https://judiciary.house.gov/pr...se-to-defy-subpoena/

Press Release by Chm Goodlatte

Lisa Page Has No Excuse to Defy Subpoena

Washington, D.C. – Lisa Page, legal counsel to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, defied a congressional subpoena issued by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). She is a key witness in the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees’ investigation into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016. Her attorney provided a litany of excuses for Ms. Page’s failure to appear today, but none of the excuses hold water.

Excuse: Lisa Page was not provided sufficient notice to prepare for the deposition.

Reality: On December 19, 2017, Chairmen Goodlatte and Gowdy sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting to interview Lisa Page. That’s seven months ago. Another letter was sent in April 2018. Committee staff have been in direct contact with Ms. Page’s attorney since June 2018 and she and her attorney refused to commit to a date for an interview. Consequently, Chairman Goodlatte subpoenaed Lisa Page.

Excuse: The Committees would be asking Lisa Page about materials she has not yet reviewed.

Reality: Many of the documents Lisa Page would be asked about are documents and communications that she created. Additionally, these very same materials were provided to Ms. Page during her interview with the Inspector General. Despite being aware of the Committees’ request for a transcribed interview for seven months, Ms. Page and her attorney waited until yesterday afternoon to go to the FBI to review documents, just hours before her scheduled deposition. In fact, it is the Committee’s understanding that Ms. Page never requested access to view the documents until the FBI reached out to her.

Excuse: The scope of the interview was too broad for Lisa Page, and should have been narrowed.

Reality: The scope covers Ms. Page’s involvement in the matters pertaining to the Committees’ investigation into decisions made by the Justice Department and the FBI in 2016, and her role related to those decisions. That was clearly communicated to Ms. Page. Ms. Page was involved in both the Mid-Year Exam and Russia investigations, and is a key fact witness for the Committee.

Let's ask Lisa- Hey, Lis? Lookin' back now, was that dick worth all of this? You could've bought a 14" dildo off of Amazon. You don't get subpoenaed for that, babe.

And the Mandingo Superdong Deluxe will never leave you or tell you that it's married.

Weekly Standard
Eric Felten

Former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok has been much heard from—in the medium of his many text messages—but seldom seen. That all changes Thursday at 10 a.m., when the man central to investigations into both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will appear before a joint hearing of the House committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform. Strzok’s testimony will not only be public, it will be streamed. House Republicans will try to find out whether Strzok’s politically biased comments damage the FBI’s investigation into Team Trump; Strzok will try to rehabilitate himself as a martyr to truth.

Strzok’s favorite correspondent, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, was to have appeared before the congressional committees Wednesday. But, claiming that she had not had time to review documents and prepare, she took a pass on honoring the subpoena she had been served. North Carolina representative Mark Meadows tweeted his displeasure: “Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'—and everything to do with avoiding accountability.” Her silence can be seen as either helping Strzok (by not adding any new damaging information into the equation) or hurting him (by leaving him to testify Thursday without benefit of knowing what she has to say).

Unlike Page, Strzok has not resisted subpoenas. He has merely said they are unnecessary, that he’s willing to testify whenever and wherever Congress wants. He is eager to sit at the witness table, especially if it is a public affair. “We regret that the Committee felt it necessary to issue a subpoena when we repeatedly informed them that Pete was willing to testify voluntarily,” Strzok’s lawyer—Aitan Goelman of Zuckerman Spaeder—said in June. Since Strzok already testified behind closed doors for 11 hours on June 27, Goelman has been asking that the transcript be made public: “To provide the public with assurances that the Committee truly seeks fair play and transparency,” Goelman wrote to Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “we request that you publicly release the transcript of Special Agent Strzok’s previous testimony.” It’s a reasonable request, and one can hope that the transcript will be made public, if not before Thursday’s public testimony, then soon after.

There’s every reason to think that the FBI agent will take his congressional antagonists head on. His lawyers have been touting his military experience as evidence of his charater: “Pete is [sic] military veteran who served with honor,” begins a bio-sheet section headed “Defended America in the 101st Airborne.” Fair enough. But one gets the sense that the Zuckerman Spaeder team are trying a bit too hard when they go on to remind us that the 101st was “the unit that draws a proud lineage back to parachuting behind German lines prior to D-Day.” One doubts that the heroes of Sainte-Mere-Eglise fought and died to provide cover to a disgraced government employee.

All of this gives some credence to predictions that Strzok is going to try to pull an Ollie North (perhaps with some indignant tones borrowed from Joseph Welch). But it’s a strategy as tricky as it is bold. Stand up to congressional inquisitors and Strzok may indeed come across as a lonely hero. Or, he may present himself instead as a Col. Nathan “You Can’t Handle the Truth” Jessup.

If this does prove to be Strzok’s strategy, Republicans on the House committees have no excuse not to be ready for it. One, they have already had a day in the FBI agent’s company. Two, Strzok’s legal team has telegraphed its playbook.

But perhaps more significant, there has been reporting (such as that by John Solomon at The Hill) suggesting that the committees have gained access to more damaging communications involving Strzok. If the FBI agent has a plan of attack in mind, it could well be thrown off by having to explain emails and memos he hasn’t anticipated justifying.


Whoever gets the upper hand, tomorrow’s hearing promises to be among the more compelling and riveting events in the long slog of the various Russia investigations.

Link

Gowdy and Goodlatte sent Lisa Page's lawyer a letter today.

It said the Judiciary Comm will initiate contempt proceedings on Friday at 10:30 am.

She can avoid the contempt proceedings by either:

a. appearing at the Thursday morning open hearing, or

b. appear for a deposition on Friday at 10am

Sounds like "option a" would mean she appears with Strzok at the same time.

At this point, my own personal preference is that Lisa Page continues to defy the committee. Let's see what the comm is capable of, and willing to do. Good opportunity to make an example of Lisa Page.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Contempt of Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

quote:

Sounds like "option a" would mean she appears with Strzok at the same time.

Bad idea. They goan be knockin' boots again.

I don't understand - what's the point of giving Lisa Page an option a and an option b? And if she needs to be made an example of, well, send the Deputy Marshalls. This ain't rocket science, and any attempt to be subtle (or even vaguely polite) is an opportunity for her side to sow more confusion and insist on more delays.

Remember, this twinkie is used to an administration where Dems are not only handled with kid gloves, but given control of the process! Where do you think all of this obstructionistic garbage is coming from?

Her delay was to get past the open hearing tomorrow. No way in hell was she going to be interviewed privately prior to Strzok's public testimony where her answers might not match his. She will now have the luxury of previewing his answers before giving hers.

Same thing Strzok did for her- gave her the choice of top or bottom.

Well, sometimes things just have to go sideways.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
...
Let's see what the comm is capable of, and willing to do. Good opportunity to make an example of Lisa Page.

Yes. Over the last decade there have been too many people skating away.

busy day today.

this post is about the lawsuit against Buzzfeed for releasing the dossier in Jan 2017.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...nub-sends-dossier-l/

Mediation failed to resolve the lawsuit by Aleksej Gubarev against Buzzfeed.

Mr. Steele’s final memo in December 2016 accused Mr. Gubarev of a charge that even the former spy later admitted in court he didn’t confirm: that Mr. Gubarev, the creator of Webzilla Inc., a computer server supplier, had bombarded Democratic Party computers with pornography and spyware.

The Gubarev lawsuit now is headed for trial in Florida in November — unless Judge Ungaro dismisses the case based on a legal doctrine known as “fair reporting privilege.

Mr. Steele has said in a court filing in London, where Mr. Gubarev is suing him for libel, that he did not confirm unsolicited Gubarev reports. He simply added them to his final memo of December 2016 and left it to others to confirm.

Mr. Gurvits has said that any BuzzFeed investigation will turn up no evidence because Mr. Gubarev played no role in Russian computer hacking.

Before posting the dossier, BuzzFeed said, it tried to verify the charges but never contacted Mr. Gubarev.

In the Gubarev case, the next key phase is for Judge Ungaro to rule on whether BuzzFeed was simply following what is called “fair reporting privilege” when it posted the dossier.

BuzzFeed argues that since the dossier became part of the FBI’s criminal investigation, it was entitled to publish.

Judge Ungaro appeared to signal that she would rule in favor of BuzzFeed and possibly dismiss the lawsuit if the media company can prove that a CNN hyperlink accompanying the Jan. 17, 2017, report is true. CNN reported on the dossier’s overall charges of Russia-Trump collusion and the fact that President-elect Donald Trump was briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey on a salacious account about him.

“Regardless of the broad scope of the privilege, its protection is available only if an ordinary reader of the Article would have concluded that there was a classified briefing or an FBI investigation concerning the truth of the Dossier’s allegations,” Judge Ungaro wrote.

To date, not one of Mr. Steele’s collusion charges against Trump people has been confirmed publicly.

It is unclear whether the FBI ever investigated the December memo. Mr. Gubarev told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that he has never been contacted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mueller indicts 13 Russians, but no Russians from the dossier.

Mueller doesn't even talk to Gubarev

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Same thing Strzok did for her- gave her the choice of top or bottom.

So, she is going to make Congress Strzok it before she opens up?

Trump calls out Sessions over FBI lawyer Lisa Page's no-show at Congress

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...how-at-congress.html

President Trump in an early morning tweet Thursday nudged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to act over FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s refusal to comply with subpoena and testify before Congress.

“As I head out to a very important NATO meeting, I see that FBI Lover/Agent Lisa Page is dodging a Subpoena & is refusing to show up and testify,” Trump tweeted early Thursday morning.

He continued, “What can she possibly say about her statements and lies. So much corruption on the other side. Where is the Attorney General?”

Sessions has been the target of Trump in the past. The presiden slammed him for recusing himself from the Russia-collusion investigation and for his “weak position” on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “crimes.”

“The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself...I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!” Trump tweeted last month.

Trump also aired out his frustration with Sessions’ lack of fervor in tackling allegations of government surveillance abuse, calling out his “disgraceful” decision to instruct the Department of Justice's inspector general to probe the allegations.

“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!” Trump tweeted.

Trump’s remarks came as Page defied a subpoena to appear on Wednesday before the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, even as her lawyer claims she “will cooperate with this investigation.”

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte said Wednesday that U.S. Marshals were called in to serve Page with a subpoena to testify and accused her of “apparently” having “something to hide.”

Attorney Amy Jeffress told Fox News that Page didn’t testify on Wednesday as they didn’t have enough time to prepare, noting that she would ask lawmakers to schedule another date for the interview behind closed doors.

Members of Congress seek to grill Page regarding about her anti-Trump text messages with embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she had an affair. Strzok, meanwhile, is set to testify publicly for the first time on Thursday before House Republicans who are investigating bias at the FBI.

hearing today re Strzok

Goodlatte and Gowdy good opening statements. Attacking that the text messages show strong bias and decision making before the investigation.


DEMs Nadler and Cummings : attacking the comm for interfering w Mueller investigation

Strzok says his texts caused misguided attacks against the FBI

He says his texts criticized a lot of people.

He says not once did his opinions influence his actions. There is no evidence of bias in his actions.

Proud of his work in the Clinton investigation and the Russia investigation. The investigation is not politically motivated or a witch hunt.

Today's hearing is just another notch in Putin's belt to disrupt the democratic process

Strzok won't answer the first question. Strzok claims the FBI won't let him answer. Strzok says he is not under subpoena but he is there voluntarily.

Goodlatte is hammering Strzok. DEM Nadler keeps interrupting to say Strzok cannot answer due to the ongoing investigation.

DEMs are going nuts. Constantly interrupting. Now Jackson Lee interrupting. This is a circus triggered by the DEMs.

Nadler moves to adjourn. This is crazy.

Strzok keeps saying the counsel of the FBI has directed him not to answer.

Now Strzok can't remember writing the text about "stopping it".

DEMs are totally destroying this hearing. It is at a stand still.

Strzok on his high horse about how the FBI doesn't allow bias to impact their decisions.

But the FBI upper management has been largely fired or quit.

Point of order! Point of order! Point of order!

Strzok taking the FBI's version of the 5th, he aint answering questions. His Dem attys are in a point of order pissing match with the chairman.

Dems obstructing, what else is new. Strzok is as big a worm as Comey.

quote:

Strzok

It only takes a minute (gotta give him a chance)to see he is a lyin' piece of shit.
Much worse worse than Comey.

I'd like to hear," you're a lying son of a bitch, Strzok!!

This resembles a rowdy city council meeting in Bumfuck somewhere, or maybe a board meeting at some huge HOA gone berserk.

Yikes!

This is disgusting, had to turn it off.