Published: Sun, March 17, 2019
Worldwide | By Stella Potter

Fact-checking Trump's tweets on Lisa Page testimony

Fact-checking Trump's tweets on Lisa Page testimony

So it was with the recent release of testimony presented by former Federal Bureau of Investigation attorney Lisa Page to the House Judiciary Committee last July. "Much more to come!" he added. Page left the team before the text messages were discovered.

The Strzok testimony, which is from June 2018, is creating a buzz on social media and appears to offer more insight into the FBI's activities during the 2016 presidential election season.

Facts first: Trump's claims about the Justice Department and Clinton email investigation are not supported by Page's recent testimony or the conclusions reached by independent investigators.

Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters. The inspector general concluded in June of previous year that "the prosecutors' decision was based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice in cases involving these statutes".

President Trump has taken notice of the discrepancy. Lisa Page transcripts show he LIED. The core of the allegations was that Clinton may have broken the law by allowing classified information be sent through her private unsecure channels.

Further, Page's account contradicts sworn testimony given by fired FBI Director James Comey about the case. Notably, Page also said that the DOJ had "multiple conversations ... about charging gross negligence", but decided that "they did not feel they could sustain a charge" because they considered the term "constitutionally vague".

In a tweet Wednesday, Paul also stressed how Page said she knew of "almost no evidence of collusion" in the federal Russian Federation investigation as late as May 2017.

But Page explained those FBI officials were not directly involved in any decision-making about the Clinton investigation and it had no effect on the overall investigation result.

Like this: