Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, darlings of the liberal media and #Resistance (to the tune of over $450k worth of donations in the case of Strzok) are credited with knowing lots of things, and with being the invaluable and beyond criticism bringers of justice by those groups. But despite the almost total wall-to-wall coverage that Strzok received in Capitol Hill hearings featuring his salacious email exchanges with extra-marital lover Page, they are strangely absent from the last few days of cable news coverage.

Strangely because you would think with a bombshell like what Lisa Page dropped in more recent testimony, they’d be returned to the spotlight. Or at least, you would think that if you thought the press pursued truth rather than agenda.

What bombshell, you ask? Well…

More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page’s recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News. “I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page said.

We could go through a lot of blockquotes from various reports, but I’m gonna break this down for y’all real simple-like.







After almost a year, not were FBI investigators at a loss to prove any collusion between Trump and Russia, they didn’t have any evidence at all. After all the investigating. After all the snarky emails. After all the press pressure and the secret hearings, they had nada.

And there’s more. This is from an awesome op-ed posted at The Hill today.

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation. With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling. Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did. “As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point. I reached out to Page’s lawyer, Amy Jeffress, on Friday. She declined to answer questions about her client’s cooperation with Congress. It might take a few seconds for the enormity of Page’s statements to sink in. After all, she isn’t just any FBI lawyer. She was a lead on the Russia case when it started in summer 2016, and she helped it transition to Mueller through summer 2017.

Oh and this.

So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special prosecutor probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia. Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor? Page’s comments also mean FBI and Justice officials likely leaked a barrage of media stories just before and after Mueller’s appointment that made the evidence of collusion look far stronger than the frontline investigators knew it to be. Text messages show contacts between key FBI and DOJ players and the Washington Post, the Associated Press and the New York Times during the ramp-up to Mueller’s probe. And that means the news media — perhaps longing to find a new Watergate, to revive sagging fortunes — were far too willing to be manipulated by players in a case that began as a political opposition research project funded by Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, and led by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, who despised Trump.

Read the entire thing.

It’s perfect that Watergate was mentioned in that, because one of the key figures in it was Bob Woodward. Woodward is revered by the left and the media for taking out their enemy, Nixon, and as a journalist and investigator. And yet he, too, found absolutely zilcho to support the claim of collusion. Yeah, nada compadres.

Seems like taking them together that’d be reason enough for this to be a big story. The collusion story is only the biggest thing in the whole country, after all.

But nope. It’s back page. What a shocker.