been far easier to just say, "You need to ask the DOJ attorneys why they took those actions. I don't know."

I found that quite curious as some times she seems far…
…removed with the day to day decisions on MYE and then turns around and gets deep into the weeds of what was and wasn't found by the investigation and battles with DOJ in obtaining Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson's laptops which presumably had the 30,000 deleted emails on…

At the end of the day, the Obama Justice Department followed Obama's lead when he publicly stated Hillary committed no wrong-doing, twice.
She tried to explain that Comey had already decided to keep DOJ in the dark as to his intentions to exonerate Hillary in a press conference the first week of July. To her credit, she was very critical of Lynch's non-recusal/recusal after the tango on the tarmac.
Page said that in her opinion it was not a true legal recusal. So for what it's worth, had Comey come to a different conclusion, Lynch would have still been in place to stop charges from going forward.
It was already determined that no charges would be brought against Clinton in early May, 2016, at the latest. Comey was already circulating his draft statement that he eventually read at the July 5th presser.
Page also testified that early on, the DOJ was essentially blocking the FBI from gaining access to the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.
They were Hillary's lawyers who sorted out her personal emails from her State Department emails (supposedly) and the FBI thought they might be able to recover the deleted emails forensically. DOJ for whatever reasons, were very slow to move on that request, nearly six months.
Page isn't stupid though she did stupid stuff. They understood the statutes HRD was guilty of violating.
Page testified extensively that there was a back and forth with DOJ over the statute in question, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being unconstitutional in the view of DOJ and thus it would be against DOJ rules to even bring the matter before a grand jury for the purposes of indicting her.
However, that same 'unconstitutional' statute was used to issue search warrants and subpoenas, against people around Trump.
They can't have it both ways, and as it was so colorfully put by Rep. Kennedy from Louisiana, "it's a prefect example of the elite two tiered justice system and it's a bunch or crap."
Jeff Carlson has this nailed down and has been ahead of the curve on all these transcripts. Collins is starting to dump them now. Jeff's work is filling in all the blanks. Tomorrow we should see the Steele/Kramer transcripts, this should be good.
All this back and forth all this charade that they were really looking into investigation HRC for real is crap. I honestly don't believe the fluff that Comey was forced to back down by the DOJ. Comey is no wall flower.
This is the guy that stood his ground in Ashcroft's hospital room. He made a decision and went with it. He chose his career over what was right. This all goes back to 2015.
On September 28, 2015, Loretta Lynch, Matthew Axelrod, and George Toscas met with Jimmmy Comey, James Rybicki, and then FBI Deputy Director Giuliano to coordinate what to say in media and congressional appearances.
Lynch instructed Comey not to refer to it as an "investigation," but rather as a "matter," reflecting Clinton campaign talking points. Toscas said to Comey, "I guess you're the Federal Bureau of Matters now," provoking laughter around the room.
We have all the emails and transcripts, they can't hide

Two weeks later Obama intervened on behalf of Clinton on 60 Minutes. The OIG found that some people in the DOJ and FBI became suspicious of political bias because of Obama's comments.
Calls for a Special Counsel to take over mounted. Comey told the OIG that he never considered a Special Counsel after Lynch’s instruction to use the term "matter," or President Obama’s public comments and intervention in the investigation.
PADAG Matthew Axelrod didn't consider the email scandal a criminal investigation, although everyone else in the DOJ and FBI did.
Axelrod claimed it was a security breach in the intelligence community where agencies outside the State Department wanted their classified material back.
So while the FBI rushed to clear Hillary in the email scandal before her July nomination, Yates and Axelrod then sought to tamp down the ongoing Clinton Foundation investigation before the November election.

The OIG report is replete with denials by Yates and Axelrod of…
…interference by political appointees, and self-serving statements limiting their involvement to offering the FBI adequate "resources" and "everything they need" -- "resources" and "everything they need" meaning more people involved in the case. They had already taken the…
…investigation away from the New York DOJ and FBI offices, where the crime was committed, and given it to the DOJ National Security Division and Washington FBI field office so as to purposely limit the number people with knowledge and direct involvement in the case.
The DOJ's decision to share blame with the FBI for bad decisions in the Hillary Clinton "matter" appears to have been pushed by Axelrod and a few others. Comey's self-righteous ego lent him to manipulation.
Eventually his penchant for upstaging his bosses led him, twice, to make himself the perfect fall guy for DOJ leadership. Comey justified playing hero and martyr with pathetic pronouncements about preserving the integrity of institutions which had delivered a predetermined…
…outcome of the "matter" in July, and in October failed to investigate the Weiner laptop at all, after supposedly re-opening the "matter" to review and clear 600,000 Clinton emails of classified information in six days, what a crock.
Obama intervened in an ongoing FBI criminal investigation when he publicly stated on national television that Hillary Clinton has shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information.
Obama insisted that Clinton had not intended to endanger national security. Intent is not an element of the criminal statutes relevant to the handling of classified information.
Obama acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Sec. Clinton’s server, but he suggested its importance was overstated.

The FBI investigation concluded that Sec. of State Clinton communicated with President Obama via email.
The fact that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were emailing each other, indicates President Obama did in fact know of Clinton’s illegal email account. He private email had to be "white listed" manually for Obama to email back and forth to her.
Where are the 3 dozen emails Obama claimed executive privilege on? Archived for 50 years is where they are.
This thing started against Trump from day one. Donald Trump declared his intention to seek he Office of the Presidency on June 16, 2015. Obama received his first briefing on Trump shortly thereafter. On July 20, 2015 DOJ Dep. Attn.
Gen. Sally Yates issued a 58-page legal explanation denying the OIG and Michael Horowitz oversight of the DOJ National Security Division. They blindfolded the oversight of the spying part of the DOJ 4 days after Trump came down the escalator. FOUR DAYS!
Beginning in November 2015 President Obama’s political operatives within the Depart of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) were conducting illegal surveillance to monitor the Trump campaign. The NSD unit was working in coordination with Peter Strzok and others of…
…the FBI Counterintelligence Division.

Stories are breaking all over the Internet about Lisa page his testimony where she admitted that the insurance policy was the actual investigation into collusion on the Donald Trump campaign.
I think that true to an extent but I think they’re looking at it from the wrong direction. The insurance policy was actually there to cover them if in fact Trump won the election.
Not necessarily to get Trump out of office but it sure is the fact that they’re illegal surveillance would be covered up. They had to come up with a plan that they can retroactively put into affect that would cover them for over a year or two of illegal surveillance.
Bus came the Russia investigation it justified them using counterintelligence espionage technologies to surveilled a presidential campaign. With Mike Rogers closing in on them it became a mass scramble to get the FISAs in place.
Had they not gotten things in place they had no cover and they would all go to jail. I fully believe the story that when Hillary lost that she cried out if we don’t do something about this will all hang or something along those lines.
They were all complicit they were all involved and they know they were all exposed. What has happened to James Clapper and John Brennam and James Comey it’s like they went in the witness protection program they’ve gone radio silent.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!