Former FBI Attorney LISA PAGE is Spilling The Beans and Coming Clean.

a reply to: Justoneman

Fascist are socialists and it is all related to Marxism. This has been established numerous times on ATS.

No, some members just keep repeating the same mistake.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


I wonder how many die hard Trump supporters would be willing to accept what they might hear. What would it take to convince them?

evidence that a court would convict on. Not hearsay, but provable facts. And I'd hold the tree steady while you tie the rope.

But by the same token, if Trump isn't guilty, and he hasn't plunged us into war, like so many before him, what would it take for you to tolerate him?

UPDATE: Monday 7.16.2018

In her 2 days of testimony, Lisa Page has opened new avenues to investigate. Impressing Republicans on the committee with her honesty, and causing Democrats to be uncharacteristically quiet.

Republicans say they have new leads to pursue regarding the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation following the second day of a closed-door interview with Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who exchanged text messages with an FBI agent critical of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Rep. John Ratcliff, R-Texas, told reporters that Page has been more cooperative than Strzok in her interview, offering lawmakers “plausible answers” and “plausible explanations.”

“In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative,” Ratcliff told reporters.

“She's certainly more cooperative than Peter Strzok was and the pieces of information filled in some blanks along the way, but we've got a huge jigsaw puzzle to put together,” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, agreed.

King said he wrote a letter to committee leaders Monday requesting they subpoena additional information, including text messages between Page and Strzok sent on their personal devices, though he predicted President Trump would need to declassify certain details.

“I wanna see the names of everyone who interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016,” King demanded. “I wanna see their notes. I want to consider bringing each of them forward to testify what went on inside that room and then see if their notes and their testimony matches up to the 302 document that in the end was the basis that Peter Strzok briefed James Comey off of.”

King added that he would like to learn the names of the FISA judges, any FISA warrant requests and supporting documents.

“The president of the United States appears to be the only one who has the power and authority to bring all of this information forward. The American people deserve access to all of this information,” King said. “We need to know the information that was brought forward and who prepared it because we've got a tainted investigation here put together by some very, very biased people.”

Source: abcnews.go.com...

I HOPE Lisa Page is scheduled for a follow-up Open Session, like Peter Strzok was, after his closed-sesssion testimony.

a reply to: carewemust

Thanks for the update as this was buried today.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust

Thanks for the update as this was buried today.

Thankfully, the various investigating committees don't get side-tracked when the MSM is freaking out over nothing-burger stories. Every day, they're uncovering new material.

For instance, Lisa Page provided info that empowered Congress to uncover hidden messages, which proved that Barack Obama knew of and (probably) authorized spying on the Trump campaign.

Source: twitter.com...

This is BIG, but the MSM is keeping the sheep focused on the Russia non-story. But the news media won't be able to ignore this Spygate-FISAgate scandal for much longer.

President Trump also confirmed tonight (with Sean Hannity in Helsinki) that President Obama's chickens will be coming home to roost.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust

Thanks for the update as this was buried today.

How can you bury lengthy statements devoid of content? "She talked." Yes, she did. "She answered questions." True. "She opened up new avenues to investigate." Really? What were they? Hello? Hello? More posturing by Republicans desperate to sidetrack attention from their cover-up of their Manchurian President.

a reply to: DJW001

More posturing by Republicans desperate to sidetrack attention from their cover-up of their Manchurian President.

Hard to "cover-up" a story the msm decides not to cover.
The fact that any FBI lawyer, let alone one intricately involved in a counter-intelligence investigation of a presidential election campaign, called to testify under oath in a closed congressional hearing was not covered speaks volumes about the state of the current msm, not to even mention their bias in coverage.
The fact that you cheer such is telling as well.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It was covered. Since it was secret, all we have is second hand opinion from the people who are covering up for Trump.

a reply to: DJW001

www.newsbusters.org...
You will understand why I refuse to take your word.

The allegations against her were serious but the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) didn’t find anything interesting about the subpoena snub.

Not the first time for them to attempt to bury a story not to their liking, and I am sure it won't be the last.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: DJW001

www.newsbusters.org...
You will understand why I refuse to take your word.

The allegations against her were serious but the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) didn’t find anything interesting about the subpoena snub.

Not the first time for them to attempt to bury a story not to their liking, and I am sure it won't be the last.

What, exactly, were the allegations? She has something to hide? That "allegation" is itself is an admission that she said nothing incriminating.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The allegations against her were serious but the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) didn’t find anything interesting about the subpoena snub.

Washington Post

www.cnn.com...


abcnews.go.com...

Sorry if they didn't spin it to your liking.

a reply to: DJW001

wapo is behind a pay wall
cnn is from last friday

the abc story is the only one from a msm source i have found from yesterday

dont care about the spin, i commented on the coverage or lack there of

a reply to: shooterbrody


Unlike the Mueller witch-hunt, this Congressional investigation is finding that political and government people broke laws.

The I.G. Report says that the media is involved. Hence the lack of coverage. That's fine. I love watching them focus on nothingburger issues, while their eyes show fear.

a reply to: network dude

evidence that a court would convict on. Not hearsay, but provable facts. And I'd hold the tree steady while you tie the rope.

But by the same token, if Trump isn't guilty, and he hasn't plunged us into war, like so many before him, what would it take for you to tolerate him?

Same as that :-)

And maybe some gin

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody


Unlike the Mueller witch-hunt, this Congressional investigation is finding that political and government people broke laws.

The I.G. Report says that the media is involved. Hence the lack of coverage. That's fine. I love watching them focus on nothingburger issues, while their eyes show fear.

John Brennan (Obama's CIA director) is having a full-blown meltdown. He's in deep, deep trouble. His eyes, body language, and way over-the-top rhetoric all point towards it.

a reply to: carewemust

We just gotta confirm the Chinese angle, other then that, these offenders were prolly a small group capable of pulling strings to get the last Admin crap rolling.

Its beautiful and amazing to have uncovered this plot full force and in front of everybody. I believe their allies and contacts are dropping like flies at the amount of coverage.

a reply to: DJW001

Still with the BS spin, huh?

Sorry nobody believes you at all and any coversation with you is purely humor 😁

Carry on 😃

a reply to: carewemust

I HOPE Lisa Page is scheduled for a follow-up Open Session, like Peter Strzok was, after his closed-sesssion testimony.

As Lisa has been forthcoming in her testimony, and not playing the same game as the big "Peter", it will not be necessary. Ol Pete was put in public view so the American People could see (judge) for themselves what kind of, umm, person he was. On the other hand, Lisa's public testimony would not aid us in judging her, but rather, the silence from the Democrats. It would expose their (Dems) mindset. Publicly, there would be few, if any, questions from the Dem side. Maybe the American People should see that?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Trey Gowdy said that he would like to have full transparency and have each witness testify in Open Session.. even if they testify first in closed session.

There are at least 40 other Witnesses being lined up for Testimony related to Spygate.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Trey Gowdy said that he would like to have full transparency and have each witness testify in Open Session.. even if they testify first in closed session.

There are at least 40 other Witnesses being lined up for Testimony related to Spygate.

Full disclosure would undoubtedly cause a civil war, not from knowledge, but from ignorance. Full disclosure would lead to all family dollar, dollar generals, and wall mart to close up shop. Or, start carrying American products...

From what I can see, RUSSIA, the Constitutional Republic, had nothing to do with any hack and has no financial pony in the show. But, on the other hand.....

According to this report, in 1998—18 years prior to Hillary Clinton and her “Deep State” allies concocting the “fake news” Russia-collusion story to destroy President Donald Trump—the only known real foreign government collusion scandal in US presidential election history erupted when The Washington Post shockingly reported that during the 1996 reelection campaign of President Bill Clinton: “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

No wonder another country had some massive tariffs placed on them....... Hmmm, Mr Ohr, I'm looking at you!