A newly reported comment made by former FBI attorney Lisa Page during her May testimony to Congress has revealed a "momentous fact," according to The Hill's John Solomon: after nine months of investigations - which included the use of a well-paid spy to infiltrate the Trump campaign, The FBI had no clue whether there was any collusion between Trumpworld and Russia when the case was handed over to special counsel Robert Mueller.

“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. -The Hill

"As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question," said Page at another point.

In short - the FBI's lead attorney on the Trump-Russia investigation said the agency had no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, while special counsel Robert Mueller has yet to produce a shred of evidence either.

Comey corroborates...

As Solomon notes, ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate shortly after he was fired that there was "not yet evidence to justify invstigating Trump for colluding with Russia."

"When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump," Comey told Congressional investigators.

Meanwhile, Page's lover Peter Strzok - who spearheadsed the FBI's counterintelligence investigation before Mueller took over, texted "there's no big there, there."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general asked Strzok shortly before he was fired from the FBI what he meant by that text, and he offered a most insightful answer. Strzok said he wasn’t certain there was a “broad, coordinated effort” to hijack the election and that the evidence of Trump campaign aides talking about getting Hillary Clinton dirt from Russians might have been just a “bunch of opportunists” talking to heighten their importance. Strzok added that, while he raised the idea of impeachment in some of his texts to Page, “I am, again, was not, am not convinced or certain that it will,” he told the IG. -The Hill

In short, James Comey, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have all said or implied that the FBI had nothing linking Trump to Russia. Which, as John Solomon concludes, raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special prosecutor?

Page's admission also sugests that the FBI and DOJ officials were likely behind a series of leaks to the media just before Mueller's appointment which made collusion evidence look far stronger than investigators knew it to be. It also suggests that the MSM - "perhaps longing to find a new Watergate," were "far too willing to be manipulated by players in a case that began as a politicial opposition research project funded by Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, and led by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, who despised Trump."

At what point does Trump simply demand Mueller lay his cards on the table?