9EQeK7ur

1COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2
3COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
4U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
5
6WASHINGTON, D.C.
7
8INTERVIEW 0F: LISA PAGE - DAY 2
9
10Monday, July 16, 2018
11
12washington, D.C.
13
14The above matter was held in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office
15
16Building, commencing at 11:02 a.m.
17
18COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
19
20
21############################
22
23COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
24
25Mr. Baker. Okay. The time is 1 minute past 11:00 a.m. on
26July 16th, continuing from Friday's session of the transcribed
27interview of former, FBI attorney Lisa Page.
28
29EXAMINATION
30BY MR. BAKER:
31
32tt Good morning, Ms. Page, and thank you for, agr'eeing to come
33back for, a second session of questioning. A lot of ground was covered
34on Friday, so I want to clean up a couple of ar'eas that I had questions
35on. So I might jump around a little bit. I'm going to try not to be
36repetitive from what you've already answered.
37
38But I wanted to clarify, at a very basic level, sometimes in the
39media's reporting you've been referred to as an FBI agent. In the
40truest sense of the word, as an agent relates to a principal, you are
41an agent of the government. But in FBI parlance, is it correct to say
42that you're not an 1811 series investigator' special agent?
43
44A I am not.
45
46Q You ape, in fact, an attorney and were assigned totheGenepal
47Counsel's Office.
48
49A That's correct.
50
51Q Okay.
52
53You started to get into a little bit on Friday and you articulated
54the best you could that -- I think you opened the door, as to the
55different types of investigations or how an investigation is opened.
56It's my understanding there's three basic types of investigations:
57
58There's an assessment. Then it moves to predicated investigations,
59
60COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
61
62
63############################
64
65COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
66
67where you then have preliminary investigation and you have a full
68investigation. Is that correct?
69
70A That's correct.
71
72Q And my understanding of the different types of
73investigations is, on one end of the spectrum, it's how that case is
74opened, how maybe credible the information is or how vague the
75information is. And then on the others end of the spectrum, it's what
76type of investigative techniques can be employed in that type of
77investigation. And --
78
79A I wouldn't agree with respect to the substance of the
80information. It's not whether it's vague or credible or not. It's
81really an assessment -- and, again, I don't have the standards in front
82of me, but each level of, sort of, investigative permissionaffords
83different levels of tools available.
84
85And so, to the extent you have more information or to the extent
86the information comes from a particularly credible source, itmeans
87that you can open a full investigation and -- but really
88the distinctions between -- certainly between a preliminary
89investigation and a full are a little bit of dancing on the headof
90a pin. I mean, these are very, sort of, nuanced, subtle. Any credible
91allegation is sufficient for the FBI to open an investigation and take
92action for -- to sort of generalize broadly.
93
94Q But the assessment would be kind of the lower, a very
95initial -- the information maybe not even relating to a violation of
96
97criminal law or national security; it could be proactively -- to
98
99COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
100
101
102############################
103
104COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
105
106prevent or to develop information about something the FBI is tasked
107to investigate?
108
109A That's correct. I don't really want to -- I would hesitate
110to go down this path too carefully because there ace multiple different
111types of assessments and different divisions have actually different
112authorities with respect to assessment, and I am by no means an expert
113on that. So without having the 0106 in front of me, I would not r'eally
114
115be comfortable --
116
117Q Sure.
118
119A -- answering specific questions about --
120Q Sure.
121
122A -- what we can do at what level.
123
124Q But at a very basic level, the assessment is kind of the lower,
125tier. You're limited in the types of investigative techniques you can
126use in the assessment when you compare that to one of the predicated
127types, either, the PI or the full.
128
129A That is correct.
130
131Q Okay. when you're talking about a PI or a full, I talked
132briefly about, you know, the one standard to open on the one end, and
133then the other, end, when you have a PI or a full that's pr'oper'ly opened,
134those are the types of investigations where you can use the more
135sophisticated investigative techniques. Is that correct?
136
137A They're not always sophisticated, but you can use more tools.
138
139Q Certainly more than you could in the assessment.
140
141A That's correct.
142
143COMMITTEE] SENSITIVE
144
145
146############################
147
148COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
149
150Q And then one of the most sophisticated techniques would be
151a court-ordered Title III or a FISC-ordered FISA?
152
153A That's correct.
154
155Q And those techniques, even though they're authorized by the
156FBI's manual of -- that deals with compliance -- I believe it's
157referred to as the D106, domestic investigative operations guidelines,
158even though you're working with a validly opened, predicated
159investigation, when you get to those really extreme, sensitive
160techniques, the ones that are really intrusive, it's not just the FBI
161that decides or somebody in the FBI that decides, hey, we're going to
162use this technique. Is that correct?
163
164A That's correct. with respect to both of the two you
165describe, both the Title 3 wiretap and a FISC order, not only do you
166have vast approvals within the FBI itself, both of those tools require
167high-level approval at theJustice Department. And, of course, with
168respect to a FISA order, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
169General, him or herself, has to approve that.
170
171Q Okay. And then so, not only are there multiple approval
172levels for those type of techniques within the FBI, the Department of
173Justice also has approval requirements for that at the highest levels,
174but also there's court approval required for those. Is that not
175correct?
176
177A Of course.
178
179Q So it's fair to say that not one person in the FBI decides,
180
181hey, we're going to do this sophisticated technique, electronic
182
183COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
184
185
186############################
187
188COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
189
190surveillance of some sort, in a vacuum. There ace levels outside Fthe
191FBI and even outside the executive branch.
192
193A That's correct. Certainly, the more intrusive the
194technique becomes, the gr'eater' supervision over that techniquethat
195the FBI has and the more approval levels, both within and outside the
196Department, will fall.
197
198Q There ace in many places in the FBI, I believe, opportunities
199for people that believe that compliance is not being adhered
200to -- there's many opportunities for, people to report compliance
201concerns. And I believe this DIOG that we referenced has specific
202requirements for a supervisor' that opens a case, if he's concerned the
203compliance isn't being met, there's opportunities to report if you
204believe that something is not being adhered to, either in the opening,
205the reporting, or the use of techniques in an investigation. Is that
206correct?
207
208A That's correct.
209
210Q If you can -- I don't think this would be classified; if it's
211not, don't answer' -- what is an IOB violation?
212
213A It's not that it's classified; it's that I don't want to
214misspeak.
215
216Essentially, if there is a compliance violation associated with
217the activity that the FBI conducts while wearing its intelligence
218community hat, so it would presumably be classified, but it would be
219in the conduct of not a criminal investigation but a classified
220
221investigation, to the extent there's an error, for, example, an
222
223COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
224
225
226############################
227
228COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
229
230overproduction, you know, we -- this is just for example's sake: We
231issue a national security letter'. ble receive back information which
232is beyond that which we're permitted to obtain pursuant to a national
233securityletter. Ifthatweretobeuploadedintoour,sortof,primary
234database, that would be an overproduction, and that would need to be
235required to the ICE.
236
237So it doesn't necessarily speak to the severity or the nature of
238the compliance incident, but compliance incidents involving the
239activity we conduct on the intelligence side, on the classified side
240of the work we do is reported to the ICE and often to other, entities
241depending on whether it pertained to a FISA order or something else.
242
243Q Thank you. That's very helpful.
244
245So, outside the confines of any particular investigation, there
246is a mechanism and there are people responsible to receive and look
247into compliance issues.
248
249A Oh, yes.
250
251Q Okay. During your' employment with the FBI, specifically
252your' role with Midterm or the Russia investigation, ace you aware of
253any compliance issues that were raised or even to the level of an 103
254violation?
255
256A Not during the period of time in which I was on either,
257investigation, no.
258
259Q Had you heard about --
260
261A I have since heard -- can I consult with counsel? I'm sorry.
262
263Q Absolutely.
264
265COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
266
267
268############################
269
270COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
271
272[Discussion off the record.]
273
274Ms. Page. Thank you. Upon consultation with FBI counsel,I'm
275either, -- I'm not sure whether, the answer' would call for a classified
276answer' or whether, I would be permitted to answer' the question fully.
277But I can say, during the period of time that I was involved in both
278the Clinton email investigation and the Russia investigation, I am not
279aware of any compliance incident or event r'equir'ing reporting to the
280IOB.
281
282BY NR. BAKER:
283
284Q Okay. So, during your' tenure or at another time,
285there -- without the specifics of the violation, the mechanismsfop
286r'epor'ting compliance issues, including IOB violations, was not
287stymied, stifled --
288
289A Oh, no, no. ”They exist. Yes.
290
291Q Okay. And they would be complied with, as far, as you know.
292
293A Yes.
294
295Q Okay. The FBI --
296
297A I guess I would note, too, that the Department of Justice
298plays a significant oversight pole with respect to what gets reported
299to the IOB or to the FISC. And so, again, it's not an issue that exists
300solely within the FBI's purview to determine but is often identified
301by the Department of Justice and then the FBI would follow up with an
302IOB or other, notification as appropriate.
303
304Q And would it be correct to say, in addition to that mechanism,
305
306the FBI has their own internal audits of those techniques. The
307
308COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
309
310
311############################
312
313COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
314
315National Security Law Branch and others, the Inspection Division,
316conductsrandominspectionsofthefilesthatwereusedtoutilizethose
317sophisticated techniques.
318
319A That is correct, yes.
320
321Q Okay.
322
323The FBI, by its very motto, "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity,"
324subscribes to very high ideals. They also have a core value -- a list
325of core values that certainly is not intended to be exhaustive,but
326what they indicate in the fewest words possible to sort of be the essence
327and the heart ofthe FBI: rigorous obedience to the Constitution of
328the United States; respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
329compassion, fairness, uncompromising personal integrity and
330institutional integrity; accountability by acceptingresponsibility
331for our actions and decisions and their, consequences; leadershipby
332example, both personal and professional.
333
334Do you believe that everyone, to the best of your' knowledge,
335associated with Midyear Exam and the Russian investigation upheld the
336FBI's core values?
337
338A I think so, yes.
339
340Q And do you believe based on your' exper'ience as an
341attorney -- and your' role of an attorney, if I'm not mistaken, would
342be to advise the investigators and other, members of the team on legal
343Issues, what they could, what they couldn't do, and potentially
344compliance issues as well.
345
346A So that is the role ofan attorney. I wouldn't agree that
347
348COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
349
350
351############################
352
35310
354COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
355
356that was necessarily my role, because I was not on the -- as I described,
357I think, on Friday, I was not on the team in the same way that the other,
358sort of, members of the investigative team were. I was really --I
359was supporting the Deputy Director, so I was, in a way, a liaison between
360the team and, sort of, executive management at the FBI.
361
362So I wouldn't say that my role certainly in any day-to-day
363capacity was to provide legal advice to the team.
364
365Q So, in your' role as a liaison from the Deputy's office to
366the Midyear team, what was your" role as a liaison? Did you attend
367meetings? You relayed information back?
368
369A I did. Both of those things. As I think I described on
370Friday, part of the value that I tried to add to the Deputy Director's
371office was to ensure that he had the most complete information possible
372at all times. And so I definitely stayed abreast of the investigative
373activity. To the extent there were disagreements or frustrations with
374the Department or areas where there might -- where a disagreement or
375other issue might ultimately rise to the Deputy Director's 1eve1,I
376tried to stay abreast of those as well, keep him sufficiently informed.
377
378Q And while you were assigned attorney adviser, special
379assistant, what was your' title in the Deputy's office as an OGC rep?
380
381A Counsel or special counsel to the Deputy Director.
382
383Q Were you -- I mean, you're answering to the Deputy. You're
384still a part of OGC technically, though, right?
385
386A Yes. I am a part of OGC. I'm still a lawyer. I'm still,
387
388you know, to the extent relevant, covered by the attorney-client
389
390COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
391
392
393############################
394
39511
396COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
397
398privilege. But my role is to support the Deputy Director. But, to
399that end, I was in regular, if not daily, contact with the general
400counsel to sort of ensure that our' efforts and information was in sync.
401
402Q But you're not giving legal advice to the Deputy per' se.
403
404A We're sort of splitting hairs. I may have been,depending
405on the issue. My role was not necessarily to tell him, this is
406permissible, thisis impermissible. That is really what OGC was there
407to do. He might ask me, you know, what do you think, and certainly
408that might result in the conveyance of legal advice. But he has an
409entire division devoted to that type of activity. I was there more
410to help him make decisions and, sort of, apply judgment to what it was
411we were looking at.
412
413I also, because of the unique position, had a macro view of the
414entire organization. And so I sort of tried to help connect dots that
415may have seemed otherwise disparate but might ultimately have a
416relevance with respect to whatever' par'ticular' issue was in front of
417us, not just in the Clinton investigation.
418
419Q And if something came your' way in this assignment that
420related to legal advice, you certainly had the resources of the General
421Counsel's Office to reach out to or to incorporate in a decisionon
422whatever the legal issue might be.
423
424A That's correct. And, in fact, that is what I did. So, to the
425extent -- just as an example, if the Deputy Dir'ector' was reviewing a
426FISA and he had a question about the sufficiency of the probable cause,
427
428he might ask me my opinion, and I might give it, but, at the endof
429
430COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
431
432
433############################
434
43512
436COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
437
438the day, it would notstop there. ble would return it to the General
439Counsel's Office. He would consult with Mr. Baker, or the deputy
440general counsel or whomever, had the substantive information necessary
441and would get the, sort of, final legal determination from the Office
442of General Counsel.
443
444tt So the way the General Counsel's Office is set up, it's not
445a lot ofgeneral practitioners. It sounds like there's a lot of very
446specific specialists. You have national security law people that
447would know answer's to FISA-type questions. You have criminal lawyers
448thatuou1dmaybekntsanswerstojustgener'a1investigativetechniques.
449
450So you would kind of coordinate where a particular question that
451the Deputy might have might be properly referred to in the General
452Counsel's Office.
453
454A That's exactly right, yes, and to other divisions as well.
455To the extent it was not a legal question that came up but simply, you
456know, the Deputy wants more information about this operational plan,
457I might also peach back into a substantive division to pass that
458information along.
459
460Q Okay.
461
462You mentioned in your" role as a liaison you would go to a lot of
463meetings, frequent meetings, and report back to the Deputy. was there
464disagreement, dissension at these meetings on any particular path to
465take, either, investigatively or prosecuting?
466
467We talked a little bit Friday about the decision to or to not
468
469change in specific statutes. There was this issue of Mr. Comey
470
471COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
472
473
474############################
475
47613
477COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
478
479drafting this press release and then releasing -- doing the press
480release and then letters to Congress.
481
482was there dissension in meetings about any of these controversial
483topics, or was everybody, yes, we agree with this? How did that work?
484
485A That's a very broad question. If you ace talking
486specifically about the Clinton email investigation --
487
488Q Okay.
489
490A Is that --
491
492Q For now.
493
494A Okay. So certainly there are, you know, 8 or I? of us who
495made up sort of the cope gr'oup of people who met with Director Comey.
496There was -- I wouldn't say dissension, but there was the benefit of
497that group and the comfort that we all with each other', and, in fact,
498the kind of culture and environment that Director Comey tried to foster
499absolutely allowed for, disagreement, and we were all quite comfortable,
500I think, expressing our" views.
501
502And to the extent somebody said we should take X step and somebody
503disagreed, it was entirely common for' that group of individuals to
504openly disagree with one another, to do so in front of the Director,
505in the hopes that the best answer would sort of rise to the top.
506
507Q And is that how it ultimately was decided? Is that how a
508decision was decided? There was discussion, there was consensus, the
509best decision pose to the top? Was there ever' a vote and just simple
510majority --
511
512A This is the FBI. It's not a majority rule. The Director
513
514COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
515
516
517############################
518
51914
520COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
521
522would make an ultimate decision. So, no, I am not aware of anything
523ever, being based on majority vote. It's the Director's -- heleads
524the organization. He's the one who'd ultimately be accountable for
525those decisions.
526
527But the people that I worked with and that group of people who
528would regularly meet with the Director all unquestionably teltfree
529to voice their' views.
530
531Q Do you recall Director Comey ever taking a position that was
532contr'ar'y to the consensus of the group?
533
534A I wouldn't say "consensus." I don't think that that's a fair
535statement. Iwasnotpr'esentfor'therneetingin0ctober'whenhedecided
536to send -- to notify Congress of his decision to reopen theClinton
537email investigation, but I am aware that there was disagreement among
538the team. There was not a consensus that everybody agreed it should
539be done. People had different views about whether we should and
540whether we shouldn't and the timing of it if we did in the first place.
541And ultimately it was Director Comey's decision to make.
542
543Q Okay. Thank you.
544
545BY MR . SOMERS:
546
547Q Could we back up for, a second? Art asked a pretty compound
548question. Was there dissent, disagreement, however, you would
549characterize it, with investigative techniques on the MidyearExam?
550
551A Investigative techniques? That's a really broadquestion.
552
553Q Whether a search warrant should be used?
554
555A Oh. So this was before I was involved in the investigation,
556
557COMMITTEE SENS IT IVE
558
559
560############################
561
56215
563COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
564
565but it's my understanding -- it's not a disagreement within the FBI,
566but there were lots and lots and lots of disagreements between the FBI
567and the Department.
568
569Generally, I can't think of anything in particular that would have
570been FBI-specific with respect to, like, this agent wants to take step
571x and this agent -- somebody else wants to take step Y.
572
573But, certainly, my understanding is, at the outset of the
574investigation -- again, I was not personally involved, but there was
575a great deal of discussion between the FBI and the Department with
576respect to whether to proceed, obtain the server which housed the bulk
577of Secretary Clinton's emails, pursuant to consent or pursuant toa
578subpoena or other compulsory process.
579
580Q And was that dissent between the FBI and the Department?
581
582A That's correct. Yes.
583
584Q And what was the FBI's preference?
585
586A To obtain it pursuant to compulsory process.
587Q The server?
588
589A I'm sorry?
590
591Q The server?
592
593A The server, yes. Sorry.
594
595Q And how about -- were there any other, disagreements between
596the Department and the --
597
598A Oh, my gosh. I mean --
599
600Q -- FBI on investigative techniques?
601
602A Yes, all the time. In a vacuum, it's hard to just come up
603
604COMMITTEE SENSITIVE]
605
606
607############################
608
60916
610COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
611
612with them off the top of my head.
613
614Q Was the FBI being told that it couldn't use certain
615investigative techniques by the Department?
616
617A "It couldn't use." Not -- I'm trying to think of specific
618examples. I'm sorry. Not that -- to the extent there would be a
619disagreement, I don't think it would ever' be quite that strident. I
620think it would be the view of the Department that it was strategically
621advantageous.
622
623Oh. Well, so here is an example. We had -- but this is not about
624the type of process to obtain, but there were, I think, months of
625disagr'eementwithnespecttoobtainingtheNi11sandSamuelsonlaptops.
626
627So Heather Mills and -- Cheryl Mills and Heathen Samuelson were
628both lawyers who engaged in the sorting. Once it had been identified
629that Secretary Clinton had these emails -- I'm guessing it's pursuant
630to the FOIA request, but I don't really know -- she -- well, our'
631understanding is that she asked her two lawyers to take the bulkof
632the 66,666 emails and to sort out those which were work-related from
633those which were personal and to pr'oduce the work-related ones to the
634State Department.
635
636They did so. That 36,666 is sort of the bulk of the emails that
637we relied on in order to conduct the investigation, although we found
638other, emails a jillion other places.
639
640We, the FBI, felt very strongly that we had to acquire and attempt
641to review the content of the Mills and Samuelson laptops because, to
642
643the extent the other 36,666 existed anywher'e, that is the best place
644
645COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
646
647
648############################
649
65017
651COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
652
653that they may have existed. And notwithstanding the fact thatthey
654had been deleted, you know, we wanted at least to take a shot at using,
655you know, forensic recovery tools in order to try to ensure that, in
656fact, the sorting that occurred between -- or' by Mills and Samuelson
657was done correctly and --
658
659Q Sorry.
660
661A No, that's okay.
662
663Q It was -- is that -- for, lack of a better' term, is it usual
664to rely on the target of an investigation to provide evidence against
665the target?
666
667A Well, that happens. That's not uncommon. I mean, in
668white-collar-ses/ar/liar/swing/oem-Stott-get-ren
669though -- particularly if it's, like, a corporate target, that's
670certainly a way to do it.
671
672You're misunderstanding a little bit, though, because that sort
673and all of that activity took place before there was a criminal
674investigation. So that activity is what -- the testimony that we
675received, the, sort of, evidence we received, is that the State
676Department reaches out to Secretary Clinton when they discover',"ble
677don't have your' emails on a State Department system. Do you have your'
678emails?" And the answer' is, "Yes." And the State Department, rather
679than the State Department itself conducting that analysis of whether,
680or' not there was -- or whether, these emails were work-related or not,
681deferred to Secretary Clinton to do that.
682
683So this long precedes any FBI investigation or any FBI
684
685COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
686
687
688############################
689
690COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 18
691involvement.
692BY NR. BREITENBACH:
693
694Q But didn't you say that months went by before you made the
695determination as to whether to access those laptops --
696
697A No. I'm sorry.
698-- though consent or through --
699Yes.
700
701-- compulsory process?
702
703>o>0
704
705But that's -- so we have to -- we're talking about two
706different events here.
707
708Back in 2013 -- I don't remember when -- this is before there was
709any FBI investigation. When there is first an inquiry by the State
710Department into why do we have no Secretary Clinton emails that go to
711Secretary Clinton herself, that precipitates Mills and Samuelson
712conductingthissortingactivityandproducingtotheStateDepartment,
713here are the emails which are work-related. Produce them to FOIA,
714produce them to Congress, wherever they went. I haveno idea. We had
715nothing to do with this -- we, the FBI.
716
717Skip ahead to February/March of 2016, right? The criminal
718investigation has now been open for, 6 or 7 months. We discover,
719that -- we discover, these facts, right? These facts were not known
720to us. ble don't know how she first did the sorting for, the State
721Department. We discover, these facts.
722
723ble go to the Department and say: We need to get these laptops.
724
725We need to try to get in them and review them and see if, in fact, there
726
727COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
728
729
730############################
731
73219
733COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
734
735are other, emails which either' are work-related or, potentially -- what
736we were really looking for, -- other' emails which would speak to, you
737know, give some indicia of her intent with r'espect to why she set up
738this server and whether, it was intended to mishandle classified and
739all of that.
740
741That back-and-ft) starting Febr'uaPy/Nar'ch-ish of 2016 and
742going through, I 'd say, June of 2016 is the disagreement I was referring
743to. So that's a disagreement between us, the FBI, and the DOJ with
744respect to why we needed to get these laptops and how to get these
745laptops.
746
747And what the FBI believed -- and there's copious texts about this
748because it was a, sort of, ongoing argument -- was that we had to at
749least attempt to get them. Even if we were unsuccessful, even if a
750courtdetersminedthattheywereattorney-c1ientwoPkpt"oductot'opinion
751work product, which is what the Department was concerned about, we
752couldn't credibly close the investigation without having tried to get
753into these laptops and to have reviewed -- see if any additional emails
754could be recovered and to question Mills and Samuelson about how they
755engaged in that sort in order to see whether it seemed righteous and,
756you know, proper or" whether, there was anything, kind of, nefarious or
757questionable about it.
758
759The Department's view for months was that we would not be able
760to get into them, a court would not, sort of, grant us access, so we
761shouldn't bother, trying. And that was a source of -- I wouldn't say
762
763constant conflict but regular conflict every time it came up. Because
764
765COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
766
767
768############################
769
77020
771COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
772
773quite early on we started pushing the Department to Peach out to Mills'
774lawyer' and -- Mills and Samuelson's lawyer to sort of start the process
775of trying to get Into these laptops, and the Department was very
776reluctant to do so for the reasons that I've described.
777
778Q So you had the opportUnity, then, conceivably, to execute
779a search warrant -- if you're using the timetable you had
780mentioned -- back in February of 2016. You could have executed a
781search warrant and obtained those --
782
783A Well, not without the Department, night? The Department has to
784-- we cannot on our own, the FBI cannot execute a search warrant
785without approval from the Justice Department.
786
787Q So was the Department pushing back on obtaining compulsory
788process to obtain those laptops? Because months, you say, go by. I
789mean, in your' timetable from February to June, what is that --
790
791A Ish. Let me just be --
792
793Q -- 4 to 5 months? Four or 5 months passes before you are
794able to gain access to those laptops.
795
796A To the best of my recollection, yes. It's either, February or
797March. I just want to put a little bit of hedge in it, because I'm not
798100-percent certain.
799
800But I know that the conversations about whether to obtain the
801laptops and how to obtain the laptops is one that is ongoing. It is
802one that ultimately rises to the head of the CEO, the Office of
803Enforcement Operations, which is the unit at the JusticeDepartment
804
805who would have to approve a warrant on a lawyer' -- because, of course,
806
807COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
808
809
810############################
811
81221
813COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
814
815these were all lawyer' laptops. It rose to that individual, it rose
816to George Toscas, over' the course of this 3 months or so.
817
818But, yes, there was an ongoing disagreement about whether, there
819was utility to obtain the laptops and, if so, how to obtain them.
820
821Q So, in your' experience, what may happen when a subject of
822an investigation is aware that the FBI is attempting to obtain evidence
823yet the FBI does not obtain it and months pass? What are the
824possibilities?
825
826A Obviously, there's the risk of destruction of evidence. I
827will note, however, that it's my recollection that those laptops had
828been sequestered by mills and Samuelson's lawyer'. So it's not --1
829don't believe that they were in the possession of Mills and Samuelson
830once we, sort of, started raising this question with the Department.
831It'smyreco11ectionthattheDepantmentinforoedNi11sandSamue1son's
832lawyer that we had an interest in these and that she took possession
833of them.
834
835Q So destruction of evidence. Can you imagine any other,
836possibilities if you fail to obtain the evidence and the subject is
837aware of it?
838
839Ms. Jeffress. I'm not sure what the question is.
840
841Ms. Page. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm sorry.
842
843BY NR. BREITENBACH:
844
845Q Any other, possibilities in the -- in terms of a subject being
846
847aware that evidence is attempting to be obtained by the FBI yet the
848
849FBI does not obtain that compulsory.
850
851COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
852
853
854############################
855
85622
857COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
858
859A I think destruction of evidence is the big one.
860
861Q And you were never' aware that destruction of evidence
862occurred?
863
864A Not to my knowledge, no.
865
866Q Thank you.
867
868BY MR. SOMERS:
869
870Q Okay. Then the second part of Art's question was
871disagreement about prosecutive techniques between the FBI and DOO.
872Were there any disagreements about techniques for prosecution?
873
874A No, because nobody thought that the evidence could sustain
875a pr'osec,ution. So --
876
877Q What about, sort of -- I guess, what about impaneling a grand
878jury? Was there disagr'eement about whether, a grand jury should be
879impaneled?
880
881A A grand jury was impaneled.
882
883Q But was there disagreement prior to the impaneling about
884timing?
885
886A Oh. I'm not aware.
887
888Q What about discussion about the statutes that should be
889changed or could be changed?
890
891A No, I don't think so. I mean, it was always fair'ly
892self-evident that we were looking at mishandling statutes. And,
893again, the evidence was just never' there to sufficiently support,
894really, a prosecution. I mean, I think they even looked at Federal
895
896Records Act violations -- they, meaning the Department -- andthere
897
898COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
899
900
901############################
902
90323
904COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
905
906wasnever,sufficientevidencetosupptontanycr'iminalpPtasecutitmunder'
907any statute.
908
909Mr. Breitenbach. Was a grand jury impaneled for the purposes of
910the email investigation?
911
912Ms. Page. Yes. That's my understanding.
913
914Mr. Breitenbach. Okay.
915
916Ms. Page. I'm sorry. Can I consult with counsel for, a second?
917
918Mr. Breitenbach. Yes.
919
920(Discussion off the record.]
921
922Ms. Page. Sorry.
923
924Mr. Breitenbach. Are you aware of whether evidence was ever'
925presented to the grand jury in terms of adjudicating a decision?
926
927Ms. Page. Nell, wait. "In terms of adjudicating adecision."
928
929Are you --
930
931Ms. Bessee. Can I address?
932
933So I will instruct hers not to answer' any questions that go into
934the process of the grand jury.
935
936He can rephrase the question, but if it goes into the process of
937the grand jury, you will not be able to answer'.
938
939Ms. Page. Hell, why don't I answer' -- I can't speak to whether
940any -- what activity was conducted before the grand jury. I can answer'
941that no case was presented to the grand jury because that would have
942been an abuse of the grand jury.
943
944The Department is required to at least believe that you have
945
946probable cause in order -- probable cause that a crime has been
947
948COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
949
950
951############################
952
95324
954COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
955
956committed. I'm sorry, that's not true. The Department's rules
957require that to present a case before the grand jury you have to have
958a reasonable belief that the case can be proven beyond a reasonable
959doubt. And we did not have that belief with respect to theClinton
960email investigation.
961
962And so we would not have put the case before the grand jury,
963essentia11ypr'esenteda11oftheevidencethatwehadco11ectedtodate,
964because, it's my I assessment -- although, again, this is Just me,
965personally, talking based on my prior experience as a prosecutor, not
966with respect to what was conducted in this investigation. But it's
967my assessment that that would've been an inappropriate use of grand
968Jury, because the prosecutors putting in that evidence would not have
969believed that there was a crime to be changed.
970
971Does that make sense? That was a little bit tortured.
972
973BY NR . BREITENBACH:
974
975Q Yes. But, as the FBI, did you make a recommendation or not
976as to whether, to present it to a grand jury?
977
978A I don't know.
979
980Q So it would've been the Department --
981
982A So let me clarify one thing. The grand Jury was used to
983obtain evidence. Right? So there are certain things, for, example,
984like a subpoena of r'ecor'ds, which would require the impaneling ofa
985grand jury and using tools before the grand jury in order to obtain
986evidence. That occurred.
987
988I am not, both substantively and also on advice of FBI counsel,
989
990COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
991
992
993############################
994
99525
996COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
997
998in a position to discuss what type of evidence was obtained by the grand
999jury.
1000
1001what I can say is that I do not believe there was ever any
1002disagreement with respect to whether we needed to ask the grand jury
1003to return an indictment. It would have been inappropriate to have
1004presented all of the evidence collected, whether, by grand jury subpoena
1005or any other, tool -- consent, search warrants, testimony, youknow,
1006of other witness, interviews of witnesses. It would not have been
1007appropriate to askthe grand jurors to return an indictment on to review
1008the weight of the evidence where we did not believe that that case was
1009prosecutable.
1010
1011Q But was that the FBI's decision to make?
1012
1013A No, it was the Department's decision to make. It was the
1014decision made by the Department.
1015
1016Q At the end of the day, you're saying it was the decision of
1017
1018the Department --
1019
1020A Yes.
1021Q -- prosecutors not to present this to the grand jury for an
1022indictment.
1023
1024A That is correct, yes.
1025Q Thank you.
1026BY MR. PARMITER:
1027Q Can I ask a couple of additional questions r'egar'ding, sort
1028of, the internal discussions and what was discussed?
1029
1030Was there even, in your' exper'ience, any discussion at any of the
1031
1032COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1033
1034
1035############################
1036
103726
1038COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1039
1040meetings involving Midyear about whether, the act of setting up the
1041server itself was problematic or whether that showed any level of
1042intent?
1043
1044A I don't know.
1045
1046tt But you were never' -- you never experienced anything like
1047that.
1048
1049A I don't recall being present for, a conversation like that.
1050But, also, to the extent it may have occurred -- this investigation
1051
1052was opened in July of 2015. I don't become involved in it until
1053February of 2016. So, to the extent there were questions about that,
1054they may have been resolved before I was involved.
1055
1056Q Okay.
1057
1058How often, in your' experience, does the FBI Director or the Deputy
1059Director? in the course of their, ordinary duties access or review or,
1060you know, have dealings with classified information?
1061
1062A Every single day.
1063
1064Q Every day. Okay. So what -- by being on a private server,
1065would you agree classified information is not in its proper place?
1066
1067A By being on any unclassified system, whether, private or
1068_govermment, classified information should not have traversed it.
1069That's correct.
1070
1071q So, given your' answers to both of those questions, do you
1072think that, you know, assuming the Deputy Director, or the Director had
1073set up a private server of their, own, Just hypothetically, to, you know,
1074
1075transact government business, all of their, business, would you say it
1076
1077COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1078
1079
1080############################
1081
108227
1083COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1084
1085would be inevitable that classified information would pass over that
1086server?
1087
1088A No, sir. So, at the FBI and at the State Department, we have
1089three separate systems for, each level of classification. So whether
1090that system existed at the State Department or whether it existed on
1091somebody's private server, inevitably if there was -- if it was
1092somebody's private server, lots of unclassified governmentbusiness
1093would traverse that system in the same way it does for, you know, the
1094FBI's unclassified system or the State Department's unclassified
1095system, but there's nothing inevitable about whether' or if classified
1096information would traverse that unclassified system.
1097
1098That certainly may happen occasionally on the FBI system, on an
1099unclassified FBI-run system. It's called a spill. It's an
1100inadvertent, sort of, passage of classified information on asystem
1101in which it doesn't belong. But the same is true if you're dealing
1102with Top Secret information and it traverses the Secret side; that's
1103also a spill.
1104
1105So it's sort of indistinguishable whether, the system itself is
1106classified or unclassified, only in that it's not authorized to handle
1107classified information.
1108
1109Q So would you -- so, okay. So is your' answer' is that if, you
1110know, a Cabinet Secretary or the FBI Director was using a private server
1111to conduct all of their, business that it's not inevitable that
1112classified information would pass through that server?
1113
1114A If they were using it to conduct every single thing they did.
1115
1116COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1117
1118
1119############################
1120
112128
1122COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1123
1124But it's not -- my understanding is that the Secret side was used for,
1125Secret business and the TS side was used for TS business. So if every
1126single thing they did --
1127
1128Q That's at the FBI, though, correct?
1129
1130A Even at the State Department, it's my understanding. I
1131mean, it was a much more cumbersome system, in part because the
1132principals are constantly all over the world so the access tothese
1133other classified systems is less readily available and so it's, sort
1134of, more cumbersome, it's, sort of, harder.
1135
1136But if the question is, if every single thing that the FBI
1137Director -- if all of the FBI Director's business was conducted on an
1138unclassified system, whether, FBI-pun or privately Pun, then, yes, it
1139is true, there would be classified information there.
1140
1141But those facts as you presented them are not my understanding
1142of what occurred, obviously, either, at the FBI or at the State
1143Department.
1144
1145Mr. Meadows. Can I ask one clarifying question, Lisa?
1146
1147It appears, based on documents that we have, that there was a
1148conscious decision in the NYE to go down one avenue in terms of
1149prosecution or potential prosecution, and that is with the retention
1150of classified information on a private server, not the disclosure of
1151classified information.
1152
1153And, based on the documents we have, it looks like everybody
1154focused on the retention but no one ever' pursued the disclosure. Why
1155
1156was that made?
1157
1158COMMITTEE] SENSITIVE
1159
1160
1161############################
1162
116329
1164COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1165
1166Ms. Page.e_. I --
1167
1168Mr. Meadows. And would you agree with that characterization?
1169
1170Ms. Page. I'm not positive. That's the thing that I hesitated
1171about. So I'm not sure that I -- those wer'e really activitiesthat
1172would have been handled at a lower, level than I was involved in. These
1173would have been the discussions --
1174
1175Mr. Meadows. Right. In most of the documents, the caselaw that
1176they were looking at only dealt with retention, which, actually,
1177disclosure is a bigger' deal from a national security threat. And yet
1178it didn't appear" that anybody looked at that, based on the documents
1179we've reviewed.
1180
1181Ms.P_age, Somyguess --andthisis --rmspeculatingher'ejust
1182based on my knowledge of what the statutes require -- is that disclosure
1183requires intent. And so, particularly when we change disclosure
1184cases, it's often in the context, for example, of a media leak. Right?
1185It's somebody who had possession of the information and disclosed it
1186to somebody who was not authorized to have it. That's what those
1187disclosure cases look like.
1188
1189And what was occurring on Secretary Clinton ' 5 server is a11'peop1e
1190who were nighteous1y entitled to the information and who had aneed
1191to know it and who were using that information in the execution of their
1192duties, but it was occurring on a system that wasn't appropriate for
1193it. So I think that's why the focus was on retention.
1194
1195Mr. Meadows. And one more, and then I'll yield back.
1196
1197We have information from the inspector general of the
1198
1199COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1200
1201
1202############################
1203
120430
1205COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1206
1207intelligence community that, I guess, initiated this entire
1208investigation ..- they were the ones that came before you -- that there
1209were anomalies that would suggest that there was copies of every email
1210going to a third party.
1211
1212And I know you heard that in the hearing the other, day, but we've
1213had substantial conversationswith them. Is this news toyou today?
1214
1215Ms. Page. It is. When I heard it in the hearing, it was -- maybe
1216I had heard it one other, time just with respect to, like, news things,
1217but it was completely baffling to me.
1218
1219Mr. Meadows. Yeah. So --
1220
1221Ms. Page. I don't understand at all what that's a reference to.
1222I do know that we gave the server -- again, I'm not a technical person,
1223so this is going to be a little bit tortured here --
1224
1225Mr. Meadows. Right.
1226
1227Ms. Page. -- but that we took exhaustive efforts to look at
1228whether there were any other, intrusions, whether there was
1229any exfiltration --
1230
1231Mr. Meadows. And you're saying they found none.
1232
1233Ms. Page. Correct -- whether, there was any exfiltration of data
1234and --
1235
1236Mr. Meadows. Well, we know that some -- but it was basically in
1237the IG's report on how that came to pass.
1238
1239So, I guess, why would the investigative team not have had
1240multiple interviews with Mr. Rucker, who brought it to the FBI's
1241
1242attention originally?
1243
1244COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1245
1246
1247############################
1248
124931
1250COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1251
1252Ms. Page. I -.r.
1253
1254Mr. Meadows. Because, according to the IG, you never' interviewed
1255him and never' interviewed them other than the initial conversation that
1256brought it. Why would that have --
1257
1258Ms. Page. So I can't speak to that, because I don't know whether,
1259he -- I'm relying on your" representation that he was not interviewed,
1260but I also don't know whether he ever' came to the FBI during the pendency
1261of the investigation and provided that allegation. If he had --
1262
1263Mr. Meadows. Well, that was the whole reason it was opened up,
1264is my understanding, was him coming. They get it, they come to the
1265FBI. And so you're saying that's not the case?
1266
1267Ms. Page. I don't -- I am really trying --
1268
1269Mr. Meadows. Or that's not your' understanding?
1270
1271Ms. Page. That's not my understanding.
1272
1273Mr. Meadows. So how did this whole MYE start if it wasn't from
1274the --
1275
1276Ms. Page. No, no.
1277
1278Mr. Meadows. -- inspector -r
1279
1280Ms. Page. So my understanding -- and this is -- I am way out on
1281a limb here, because this is not stuff I was involved in. But my
1282understanding is that the IC 16 did refer the existence of the server
1283to the FBI, but that was because of the existence of classified
1284information on that server, not because of any anomalous activity, not
1285because of potential intrusion activity. Because it's not my
1286
1287understanding that the IC IG conducted any sort of forensic analysis
1288
1289COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1290
1291
1292############################
1293
129432
1295COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1296
1297like that.
1298
1299My understanding ls that, once it was made evident during the
1300course of, I think, the FOIA production or maybe the production to
1301Congress that there was some classified information which existed on
1302a private email server, it got referred to the IC IG for those purposes,
1303not related to intrusive activity.
1304
1305Mr. Meadows. So what you're telling me, it would surprise you
1306to know today that, if there were anomalies, that the inspector
1307general's forensic team found those before it was referred to the FBI?
1308
1309Ms. Page. That's correct. I'm not sure --
1310
1311Mr. Meadows. Would that -- if that is indeed the fact, would that
1312be a major' concern to you?
1313
1314Ms. Page. It would be a concern that we didn't know that or that
1315that wasn't part of what they told us when they made the referral, but
1316less so, sir, honestly because our' forensic investigators ape so
1317phenomenal that, notwithstanding whatever the IC 16 may or may not have
1318conveyed, I know we looked extensively at this question.
1319
1320Because that was a serious question. And to the extent that a
1321foreign government or even a criminal outlet had had access to Secretary
1322Clinton's private email server, that would have been somethingwe cared
1323very much about. And it's my understanding that there was no evidence
1324that would have supported that kind of conclusion.
1325
1326Mr. Meadows. I yield back.
1327
1328BY MR. BAKER:
1329
1330Q Regardless of how phenomenal forensic investigators might
1331
1332COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1333
1334
1335############################
1336
133733
1338COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1339
1340be, is it still possible that an extremely sophisticated foreign
1341intelligence service could penetrate a server, could extract
1342documents, could do a number, of things without leaving a single forensic
1343footprint?
1344
1345A It's pretty -- I mean, everything is possible, but it's
1346unlikely. I think Friday's indictments are r'evelatory of that. You
1347don't get better than the GRU, and yet we have identified by name the
1348people involved in theDNC hacking. So I think it's quite unlikely.
1349
1350Q Okay.
1351
1352Are you -- following up on what the Congressman was saying, ace
1353you familiar with a private entity, privately financed, using private
1354forensic resources, for, lack of a better, word, went looking for, some
1355of the emails from Secretary Clinton's server, hen network, and, in
1356fact, found at least one document on a foreign server?
1357
1358A I don't know what you're referring to, no.
1359
1360Q Okay.
1361
1362Mr. Breitenbach. ble were produced information indicating that
1363Mr. Strzok had indicated in an email that at least one Secret email
1364was accessed by a foreign par'ty. Ace you aware of that?
1365
1366Ms. Page. That may be true. I'm just not personally awareof
1367that.
1368
1369BY MR. PARMITER:
1370
1371Q I believe on Friday, In discussing the statute that you were
1372
1373discussing, I believe, with Congressman Ratcliffe -- it was 793(f) of
1374
1375Title 18 -- you had said that that statute was deemed by DC] to be
1376
1377COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1378
1379
1380############################
1381
138234
1383COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1384
1385unconstitutionally vague. Is that correct?
1386
1387A No. The "gross negligence" that -- the "gross negligence"
1388standard in 793(f), it was their assessment that it was
1389unconstitutiona11y vague, yes.
1390
1391Q Were you involved in discussions about, you know, its
1392vagueness?
1393
1394A I don't believe I was, no.
1395
1396Q Do you have any idea of why they believed it was
1397unconstitutionally vague?
1398
1399A I mean, I presume they looked at caselaw in which it had been
1400applied. I really don't know. I mean, I'm -- I am confident that it
1401was based on their, own, sort of, research in consultation with others,
1402but I don't have personal knowledge about what the Department did in
1403order to come to that conclusion.
1404
1405Q Okay.
1406
1407Speaking of -- so did you do or did the OGC do their, own evaluation
1408of the statute, or did you just rely on DOJ's assessment?
1409
1410A I don't know. I did not.
1411
1412Q Okay.
1413
1414A I can tell you that.
1415
1416Q Speaking of caselaw, are you aware whether, or not that
1417statute has been used in military prosecutions or the frequency with
1418which it was used in civilian prosecutions? I know you had said once
1419in 99 years, but --
1420
1421A I think that there -- this is straining my memory now, but
1422
1423COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1424
1425
1426############################
1427
142835
1429COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1430
1431I think that there may have been one UCMJ, Uniform Count of Military
1432Justice --
1433
1434Q Code of --
1435
1436A -- Code of Military Justice -- thank you -- one UCMJ case in
1437which it was charged, but, again, if my memory serves -- so I may get
1438this wrong, but if my memory serves, the defendant in that case had
1439actually engaged in fan more nefarious and suspiciousactivity, and
1440so it was a plea down to that, right? So if you're pleadingto
1441something, then you don't really need to worry about -- I mean, if it's
1442unconstitutional, it's still unconstitutional.
1443
1444But it was not the case -- again, my recollection is that it was
1445somebody who had a hoard of classified information and then, when
1446confronted, tried to destroy the classified information -- sortof,
1447again, the indicia of knowledge and criminal intent that you will
1448sometimes see.
1449
1450So, if I'm not mistaken, there was one UCMJ case, but I think
1451that's it.
1452
1453Q So, speaking of a hoard of classified information, do you
1454mean information that had been -- that was hard copies of physical
1455documents?
1456
1457A Hard copies and I think even, like -- if I'm remembering
1458night, and I could be mixing this up with another, case, but, like, a
1459thumb drive of classified information that they were notauthorized
1460to have. So both hard copy and digital classified documents.
1461
1462Q Do you believe --
1463
1464COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1465
1466
1467############################
1468
1469COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 36
1470
1471[Phone ringing.]
1472
1473Ms. Page. Go ahead, please.
1474
1475BY MR. PARMITER:
1476
1477Q Just, you know, your' own perspective on this, do you believe
1478that -- what would be more vulnerable, classified material on a
1479computer server where it's not supposed to be or hard copies of
1480classified material at someone's house?
1481
1482A Well, if you're talking about more vulnerable to a cyber'
1483attack, then obviously you need a computer in order for that to occur'.
1484
1485Q Okay.
1486
1487Do you -- sort of, going further down the line of, you know,
1488whether, 793(f) in particular and the "gross negligence" standardin
1489particular are unconstitutionally vague, I mean, do you think that Don
1490views that as sort of a dead statute that won't be charged anymore?
1491
1492A I do.
1493
1494Q Ape you aware whether or not --
1495
1496A I mean, Just the "gross negligence" part of it. I don't have it
1497in front of me to -- but -- and, as I said last week, I'm by no means an
1498expert.
1499
1500Thank you. Go ahead.
1501
1502Q So ace you aware of whether' or not the Bureau ever" sought
1503or' obtained any sort of compulsory process, whether it's a search
1504warrant or something else, on the basis of 793(f) in particular?
1505
1506A I think so, but that would not have to have been the "gross
1507
1508negligence" prong. I think they could have relied on the second pr'ong
1509
1510COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1511
1512
1513############################
1514
151537
1516COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1517
1518of --
1519
1520Q 0n (f)2 right there --
1521
1522A Right .
1523Q -- as opposed to (f)1?
1524A Yeah. And, again, I don't know what basis -- I shouldn't
1525
1526have answeredthat question. I am speaking out of turn. I do not know
1527what statutes were alleged to the extent the Department sought
1528compulsory process. I have no idea, so I shouldn't answer' that.
1529
1530Q Okay.
1531
1532BY MR. BREITENBACH:
1533
1534Q If we were to tell you, though, that the search warrant was
1535predicated on 793, is that something that would be normal, to base a
1536search warrant and predicate a search warrant on a statute thatthe
1537Bureau is being told is unconstitutional?
1538
1539A You're misunderstanding. So 793(f) has two pants to it.
1540The second part -- so the first is, okay, whoever, being entrusted with
1541having lawful possession or control of any document relating tothe
1542national defense, one, through gross negligence permits it to be
1543removed or, two, having knowledge of the same, that it has been
1544illegally removed, Shall be fined -- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
1545
1546So there would be nothing inappropriate for, them to rely on the
1547second prong of 793(f), which is regularly charged and Is a perfectly
1548common statute with respect to mishandling cases. There would be
1549nothing inappropriate with respect to relying on the second prong of
1550
1551793(f), in my view.
1552
1553COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1554
1555
1556############################
1557
155838
1559COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1560
1561Q What are some of the factors that might rise to the level
1562
1563of "gross negligence, in your' opinion?
1564
1565A I don't know. I have done absolutely no research or review
1566of this. I'm not in a position to answer, that.
1567
1568Q Did Mr. McCabe even ask you that as his lawyer?
1569
1570A He did not.
1571
1572q Do you know whether Mr. Baker, ever' conducted any independent
1573ana1ysisonthefactor'sthatrnighthavemeta"iTossnegligence"chaPge?
1574
1575A I don't know.
1576
1577But, at the end of the day, this is the Department's
1578determination. I mean, it is up to the Department to determine whether,
1579or not we have sufficient evidence to charge a case. So, even
1580hypothetically, to the extent the FBI thought, you know, we have
1581infinite evidence to support charge A, if the Department disagrees,
1582the Department is going to have the final determination because they
1583are the pr'osecutor's. So --
1584
1585Q But if the FBI is not aware of the particular factors that
1586might be available in meeting that standard, then how would it know
1587whether to recommend to the Department to obtain any type of prosecution
1588based on that standard?
1589
1590A I mean, the FBI has to -- necessarily has to rely on the
1591Department's assessment of what's legally supportable under, the law.
1592So there's nothing inappr'opr'iate about that sort of reliance.
1593
1594I'm not saying that no research was conducted. I'm sayingthat
1595
1596I personally didn't do any. And to the extent it was conducted, I'm
1597
1598COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1599
1600
1601############################
1602
160339
1604COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1605
1606Just not aware of it as I sit here today.
1607
1608Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you a clarifying question. Because
1609I think this was an unusual case where Loretta Lynch, the AG, said that
1610she was going to be independent of it and that she was going to leave
1611it up to the FBI.
1612
1613So, if you did no research and from a "grossly negligent"
1614standpoint, how would you make the decision to prosecute or not if she
1615was being independent of that?
1616
1617Ms. Page. So, sin, I think that what she said was that she was
1618going to leave it up to the car'eer' prosecutors, not up to the FBI. So,
1619when she did her, kind of, ha1f-necusal, she said that she was going
1620to defer' to the recommendations of the career prosecutors in the case.
1621
1622Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is that she halfway necused
1623herself but not really because there was other, DOI officials that were
1624weighing in on that?
1625
1626Ms. Page. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I can't
1627speak to the recusal and whether it was appropriate or inappropriate
1628or necessary --
1629
1630Mr. Meadows. No, but your' characterization --
1631
1632Ms. Page. Oh, okay.
1633
1634Mr. Meadows. And I agree it's a half-recusal. Because, atthis
1635point -- so ace you saying that it was prosecutors at DOO that made
1636the decision on the "grossly negligent" versus ''extr'emely careless"
1637
1638narrative?
1639
1640Ms. Page. No.
1641
1642COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1643
1644
1645############################
1646
164740
1648COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1649
1650Mr. meadows. Or was that the FBI?
1651
1652Ms. Page. No, no, no. So, I'm sorry, I understand your' question
1653now.
1654
1655with respect to whether a charge could be sustained under the
1656"gross negligence" statute, that's a determination made by the
1657Department.
1658
1659With respect tole. Comey's July 5th statement, when he -- in his
1660first draft of the statement back in May, he used the word "gross
1661negligence." I don't know whether he used it intending to rely on its
1662legal definition or not.
1663
1664With respect to the statement, we, the FBI, felt like it would
1665be confusing and misleading to use the word "gross negligence" when
1666the information that we had received from the Department was that there
1667was no change sustainable under, the "gross negligence" statute. And
1668so we, the FBI, omitted the "gross negligence" words in his press
1669conference statement and moved up the paragraph that already contained
1670the "extr'emely careless" language into a different spot in his speech.
1671
1672Mr. Meadows. So, Lisa, why would you change that within 2 days
1673of -- you know, you admitted the other, day, on I think it was May the
16744th, where you said now there was real pressure to get the politics
1675out of it. And then we know within days that it was changed in what
1676we call the exoneration letter'. So why would that have changed at that
1677particular point? Do you see how it looks bad?
1678
1679Ms. Page. I do. But -- so it's the -- that's just when we
1680
1681had -- we, the whole team, had received the draft. Right? So the
1682
1683COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1684
1685
1686############################
1687
1688COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 41
1689Director -- and I don't remember the exact date --
1690
1691Mr. Meadows. But you received the draft before the text message
1692that says, oh, my gosh, now he's the nominee. And so you had actually
1693received it. We've got documents --
1694
1695Ms. Page. Is that right? I just don't remember the dates
1696exactly, sir.
1697
1698Mr. Meadows. And so receiving -- it was not after, that. You got
1699that, and then all of a sudden within 48 hours it's changed. And as
1700a reasonable person, you look, well, there's this statement and then
1701all of a sudden it was changed. And you're saying that that had nothing
1702to do with it?
1703
1704Ms. Page. Yeah, I don't -... I'm not sure I'm totally following
1705you, sir. I'm sorry.
1706
1707Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, I'll be clear, --
1708
1709Ms. Page. I'm sorry.
1710
1711Mr. Meadows. -- because I want you to follow.
1712
1713Ms. Page. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
1714
1715Mr.Meadows. AndyouknowthatI'veappreciatedyourwillingness
1716to help.
1717
1718when you said that we had to get politics out of it and you
1719changed --
1720
1721Ms. Page. The pressure. I think what I said was that --
1722
1723Mr. Meadows. -- the pressure ramped up.
1724Ms. Page. -- now that it was a two-person Pace -- I'm going to
1725
1726try to find thetext itself. But now that it was a two-person Pace,
1727
1728COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1729
1730
1731############################
1732
1733COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 42
1734the pressure to finish it had sort of increased.
1735
1736Mr. Meadows. Right. So the memo was May 2nd.
1737
1738Ms. Bags; Okay.
1739
1740Mr. Meadows. Your, text message that we've got to clear, this up
1741was May 4.
1742
1743Ms. Page. Okay.
1744
1745Mr. Meadows. And then we know it was changed by May 6. And
1746that's a real problematic timeframe that would indicate that allof
1747a sudden we've got to get this cloud from over', you know -- -
1748
1749Ms. Page. Oh, I see.
1750
1751Mr. Meadows. -- Hillary Clinton and we better, change -- and it's
1752just -- it looks suspicious.
1753
1754Ms. Page. I see what you'resaying, sir. I don't know if this
1755is r'eassur'ing at all, but the decision to change the statement, to omit
1756the “gross negligence" language from the statement, was actually not
1757either me or Pete's recommendation. It was another, lawyer. I don't
1758know if this is any consolation, but -
1759
1760Mr. Meadows. Yeah. We've got the email chains. So who was the
1761other, lawyer?
1762
1763Ms. Page. I'm --
1764
1765Mr. Meadows. That's a closed case. You should be able to tell
1766us.
1767
1768Ms. Page. I have been told by the FBI that people, other, than
1769myself, who ape GS-15s, we're not, sort of, providing that.
1770
1771Mr. Meadows. So you're saying this is someone lower, than a GS-IS
1772
1773COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1774
1775
1776############################
1777
177843
1779COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1780
1781that made that kind of decision?
1782
1783Ms. Page. Well, it's not a decision; it's just legal advice,
1784right? So there were a group of us --
1785
1786Mr. Meadows. You're saying someone lower than a 65-15 make a
1787legal decision --
1788
1789Ms. Page. No. It was a GS-IS. It's not lower than. It was a
179065-15. So we had received --
1791
1792Mr. Meadows. So was it Ms. Mayer?
1793
1794Ms. Page. We had received the draft of the statement. A group
1795of us had gotten together in order to consolidate our comments so that
1796we were not providing back to the chief of staff to the Director' four
1797separate drafts that they had to now reconcile.
1798
1799Mr. Meadows. Right.
1800
1801Ms. Page. So the four' of us got together. ble were sort of
1802reviewing it, sort of, step by step. And the recommendation was: I
1803don't think that we should use this phrase, "gross negligence," because
1804it has an actual legal term.
1805
1806And it was our collective understanding that the Department did
1807notthinkthat--andweagneed--thattherewasnotsufficientevidence
1808to support both "gross negligence" and that, more importantly, it was
1809not a sustainable statute because it was unconstitutionally vague and
1810never' charged.
1811
1812And so we, really, sort of, as a collective but on recommendation
1813of counsel, removed that language and moved up the "extremely careless"
1814
1815paragraph.
1816
1817COMMITTEE SENSITIVE]
1818
1819
1820############################
1821
1822M
1823COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1824
1825Mr. Ratcliffe. Ms. Page, let me ask youa question. How well
1826do you know Jim Comey?
1827
1828Ms. Page. How well do I know Jim Comey?
1829
1830Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah.
1831
1832Ms. Page. I mean, he's not my personal friend, but I've been in
1833a lot of meetings with him.
1834
1835Mr. Ratcliffe. Did any of the other folks that you're
1836referencing in connection with making the change have more
1837prosecutorial experience than Jim Comey?
1838
1839Ms. Page. No.
1840
1841Mr. Ratcliffe. As someone that knows Jim Comey, is he a person
1842that chooses his words carefully?
1843
1844Ms. Page. He is, yeah. But I --
1845
1846Mr. Ratcliffe. Would he throw around a term like "gross
1847negligence" not really meaning gross negligence?
1848
1849Ms. Page. In this case, I actually think so, sin, but Only
1850because it's a term that obviously he was familiar' with in the statute,
1851but as DAG I am certain he would not have ever' seen such a case. And
1852the truth of the matter' is 793(f) is not necessarily a particularly
1853controversial statute; it's one that's used with some regularity. And
1854so I'm not sure, as I sit here today, how familiar, with the detail and
1855the specifics of 793(f) he would have been.
1856
1857So my guess is he's trying to use a term that makes sense, that
1858has sort of a commonsense feel to it, which "gross negligence"does
1859
1860and obviously appears in the statute. But it was sort of our' assessment
1861
1862COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1863
1864
1865############################
1866
186745
1868COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1869
1870that to use that phrase, because it does have a legal meaning, but then
1871to not charge gross negligence, as we knew it was not supportable, would
1872Just be confusing.
1873
1874Mr. Ratcliffe. But you knew it was not supportable because the
1875Department of Justice told you that it wouldn't be supportable.
1876
1877Ms. Page. That's correct, sir.
1878
1879Mr. Ratcliffe. So you accepted that as the basis for, which you
1880wanted to make that change?
1881
1882Ms. Page. That's correct.
1883
1884Mr. Meadows. I think we're out of time, but one last question
1885real quickly.
1886
1887So you made that determination without having interviewed the
1888last 17 witnesses and Ms. Clinton?
1889
1890Ms. Page. Yes, sir, because the legal determination wouldn't
1891have been affected by the factual -- the facts, sort of, that may have
1892come out of those investigations, night?
1893
1894So let's assume things are going swimmingly and, in fact, all 17
1895of those witnesses admit, "We did it, it was on purpose, wetotally
1896wanted to mishandle classified information," gross negligencewould
1897still have been off the table because of the Department's assessment
1898that it was vague. We would have other crimes to now charge, but gross
1899negligence would not have been among them.
1900
1901Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
1902
1903[Recess.]
1904
1905COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1906
1907
1908############################
1909
1910COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 46
1911[12:18 p.m.]
1912Ms. Kim; We'll go back on the record. The time is 12:10.
1913Thank you for, being here, Ms. Page.
1914EXAMINATION
1915BY NS. KIN:
1916
1917Q Where you left off that discussion with Mr. Meadows, I just
1918want to read you back testimony that you gave last week and see if that
1919is responsive to the question.
1920
1921So you said it was the FBI team's understanding that, quote, "we
1922neither, had sufficient evidence to change gross negligence nor' had it
1923ever' been done because the Department viewed it asconstitutionally
1924vague."
1925
1926Is that correct?
1927
1928A That's correct.
1929
1930Q And so you said that: When we saw the term gross negligence
1931in the Dipectop's statements, we were concerned that it would be
1932confusing to leave it in there because it was our' understanding that
1933wedidnothavesufficientevidencenonthestmtofconstitutionalbasis
1934to charge gross negligence.
1935
1936Is that correct?
1937
1938A Correct.
1939
1940Q And so you said what you actually did was you didn't change
1941the language. You -- and this is me directly quoting you. "We didn't
1942actually change gross negligence to extremely careless. We removed
1943
1944the gross negligence language."
1945
1946COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1947
1948
1949############################
1950
195147
1952COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1953
1954Extremely careless had alr'eady appeared in that draft, so it was
1955Director Comey's language, was it not?
1956
1957A That's correct.
1958
1959Q And we moved that draft up earlier, -- we moved that paragraph
1960earlier in the draft.
1961
1962So it was not a substitution. It was simply an omission of the
1963phrase gross negligence because the legal team believed it would be
1964confusing.
1965
1966Is that correct?
1967
1968A That's correct.
1969
1970Q Thank you.
1971
1972Ms. Page, there have been some others representations made about
1973your' testimony last week already in the press.
1974
1975I think one representation that has been made to the press is that
1976there was an inconsistency in the way that you read a text versus the
1977way that Mr. Strzok explained the text.
1978
1979I would like to read your' testimony about that text to you. The
1980text I'm talking about is the "menace" text?
1981
1982A Okay.
1983
1984Q So you stated when you were confronted with the text: "Well,
1985I'm not certain, to be honest with you. I think it's Donald Trump,
1986but the reason I'm hesitating is because this is so close in time to
1987the opening of the Russia investigation that the concern that we all
1988had was there was a member of his campaign colluding with Russia was
1989
1990so great that I'm not -- I'm not 100 percent positive that I can split
1991
1992COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1993
1994
1995############################
1996
1997COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 48
1998those."
1999
2000Do you recognize that as your' testimony from last week?
2001
2002A Yes.
2003
2004Q Mr. Strzok, when asked about that same text, stated: "Sip,
2005my understanding of the word 'menace' and the use of 'menace' was the
2006broad context of the Government of Russia's attempts to interfere with
2007our election. To the extent those allegations involved credible
2008information that members of the Trump campaign might be actively
2009colluding, I see that as a broad effort by the Government of Russia.
2010So I don't think you can tease it apart, sir, but it is inaccurate to
2011say that it just meant Mr. Trump."
2012
2013Given those two statements, would you agree with the
2014characterization that those two were incompatible statements?
2015
2016A So I think that we're trying to say the same thing. He
2017probably said it more artfully. But, again, because this text is
2018coming so close in time and it involved my both feeling about my personal
2019distaste for Donald Trump as a person, but also my now concern because
2020of the predication we had received which would open the investigation,
2021I think that what we are saying essentially is consistent.
2022
2023And ultimately, it's his -- you know, this is sort of -- whatever
2024I intended may not have been ultimately what he perceived. So it's
2025hard to say that there is an absolute truth with respect to that -- that
2026statement.
2027
2028I guess the other thing I would say -- well, I guess that's
2029
2030sufficient.
2031
2032COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2033
2034
2035############################
2036
203749
2038COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2039
2040Q And, Ms. Page, I think in beginning that colloquy on Friday,
2041you said you weren't certain. So that suggests to me that maybe you
2042don't remember precisely what you intended.
2043
2044Is that correct?
2045
2046A I do not. And I think I also said that -- I'm clearly
2047referring to an article or' an op-ed that, I guess was about other GOP
2048leaders who weren't standing up to the President and myfr'ustr'ation
2049about that.
2050
2051So I don't know to the extent that that was also informing what
2052I was thinking about, but I have, as I sit here today, can't tell you
2053concretely because it was just a sort of flash in time.
2054
2055Q Understood. Thank you.
2056
2057And then one more thing. You were asked on Friday againabout
2058the Christopher' Steele dossier, and how it came to the FBI.
2059
2060I believe you claimed that you were not really involved with how
2061the dossier, came to the FBI so you weren't clear' on its providence.
2062Is that correct?
2063
2064A No, that is not correct. I am very clear about its
2065providence.
2066
2067Q Oh, you're very clean about its providence?
2068
2069A How we received the reports from Christopher' Steele, yes,
2070I am very clean about how we received those.
2071
2072Q Certainly. So are you also clean then as to whether, Bruce
20730hr gave those dossiers to the FBI?
2074
2075A This is in the category of things that I can't answer'.
2076
2077COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2078
2079
2080############################
2081
208250
2083COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2084
2085what I can say is when we first received the set of reports that
2086are commonly referred to as the dossier, that initial -- ourhaving
2087obtained those documents initially, did not come from Bruce 0hr. They
2088came from Christopher Steele through his handler, to the FBI.
2089
2090Q Understood. Thank you.
2091
2092BY MS. HARIHARAN:
2093
2094Q I just want to -- good morning.
2095
2096A Good morning. Please go ahead. I'm sorry.
2097
2098Q I just want to go back quickly to the discussion about the
2099differences between the D0] and the FBI on compulsory process and just
2100genePa11ega1or'investigativediffePencesthattnayhaveexistedduning
2101the Midyear' investigation.
2102
2103So generally speaking, when there were disagreements between the
2104FBI and D03 on how to seek evidence, what was the DOJ's position, as
2105far, as you can characterize? Like in the sense would the FBI generally
2106want to pursue a more aggressive stance and DO3 was more conservative,
2107and is that common in investigations overall?
2108
2109A Yes. That is true with respect to this investigation. I think
2110that even the IG found that the FBI consistently wanted to take more
2111aggressive steps in the Clinton investigation.
2112
2113It's hard to characterize, you know, two enormous institutions
2114of many tens of thousands of people monolithically. But certainlyin
2115the counterintelligence realm, the Department tends to be quite
2116cautious and quite conservative.
2117
2118Q And in the case of the Midyear investigation, do you think
2119
2120COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2121
2122
2123############################
2124
212551
2126COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2127
2128the career prosecutors that disagreed on pursuing a moreaggressive
2129stance, this was based on legitimate legal differences of opinion or
2130was it something on a -- was there a political bias involved or' --
2131
2132A I'm not aware of any political bias.
2133
2134Q In the inspector general's report, on page 79, I'm just going
2135to quickly read the quote. Quote: "Despite the public perception
2136that the Midyear investigation did not use a grand jury andinstead
2137relied exclusively on consent, we found that agents and prosecutors
2138didusegnandjurysubpoenasandothencompu1sorypr'ocesstogainaccess
2139to documentary and digital evidence. According to the documents we
2140reviewed, at least 56 grand jury subpoenas were issued, 5 court orders
2141were obtained pursuant to 18 USC 2763(d) orders, and 3 search warrants
2142were granted," end quote.
2143
2144Were you part of any of the decisions to issue one of the 56 grand
2145jury subpoenas?
2146
2147A I was not, no.
2148
2149Q Or the 2703(d) orders?
2150
2151A No.
2152
2153Q Here you part of any of the decisions to issue the search
2154warrants?
2155
2156A I don't think so.
2157
2158Q Generally speaking, can you speak to why the FBI advocated
2159for the use of compulsory process in this case?
2160
2161A I can't really -
2162
2163Q 0r before.
2164
2165COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2166
2167
2168############################
2169
217052
2171COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2172
2173A Yeah, I can't answer' that question in the abstract. So, I
2174mean, if there's a specific example you want me to speak to, I can try,
2175but --
2176
2177Q So, again, it's just -- we're trying to understand what the
2178difference between DOJ's approach to the case versus the FBI's
2179approach. Andso,again,inyourexper"1ence,wasthedifferencesbased
2180on legitimate legal arguments or a strategic argument?
2181
2182A I'm sure that's true, yes.
2183
2184BY MS. KIM:
2185
2186Q So let's take from the abstract to the specific. So I think you
2187were talking about the culling laptops and the server, the decision
2188whether to pursue those through compulsory process or to obtain those
2189through consent agreements.
2190
2191In your' interactions with Department of Justice personnel, were
2192their, arguments that those should be pursued through consent processes
2193governed by what you saw as differences of opinion from you that were
2194legitimate and grounded in legal Justification?
2195
2196A Yeah, I would say so. We -- what I personally found
2197frustrating is the Department would sort of make a determination
2198that -- part of the argument was that we would not be able to obtain
2199the laptops pursuant to compulsory process, which I -- as to myown
2200personal experience -- disagreed with. I thought that we would be able
2201to. Maybe there might be strategic reasons not to, there might be other,
2202reasons not to.
2203
2204But I disagreed sort of foundationa11y that it would not be
2205
2206COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2207
2208
2209############################
2210
221153
2212COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2213
2214available to us because we would not be able to make out the standard,
2215or to be able to pierce attorney-client privilege, or more likely, in
2216my view, there was a disagreement about whether, it was -- the sorting
2217activity conducted by Mills and Samuelson was opinion workproduct,
2218which is quite protected under, the law, versus some other' privilege.
2219
2220And so the frustration was in their sort of unwillingness to
2221explain their reasoning. They sort of, for many -- for some
2222time -- simply stated, as a matter, of course: We can't, and we won't
2223be able to.
2224
2225And it was my view that that was not the case. And I did my own
2226research with respect to that topic because I was frustrated. And so
2227we had sort of an ongoing back and forth about that.
2228
2229But, yes, it was grounded in, you know, legal disagreement
2230ultimately.
2231
2232Q And was it the subject of rigorous and vigorous debate?
2233
2234A Yes.
2235
2236Q Extensive debate where you were free to express your point
2237of view?
2238
2239A Yes.
2240
2241Q And extensive debate where the DOJ did eventually express
2242its point of view about its strategic justifications?
2243
2244A Yes.
2245
2246Q And do you have any reason or evidence to believe that those
2247strategic decisions were based on improper' considerations, including
2248
2249political bias?
2250
2251COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2252
2253
2254############################
2255
225654
2257COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2258
2259A No, I do not. I have no reason to believe that.
2260
2261Ms. Hariharan. Did any of the senior, political leaders of the
2262DOJ intervene at all in the decision to seek or not seekcompulsory
2263process?
2264
2265Ms. Page. with respect to that decision, yes.
2266
2267So this was very much a -- we were at very much a standstill for
2268a considerable amount of time. And it's my understanding -- I know
2269for sure that Mr. McCabe had multiple conversations with George Toscas
2270on the topic because we all, including up through the Director', Just
2271agr'eed that we could not credibly end this investigation without having
2272attempted to obtain those laptops and search them.
2273
2274And we were sort of not making progress trying to explain or
2275convince the Department prosecutors, the line pr'osecutoPs involved in
2276the investigation, of this feeling. And even though we kept invoking
2277the Director, and we would sort of say, like, we ape not going to close
2278this thing until we have tried to get this, they didn't see it as useful.
2279
2280They didn't think it was going to change the outcome of the
2281investigation, which we agreed with. We didn't have a reason to think
2282it would change the outcome of the investigation.
2283
2284It wasn't about thinking that for sure there would be different
2285evidence in those laptops. It was about our credibility to be able
2286to say that we pan down every sort of necessary investigative lead.
2287
2288And so because we had sort of reached a stalemate a number of times
2289on this discussion, I know that it was elevated to certainly the Deputy
2290
2291Director and Geor'ge Toscas.
2292
2293COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2294
2295
2296############################
2297
229855
2299COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2300
2301If I'm not mistaken, I think that even the Director may have had
2302a conversation with Sally Yates, the DAG, about it, but I'm not
2303positive. If it occurred it's in the IG report, but I don't recall
2304exactly.
2305
2306BY MS. KIM:
2307
2308Q So that call seems to be D03 expressing at the highest -- or
2309excuse me -- the FBI expressing at its highest levels the decision to
2310pursue a certain investigative step and convincing the Department to
2311come along with the FBI's reasoning. Is that accurate?
2312
2313A Not its legal reasoning, but its strategic reasoning, yes.
2314
2315Q That's -- yes. Thank you.
2316
2317Are you awar'e of any instances where it went the other, way, where
2318the FBI wanted to take strident action but a senior political official
2319at the D03 had to talk the FBI down in the Clinton email case?
2320
2321Let me try to -- let me try -- you look puzzled, so I mean --
2322
2323A Yeah, I --
2324
2325Q Let the record reflect you look puzzled.
2326
2327A Okay.
2328
2329Q Let my try to explain a little bit more clearly what I mean.
2330
2331I think the concern here is that there was a DetnocPatica11y led
2332political DO3 in charge of an investigation where a prominent Democrat
2333was the subject and target.
2334
2335Ape you aware of any instances where senior, political leaders at
2336the Department of Justice intervened to counsel or order the FBIto
2337
2338not seek a compulsory process?
2339
2340COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2341
2342
2343############################
2344
234556
2346COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2347
2348A No, not to my knowledge.
2349
2350Q So you ape not aware of Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates
2351intervening to stop the FBI?
2352
2353A No, not to my knowledge.
2354
2355BY MS. HARIHARAN:
2356
2357Q Okay. So I Just want to move on to just sort of general
2358questions about the FBI'sinvestigative techniques. And I knowsome
2359of these -- this was somewhat addressed ear'lier', but just to clarify
2360a couple things.
2361
2362On May 18th, 2918, President Trump tweeted, quote: "Apparently
2363the DOJ put a spy in the Trump campaign. This has never" been done
2364before. And by any means necessary, they're out to frame Donald Trump
2365for crimes he didn't commit," end quote.
2366
2367Ape you aware of any information that would substantiate the
2368President's claims that the D03 put a spy in the Trump campaign?
2369
2370A No.
2371
2372Q Does the FBI place spies in U.S. political campaigns?
2373
2374A Not the current FBI.
2375
2376Q Are you aware of any information that would substantiate the
2377President's claim that DOO is out to frame him?
2378
2379A No.
2380
2381Q In your' experience -- and this goes back a little bit to our'
2382discussion on Friday about contacts with human informants -- does the
2383FBI use spies in any of its investigative techniques?
2384
2385A We call them sources. They're not spies exactly, but --
2386
2387COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2388
2389
2390############################
2391
239257
2393COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2394
2395Q Can you, as much as -- again, understanding you were not a
2396counterintelligence official -- can you explain for the record the
2397difference between a human informant as the FBI specifically uses that
2398term and sort of the layman term that is often used in the mediaof
2399a spy?
2400
2401A The spy is somebody acting on behalf of a for'eign government
2402in order to collect intelligence against that government.
2403
2404So, you know, a spy is commonly, you know, discussed with respect
2405to like an individual who is acting on behalf of a foreign
2406government -- say, like Russia or China or, who knows, Iran -- and is
2407in the United States trying to collect information in order, to advance
2408its country's goals.
2409
2410A confidential human source is somebody who has access to
2411information which may be relevant to an FBI investigation or may, him
2412or herself, have engaged in criminal activity and has agr'eed to
2413cooperate with the government and collect additional information with
2414respect to the criminal activity he or hen was -- he or she was engaged
2415in.
2416
2417Q Have you been involved in any investigations where the FBI
2418did not follow the established procedures on the use of confidential
2419human informants?
2420
2421A Me personally? Not to my knowledge.
2422
2423Q Have you ever' been involved in a D03 or FBI investigation
2424conducted for, political purposes?
2425
2426A Never.
2427
2428COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2429
2430
2431############################
2432
243358
2434COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2435
2436Q Have you ever' been involved in a DOO or FBI investigation
2437that attempted to frame U.S. citizens for, crimes they did not commit?
2438
2439A No, ma'am.
2440
2441Q Have you been pant of any investigation where the FBI or DOO
2442used politically biased, unverified sources to obtain a FISA warrant?
2443
2444A No.
2445
2446Q Ape you aware of any instances where the FBI and D03
2447manufactured evidence in order, to obtain a FISA warrant?
2448
2449A Never.
2450
2451Q Ape you aware of the FISA court ever' approving an FBI or D03
2452warrant that was not based on credible or sufficient evidence, in your'
2453experience?
2454
2455A No, not to my knowledge.
2456
2457Q Are you aware of any attempts by the FBI or DOO to
2458intentionally mislead FISA court judges in an application for, a FISA
2459warrant by either omitting evidence or manufacturing evidence?
2460
2461A No, ma'am.
2462
2463Q Are you aware of any instances at the FBI and DOO of an
2464investigation failing to follow proper procedures to obtain a FISA
2465warrant?
2466
2467A No.
2468
2469Q I'm going to quote the President when I say this. On
2470May 29th, 2018he tweeted: "I hereby demand and will do so officially
2471tomorrow that the Department of Justice look into whether, or not the
2472
2473FBI/DOO infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for political
2474
2475COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2476
2477
2478############################
2479
248059
2481COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2482
2483purposes and if any such demands or requests were made by people within
2484the Obama Administration!", exclamation point, end quote.
2485
2486Does the FBI conduct investigations to frame U.S. citizens for
2487crimes they did not commit?
2488
2489A No, ma'am.
2490
2491Q Then at a political rally on May 29th, 2918, the President
2492again stated, quote: "So how do you like the fact they had people
2493infiltrating our campaign?" end quote.
2494
2495Did the FBI or DOD ever' investigate the Trump campaign for, quote,
2496"political purposes"?
2497
2498A No.
2499
2500Q Did the FBI or DOI ever, quote, "infiltrate or surveil," end
2501quote, the Trump campaign?
2502
2503A No.
2504
2505Q To your' knowledge, did President Obama or anyone in his white
2506House ever', quote, "demand or request,“ end quote, that the 1303 or FBI,
2507again, quote, “infiltrate or surveil,“ end quote, the Trump campaign
2508for', quote, "political purposes"?
2509
2510A No, ma'am.
2511
2512Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I just have a couple of quick questions for,
2513you.
2514
2515First of all, I know that we covered this a little bit, I think,
2516on Friday, but can you talk a little bit about your role on the Clinton
2517investigation? How did you view it? And what was kind of the
2518
2519limitations on your' authority?
2520
2521COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2522
2523
2524############################
2525
252660
2527COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2528
2529Ms. Page. So, as I have tried to describe, I'm not on the team
2530with respect to -- so the team is comprised of the following: case
2531agents, like line agents who ape doing sort of the day-to-day
2532investigative activity, line analysts engaged in the sameactivity,
2533a supervisor', forensic people, I think a forensic accountant, cyber
2534people, support staff, and then, up the chain, sort of more senior FBI
2535agents supervising the investigation.
2536
2537I am none of those people -- lawyers, of course -- I am none of
2538those people. My job was to support the Deputy Director in allthe
2539activity that the Deputy Director supervised.
2540
2541So we're talking today just about the Clinton investigation and
2542the Russia investigation, but, of course, I assisted the deputy with
2543all of the responsibilities, save for, limited ones like HR and budget
2544and sort of perstonne1-type matters, all of the activities for, which
2545he was responsible. So that would be any number, of investigations at
2546any given time.
2547
2548And with each of those I played both sort of a sounding boar'd-type
2549of Pole, to sort of discuss my opinion or his view as to what particular
2550step we should take or whether we should, you know, brief the White
2551House or Congress or X-activity or Y-activity.
2552
2553So at a very high-level kind of macro-decisionmaking on all manner'
2554of activity, but also to stay kind of with my ear to the ground on the
2555topics that would sort of come before him.
2556
2557So, for, example, if there was a meeting that was going to be held
2558
2559about a particular cyber' operation or some type of activity, I might
2560
2561COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2562
2563
2564############################
2565
256661
2567COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2568
2569reachouttotheprogrammanagerswhowereresponsibleforthatactivity
2570in order to get a sense of what this is, why is it coming to the deputy,
2571is there a conflict, is there a disagreement --
2572
2573Mr. Krdshnamoonthi. Got it.
2574
2575Ms. Page. -- you know, was he going to be deciding something,
2576so that we had a little bit of preparedness for, the topic that was coming
2577to him.
2578
2579Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it.
2580
2581So just so I understand it, basically you don't have any
2582supervisory role --
2583
2584Mr. Rage; No, sip.
2585
2586Mr. Krishnamoorthi. -- with regards to this investigation?
2587You're not a member of the team on this investigation, correct?
2588
2589Ms. Page. That's correct.
2590
2591Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You don't have a supervisory role,
2592certainly.
2593
2594Ms. Page. I do not have a supervisory role or a decisionmaking
2595role.
2596
2597Mp.Kr'ishnamoonthi. Andwhatpermcentageofyour'over'al1timewas
2598spent on this investigation?
2599
2600Ms. Page. Oh, my goodness.
2601
2602Mr. Krishnamoorthi. If you just had toballpark it. Probably
2603a minimal amount, wouldn't you say?
2604
2605Ms. Page. No, it wasn't minimal, but it wasn't the majority
2606
2607either. Gosh, I really -... I have -- I cannot speculate --
2608
2609COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2610
2611
2612############################
2613
261462
2615COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2616
2617Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So less than 56 percent of your' time.
2618
2619Ms. Page. Yes, that's fair.
2620
2621Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. So let's say, let's say that you had
2622these political views expressed in your' text messages -- and you can
2623see why people would be concerned about that. And let's say you wanted
2624to railroad this investigation a certain way.
2625
2626Ms. Page. The Clinton investigation.
2627
2628Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The Clinton investigation in a certain say,
2629and you wanted your' political views to actually translate into biased
2630actions. It seems to me that you had no opportunity or ability to do
2631that because you had no supervisory role on this investigation team,
2632you weren't a member of this team. Even if you wanted to, you'd have
2633to go through your' Deputy Director McCabe to do anything in terms of
2634taking action. Is that r'ight?
2635
2636Ms. L'age, That's fair, sip. I guess --
2637
2638Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So -- go ahead.
2639
2640Ms.P_age, Iguesstheother"thingrwou1df1agisthat1think--1
2641mean, obviously you, the public, many have tens of thousands of my
2642texts. I think there are, I don't know, maybe two or' three total in
2643which there's anything favorable said about Hillary Clinton atall.
2644
2645And the note -- the fact that before July 28th when we received
2646the predicating information for the Russia investigation, the fact that
2647I didn't care for Donald Trump is not particularly relevant to me with
2648respect to the investigation we were conducting on Hillary Clinton.
2649
2650The two of them had nothing to -- you know, my opinions on him
2651
2652COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2653
2654
2655############################
2656
265763
2658COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2659
2660had nothing to do with whether or not she in fact handled -- mishandled
2661classified information.
2662
2663You know, I don't -- I don't -- what's been frustrating and what
2664has sort of strained credulity to me is that the sort of pejorative
2665texts about Donald Trump that I make before July 28th are Just my
2666feeling about him personally and don't really have any bearingwith
2667respect to how I feel about Secretary Clinton.
2668
2669So it just -- anyway, it just strikes me as how I feel about Donald
2670Trump doesn't really have any bearing with respect to whether or not
2671Secretary Clinton mishandled information. And the reality is, as I've
2672sort of said, I wasn't particularly fond or' favorable toward Secretary
2673Clinton.
2674
2675And during the course of the investigation, you know, as we've
2676discussed a number, of times, both Pete and I were regularly the people
2677advocating for, the most aggressive course of action with respectto
2678the Clinton investigation.
2679
2680Mr. Krishnamootsthi. And what would be, in your' view, kind of the
2681best example that would show that you took that type of approach?
2682
2683Ms. Page. It was true certainly with respect to the laptops that
2684we've discussed. I mean, we were -- we were -- sort of adamantly fought
2685the need to get those laptops, which Secretary Clinton's people were
2686adamantly fighting us sort of not to obtain, and the Depar'tmentdid
2687not want us to obtain those.
2688
2689Let me -- I'll have to think about other, examples, but there's,
2690
2691I think, two or three that -- at least I discussed with the IG in the
2692
2693COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2694
2695
2696############################
2697
269864
2699COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2700
2701past, that where we sort of disagreed with the Depar'tment. And itwas
2702Pete and I sort of advocating the more aggressive position against
2703Secretary Clinton.
2704
2705Mr. Krishnamoor‘thi. Got it. Okay. If you guys want to take it.
2706
2707Thank you.
2708
2709Ms. Page. You're welcome.
2710
2711BY MS. KIM:
2712
2713Q Ms. Page, Republicans have repeatedly raised questions about
2714why the FBI did not provide the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing
2715about Russians attempt to infiltrate the campaign.
2716
2717We understand from public reportings that senior officials from
2718the FBI gave a high-level counterintelligence br'iefing to theTrump
2719campaign after, he became the presumptive Republican nominee in
2720July 2016.
2721
2722In that briefing we also know that FBI officials reportedly warmed
2723the Trump campaign about potential threats from foreign spies and
2724instructed the Trump campaign to inform the FBI about any suspicious
2725overtures.
2726
2727Did you have any involvement in giving these briefings to the
2728Trump campaign?
2729
2730A I was not present for the briefings to the Trump campaign,
2731no.
2732
2733Q Did you receive readouts from the briefings?
2734
2735A I did.
2736
2737Q Is it true that senior, FBI officials warned the Trump
2738
2739COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2740
2741
2742############################
2743
274465
2745COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2746
2747campaign as early as July 2016 that Russians would try to infiltrate
2748the Trump campaign?
2749
2750A I don't recall that specifically, but I don't have any reason
2751to disagree with you.
2752
2753Q Would the briefing have touched on how the campaign should
2754react to offers from foreign nations to interfere in our' elections?
2755
2756A I don't think a briefing would have been that specific. I
2757think we would have -- as is the case in a typical defensive brief -- I
2758think that we would have flagged if you encounter activity which you
2759believe is suspicious, particularly from threat countries, that they
2760should notify the FBI.
2761
2762Q Toyourknowledge,didtheTrumpcampaignreportanycontacts
2763with foreign officials during this briefing?
2764
2765A I'm not sure.
2766
2767Q So are you aware of the Trump campaign reporting contacts
2768between George Papadopoulos and Russian officials?
2769
2770A Oh, no, I don't believe that occurred.
2771
2772Q Do you recall the Trump campaign r'epor'ting the June 2916
2773Trump Tower meeting with senior, campaign officials includingDonald
2774Trump JP., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort?
2775
2776Mr. Bessee. So I will -- sorry -- I will instruct the witness
2777not to answer' anything that goes into the special counsel's equities
2778and the ongoing criminal investigation. So that would impact that
2779particular' --
2780
2781Ms. Kim. Thank you.
2782
2783COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2784
2785
2786############################
2787
278866
2789COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2790
2791Ms. Page. Thank you. Sorry.
2792
2793Ms. Kim; Two weeks after this briefing, on August 3rd, 2016,
2794Donald Trump JP. r'epor'tedly met at Trump Tower with an emissaryvmo
2795told Donald Trump Jr. that the princes who led Saudi Arabia and the
2796United Emirates were eager' to help his father win election as
2797President.
2798
2799To your' knowledge, did Donald Trump Jr. report this offer, from
2800the Saudis and the Emiratis to the FBI?
2801
2802Mr. Bessee. Again, anything that goes into the ongoing criminal
2803investigation or anything that impacts that, the witness will not
2804respond to -- will not be able to respond to those questions.
2805
2806Ms. Kim; Thank you.
2807
2808BY MS. KIM:
2809
2810Q Ms. Page, can you explain generally the national security
2811implications for a political campaign concealing or failing to report
2812foreign contacts of offers to interfere in our election?
2813
2814A Well, this is -- I'm not sure it's a commonplace occurrence.
2815But speaking generally, an effort to affect an American electionis
2816obviously a quite serious one, r'egar'dless of -- voting and the
2817democratic process is obviously sort of a foundational backbone to what
2818makes America America.
2819
2820So any effort by a foreign power' to intercede or intervene in any
2821way is of grave concern. It would be even more so if it was in fact
2822true that a political campaign was working with a foreign power' in order
2823
2824to affect an American election.
2825
2826COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2827
2828
2829############################
2830
283167
2832COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2833
2834Q And again to your' knowledge, a defensive briefing of this
2835nature would have involved general instruction to report outreach from
2836target foreign countries to the FBI?
2837
2838A I'm sorry, I don't -- I have to take issue with the nature
2839of your" question.
2840
2841You're suggesting that a defensive briefing with respect to an
2842involvement or an intrusion into the American election may have taken
2843place and I don't think I have answered that question.
2844
2845what I have answered is that I am aware that a defensive briefing
2846with respect to foreign powers and what for'eign powers may -- how
2847foreign powers may try to contact you -- collective -- your" campaign
2848collectively, now that you are the presumptive candidate, and how you
2849should handle that.
2850
2851But I don't think I have answered a question with respect to a
2852defensive briefing about interference in an American election.
2853
2854Q That is fair. Thank you for clarifying.
2855
2856And in a general defensive briefing about general foreign
2857t.hr'eats, is there a general guidance given that foreign threats should
2858be reported to the FBI?
2859
2860A Yes.
2861
2862Q Thank you.
2863
2864I think that leads us to -- leads us well to the question of why
2865the FBI, particularly the counterintelligence officials at the FBI who
2866were working both on the Midyear' investigation and on the Russia
2867
2868collusion investigation, were prioritizing the Russia collusion
2869
2870COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2871
2872
2873############################
2874
287568
2876COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2877
2878investigation in the September/october' timeframe.
2879
2880The inspector general's report was not favorable to Mr. Strzok
2881in this regard. It characterized his prioritization of the Russia
2882collusion investigation as perhaps indicative of some kind of political
2883bias.
2884
2885I think you were there. You saer. Strzok's workload. And you
2886were intimately familiar with both investigations.
2887
2888Do you have a general response to that finding by the inspector
2889general?
2890
2891A I do. I am honestly baffled that they would find such a
2892thing. And I do believe that they did the best they could to conduct
2893that investigation fairly. And I cannot understand, particularly in
2894light of what I know I said to them, I cannot understand how they could
2895peach that conclusion.
2896
2897what we were dealing with at the outset was -- this is now, you
2898know, October. This is a month before the election. And I can't speak
2899to whether we were any closer to determining whether there was in fact
2900collusion, because I'm precluded from doing so right now, but we are
2901still looking very seriously at whether, our most threatening, most
2902hostile Foreign power' was engaged in -- was working with an American
2903political candidate or members of that candidate's team to affect the
2904outcome of an American election.
2905
2906It is an unheapd-of investigation, in the first place, in the
2907counter'inte11igence realm. Russians engage in all manner' of nefarious
2908
2909activity, but this was a new height in terms of brazenness -- if
2910
2911COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2912
2913
2914############################
2915
291669
2917COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2918
2919true ..- in terms of brazenness.
2920
2921And with r'espect to how threatening that would be -- again, if
2922it were true -- the notion that there might be more emails that have
2923not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton's email server
2924Just simply don't even enter, into the realm of the same room of
2925seriousness.
2926
2927The Clinton investigation involved activities that had taken
2928place 3years prior. It's anentirely historical investigation. Even
2929if -- even if there had been dispositive evidence which revealed -- I
2930don't know what -- even there, which would be a very serious allegation,
2931in my assessment, and I think in the assessment of the
2932Counterintelligence Division, they still don't even come close to the
2933threat posed if Russia had co-opted a member of a political campaign.
2934
2935So that alone is really baffling to me, that they equated the sort
2936of two investigations.
2937
2938Furthermore -- and this is based on my own personal
2939knowledge -- almost as soon as we discovered that there may be these
2940additional emails, that was assigned to people who were not involved
2941in the Russia investigation.
2942
2943So it would not have been Pete's responsibility in the first place
2944to have engaged and conducted that investigation. He's the lead of
2945it. He's not the one who's going to go to New York. He's not the one
2946who's going to, like, do the forensics on it, like.
2947
2948And so it made, in my mind, perfect sense what he did, because
2949
2950he called on people who had been on the Clinton investigation, who were
2951
2952COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2953
2954
2955############################
2956
295770
2958COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2959
2960not on the Russia investigation, to follow up and find out what the
2961facts were, whether, it was worth our while.
2962
2963Because I will say, it's not as though every time there was any
2964allegation that there might be a new email that lives, you know, in
2965Peoria, not every one of those was -- necessitated investigative
2966activity.
2967
2968The only reason that this one ultimately got our' attention, and
2969this only occurred, to my recollection, later' in October, is because
2970of the volume of the emails which potentially existed on Mr. Weiner's
2971laptop.
2972
2973At the time that we first got the information, I'm not aware of
2974that having been told to us. I don't recall in late September', early
2975October', when I first found out by the Weiner laptop, I don't recall
2976being told that it was, you know, tens of thousands of Hillary Clinton
2977and Huma emails.
2978
2979We knew that there were many tens of thousands, if not hundreds
2980of thousands of emails on Mr. Weiner's laptop, but it's not -- my
2981recollection is that it's not until later, into October, do we actually
2982learn that, no, no, these actually might be relevant and fronla relevant
2983timeframe.
2984
2985Ms. Hariharan. Can you describe the extent of the overlap
2986between folks who were on the NYE team and folks who were on the
2987Trump-Russia team? Because, you know, it's reported as if they are
2988the same.
2989
2990Ms. Page. They are not the same. What is the same are the sort
2991
2992COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2993
2994
2995############################
2996
299771
2998COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2999
3000of senior, people. And that makes sense because there are fewer people
3001who are in a senior, position who could supervise the investigation.
3002
300350 you have to understand, like, for example, in the
3004Counter'inte11igence Division, there are three DADs, there arethree
3005deputy assistant directors, one of whom is analyst, so not an agent,
3006not somebody who you would expect to pun an investigation, andthen
3007there are two other, ones. One was Pete and one -- I'm not sure when
3008it was filled, but was open for, a short period of time.
3009
3010Sounith respect to the personnel writ large, almost everyone below
3011Pete and Jon Moffa in the Counterintelligence Division in terms of the
3012agents who were working on the Russia investigation, almost all of
3013them -- I think all of them, in fact -- are different from the
3014line-level agents and analysts who worked on the Clinton
3015investigation.
3016
3017And this was in part, too, because everybody was exhausted. We
3018had worked incredibly hand and as fast as we possibly could on the
3019Clinton investigation. And the truth of the matter, was, those of us
3020who were on Clinton and who stayed over' for, Russia all just really
3021couldn't believe ourselves that we had to sort of gear' up again, you
3022know, 3 weeks after being finally done with Clinton and finally being
3023able to get back to all of our' day Jobs, that we were sort of gearing
3024back up again.
3025
3026So it's only -- really it's the people that met with Jim Comey.
3027Those are the only people that were really the same with respectto
3028
3029both teams. So it's the same general counsel, the same deputy general
3030
3031COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3032
3033
3034############################
3035
303672
3037COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3038
3039counsel, me, Mr. McCabe, Dave Bowdich.
3040
3041The EAD for, National Security Branch changed, but that was Just
3042because of regular personnel turnover. Bill Pr'iestap was the same.
3043Pete was the same. Jon Moffa was the same.
3044
3045But other, than that, all of the pest of the personnel were, to
3046the best of my knowledge -- there could have been one or two -- but
3047all of the rest of the personnel on the Clinton team and the Russia
3048team were different.
3049
3050BY MS. KIM:
3051
3052Q Was there anything about the timeframe in which the Weiner
3053laptop was processed that seemed unusual to you? So that's to say,
3054would it have been unusual for imaging and processing that kind of data
3055to take more than a few weeks?
3056
3057A No, it happens all the time. And especially with a laptop
3058that was as voluminous as Mr. Weiner's was, the forensic work and the
3059pr'ocessing and the imaging regularly crashes and stops and has to be
3060done again.
3061
3062I don't know precisely how long it took, but the notion that it
3063took a week on 2 as being unusual -- particularly, because it was not
3064a priority the case for, the New York field office -- I should -- let
3065me take that back.
3066
3067There was nothing about it that necessitated an exigency to the
3068New York field office. This was a potential child exploitation case
3069but, again, I don't think that there was an allegation that there was
3070
3071ongoing exploitation.
3072
3073COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3074
3075
3076############################
3077
307873
3079COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3080
3081And so I don't know how the New York field office chose to
3082pPioritizeitwithnespecttoa11oftheothePwor'kthattheywenedoing,
3083but there's nothing about it, to me, that stands out as necessitating,
3084you know, an emergency, you know, imaging.
3085
3086Q Did you per'sbna11y observe any evidence suggesting that
3087Mr. Strzok was prioritizing the Russia investigation at the costof
3088the Hillary Clinton email investigation reopening?
3089
3090A Well, I mean the answer, is we were prioritizing the Russia
3091investigation because it was more important and more serious. But I
3092wouldn't say that it was a zer'o-sum issue because he didn't neglect
3093the Clinton investigation. He assigned it to the people who would
3094appropriately have to handle it.
3095
3096Q Yes. AreyouawareofanyevidencethatMr. Str'zokor'anyone on
3097the Midyear investigation team was trying to bury the existence of the
3098Weiner laptop or the data found therefrom?
3099
3100A No, not at all.
3101
3102Ms. Hariharan. Are you aware of any evidence that MP. Strzok
3103prioritized because of his political biases or was it because of Just
3104how serious the Russia investigation and how grave a threat it was?
3105
3106Ms. Page. It's the latter. It's because the Russia
3107investigation was a serious threat to the national security. Whether
3108there are additional classified emails on a laptop that didn't belong
3109to Secretary Clinton just, in my view, did not rank in the same way.
3110
3111BY MS. KIM:
3112
3113Q And I just want to be clear of the nomenclature. When we
3114
3115COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3116
3117
3118############################
3119
312074
3121COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3122talk about the Russia collusion investigation in this timeframe,
3123candidate Donald Trump is not the subject of that investigation. Is
3124that correct?
3125A That's correct.
3126
3127Q I believe that's what Director, Comey has publicly stated.
3128
3129So it was a very narrowly scoped, very discrete investigation,
3130because we understood the gravity of what it was we were looking at,
3131and we were not going to take a more extreme step than we felt we could
3132justify.
3133
3134Ms. cis. I think we're okay going off the record at this point
3135for a lunch break until 1:36.
3136
3137Thank you.
3138
3139[Recess.]
3140
3141COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3142
3143
3144############################
3145
314675
3147COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3148
3149[1:30 p.m.]
3150
3151Mr. Parmiter. Let ' s go back on' the record. The time is 1:30 p.m.
3152
3153BY MR. PARMITER:
3154
3155Q And, Ms. Page, I Just had a couple of followup questions from
3156things that were discussed in the first hour.
3157
3158You had mentioned that changes -- it had been determined that
3159changes were not sustainable under' 793(f)(1) in particular. I'm just
3160curious whether, there are elements of that statute that were not
3161
3162satisfied in the case or was it Just the gross negligence issue --
3163
3164A I think --
3165Q -- that led to that conclusion?
3166A Sorry.
3167
3168I think that it was both. But honestly, I'm not positive as I
3169sit here today. Because if the statute is unconstitutional, it doesn't
3170matter if you have all the evidence in the world, you can't bring that
3171case.
3172
3173So I think that I have said -- and I think that the minority staff
3174read back to me -- a comment that it was both insufficient evidence
3175and unconstitutionally vague. And I guess I'm not certain about the
3176first point, about insufficient evidence, because it doesn't really
3177ultimately matter, what the evidence shows if the statute is -- is not
3178constitutional.
3179
3180Q Okay. But, I mean, would you agree that, you know, the
3181Secretary of State is someone who's lawfully entrusted with classified
3182
3183information and that a private server is not the place -- if classified
3184
3185COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3186
3187
3188############################
3189
319076
3191COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3192
3193information is stoned on anything others than a classified server OP
3194system, It would be out of its proper place?
3195
3196A That is correct, sir.
3197
3198Q Okay. To your' knowledge and in your" experience, did D03 ever'
3199inform you of any other statutes that are unconstitutionally vague?
3200
3201A In the history of my being at the FBI and DOJ?
3202
3203Q Do you recall any --
3204
3205A I'm not positive, to be honest with you. I mean, the truth
3206of the matter' is the ctounter'espionage section at the Department, as
3207I think I've said, is just conservative by nature and cautious by
3208nature, very much to the frustration of the FBI.
3209
3210And I've certainly been present with a number' of meetings in which
3211they didn't want to prosecute or' they didn't want to bring changes on
3212totally unrelated investigations, but didn't -- couldn't necessarily
3213articulate what was insufficient about the evidence or' -- so, I mean,
3214this is -- I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a little -- it's
3215a somewhat institutional fact as well. But whether others statutes were
3216vague, I just don't remember.
3217
3218Q Okay.
3219
3220BY NR. SOMERS:
3221
3222Q Do you remember any discussion of whether the Logan Act could
3223be charged?
3224
3225A with r'espect to Secretary Clinton?
3226
3227Q with r'espect to anybody.
3228
3229A On the Clinton investigation, I don't remember a discussion
3230
3231COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3232
3233
3234############################
3235
3236COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 77
3237
3238of the Logan Act.
3239
3240Q 0n the Russia investigation?
3241
3242A I am privy to conversations about the Logan Act in the Russia
3243investigation.
3244
3245Q Was it allowed to be charged?
3246
3247A I don't think it's been charged.
3248
3249Q My question is whether -- you were told that the gross
3250negligence part of --
3251
3252A Oh, I see what you're saying.
3253
3254Q -- 793 could not be changed. I'm asking whether you were
3255told --
3256
3257A Yes.
3258
3259Q -- that the Logan Act could or could not be charged.
3260
3261A So I -- okay, so let me see how I can answer this.
3262
3263There were discussions about the Logan Act with the Department
3264and similar concerns, not about the constitutionality of the statute,
3265but about the age and the lack of use of the Logan Act. I did
3266participate in conversations with the Department about it being an
3267untested statute and a very, very old one, and so there being
3268substantial litigation risk, not unlike, although this compar'ison was
3269never made, but not unlike the gross negligence statute.
3270
3271This would -- this would be a -- a risk, a strategic and litigation
3272risk, to charge a statute that had not sort of been well-tested.
3273
3274Q But the gross negligence part of 793, that was a clearly it
3275
3276couldn't be charged versus a -- I think you just described it as a
3277
3278COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3279
3280
3281############################
3282
328378
3284COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3285
3286litigation risk with respect to the Logan Act?
3287
3288A With respect to gross negligence, that is correct, sir. I'm
3289sorry, that it could not be charged or should not be changed, because
3290it was -- I think it's both. It was not constitutional but also
3291untested, which goes to the question about its constitutionality,I
3292think. So I think they're somewhat intermingled, those two, with
3293respect to gr'oss negligence.
3294
3295Mr. Parmiter. Mr. Meadows.
3296
3297Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
3298
3299Lisa, I'm going to go over" a few text messages. None of them are
3300personal. And so I Just want to really try to get some clarification
3301from you.
3302
3303I probably have read more text messages that have been published
3304andnonpub1ished,andevenonsomeofthenedactedsondsthator"1gina1ly
3305were redacted that you may be able to help me get a good understanding
3306of what's there.
3307
3308So early on, in August -- well, first off, is there a difference,
3309from an FBI's perspective, of a confidential human source and a
3310confidential informant? Because I read the FBI manual, and it seems
3311like one gets treated one way and another, gets -- but from your'
3312perspective, they're one and the same?
3313
3314Ms.Lage_. I --theterm1thatweuseforsitisaconfidentialhuman
3315source. A more, I guess, layman term would be an informant. But to my
3316knowledge there is no distinction with respect to the rules which
3317
3318govern a source's activity. These are one and the same.
3319
3320COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3321
3322
3323############################
3324
332579
3326COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3327
3328Mr. Meadows. Because one of the things I was reading indicated
3329that I guess when we have confidential human sources that we pay there's
3330a whole litany of things that the FBI and DOI have to go throughon
3331those confidential human sources that we actually pay.
3332
3333Are you aware of that?
3334
3335Ms. Page. I think there are -- I'm not sure there -- I'm not sure
3336about that, sip. There are certainly rules with respect to paying a
3337source, but the -- with respect to opening a source and how you handle
3338a source and the admonitions that you provide a source, those are the
3339same regardless of whether a source is paid or not.
3340
3341Mr. Meadows. Okay. In a text message back and forth between you
3342and Peter' Strzok shortly after, he returned - there was an
3343article that came out and it was "Inside the Failing Mission to Save
3344Donald Trump From Himself."
3345
3346And in the redacted portion, it says: But see, this article so
3347rings true that then I think that the confidential human sourcewas
3348[redacted] is wrong is [redacted].
3349
3350Were you aware of any time where you felt like you questioned the
3351confidential human source, as this text would indicate?
3352
3353Ms. Page. Can you, do you mind, could you --
3354
3355Mr.Meadows. Yes. Itwou1dhavebeenontheAugust13thof2t316,
3356at 13:22:29, or 27, I guess. You're going back and forth talking about
33573025 with the State Department and --
3358
3359Ms. Page. So are we talking about Clinton then it sounds like?
3360
3361August ~-
3362
3363COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3364
3365
3366############################
3367
336880
3369COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3370
3371Mr. Meadows. Well, I don't -- the Clinton investigation would
3372have been over, with at that point.
3373
3374Ms. Page. That's true. I'm sorry, sir, the date again?
3375
3376Mr. Meadows. It would have been August 13th of 2016. It was
3377about 2 weeks after Russia opened.
3378
3379Ms. Page. Okay.
3380
3381Mr. Meadows. Russia opens. Peter' StPzok travels -
3382Peter Strzok _ And you're going back and
3383forth, apparently mad because the State Department says, you know --
3384
3385Ms. Page. So we're talking about two different things. So the
3386State -- let me just take a second and look at this.
3387
3388So there's no debate. So this is me. I'm sorry, so a couple
3389texts up, this is Pete: Hey, read the email I Just sent. I did not
3390include GPA or OCI in the distro. I'm responding, I don't know what
3391the email is, but: There's no debate. I'm going to forward to Kortan.
3392God, it makes me want to tell State to go F it.
3393
3394So we're talking about Clinton now. And what I suspect we're
3395talkingaboutisneeding --youknow,there'sstillthingsthatweneed.
3396I don't know whether it's -- whether' we're producing in FOIA or what
3397we're talking about. But there, I think --
3398
3399Mr. Meadows. Then you switch, I guess, to the confidential human
3400source.
3401
3402Ms. Page. Yes, I thinkthat's night. So then: Yep, youthink
3403we would have -- you think we should have commented if only to rebut
3404
3405State's expectation of interagency coordination crap.
3406
3407COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3408
3409
3410############################
3411
341281
3413COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3414
3415I think that there was like a press confepence op something that
3416we were pissed about that State was essentially saying, like, maligning
3417the FBI. This is normal interagency, you know, kind of -c
3418
3419HC. Meadows. Right, night.
3420
3421Ms. Page. So the same thing with the next one.
3422
3423Mr'. Meadows. So it is right aften that where you talk about not
3424believing the confidential human source, Ot' believing that --
3425
3426Ms. Page. Is that what that -- so I don't know what that --
3427
3428Mr. Meadows. Yeah. In the redacted, it says, I think -- and
3429
3430I'll give you the r‘edaction -- that - the other, redacted
3431
3432word.
3433
3434So I guess the question becomes is, at any point did you question
3435
3436whether - as this text message
3437
3438would indicate?
3439Ms. Page. So I think we're constantly questioning ourselves,
3440actually. I don't know --
3441
3442Mr'. Meadows. This would have been very early on. So you've had
3443- and almost immediately
3444you'r‘e questioning whether, _
3445
3446Ms. Page.. So I think that ' s exactly what you want us to be doing,
3447night? So I don't know what this article says and I don't know what
3448is prompting the thinking, but we constantly want to be testing OUP
3449own assumptions and testing -
3450
3451Now, - with respect to -lml8
3452- So it's not a matter of -
3453
3454COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3455
3456
3457############################
3458
345982
3460COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3461
3462- night. That was sort of not in question with r'espect
3463
3464to --
3465
3466Mr. meadows. Just that they had made the wrong assumption.
3467
3468Ns. Cage, Or that -
3469-I-, right? Are -
3470- or is the —-
3471
3472Mp. Meadows. So typically --
3473
3474Ms. Page.L That's the question that we're trying to answer'. And
3475so --
3476
3477Mr. Meadows. Right. So there was some question back and forth
3478at this par'ticular' point between you and Peter Strzok on whether‘ -
3479- And in doing that, how do you
3480-l-l-i.t
3481
3482Ms. Page. That's the investigation, sip. That's precisely what
3483the investigation was designed to do. And so the entire
3484objective -- and I really do hope to convince you guys that we did things
3485
3486the way that the American people would want us to do them.
3487
3488We get this predication that suggests -
3489- and we take these very discrete
3490
3491steps to figure out is this true and, if so, who could be in a position
3492to have received this information.
3493
3494And so -- but we're constantly challenging our' own, assumptions.
3495And so we're taking investigative steps in order, to try to figure out,
3496okay, _
3497—
3498
3499COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3500
3501
3502############################
3503
350483
3505COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3506
3507-.r A Russian can't just like [sound of knocking]
3508
3509knock on the doors of any old stranger' and say, hi --
3510
3511Mr. Meadows. Let's hope not.
3512
3513Ms. Page. I would hope, right? That's unlikely to be
3514productive. So you look to see are there -ll-l
3515—
3516-
3517
3518And so, again, not knowing what I was thinking at the time OP what
3519the article says, it wouldn't strike me as inappropriate at all, in
3520fact, quite the contrary. We are constantly, is this all just puffery
3521or' is this real?
3522
3523Mr'. Meadows. So was this the only time that you feel like you
3524
3525--ltl-1
3526-I-.' Was this a single time?
3527
3528Ms. Page. I can't remember any other, particular time, but I
3529didn't r,emember, this one so --
3530
3531Mr. Meadows. But you're saying that it normally happens on a
3532
3533pr'etty regular basis, so you go back and forth. So this would not be
3534
3535out of the norm to say, well, -
3536
3537Ms. Page.. That is the point of the investigation, to try to get
3538to the bottom of it, sip.
3539
3540Mr. Meadows. So let me go a little bit further, then. In looking
3541at this review, very early on, without getting into the specifics of
3542
3543the actual investigation, there were a number, of briefings that were
3544
3545COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3546
3547
3548############################
3549
3550M
3551COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3552
3553occurring. How many Crossfire Hurricane briefings were you involved
3554with?
3555
3556Ms. Page. Briefings for whom, sin? I'm sorry.
3557
3558Mr. Meadows. Well, how many briefings were you involved with
3559that were outside the -- that had outside players beyond the FBIor
3560DOJ?
3561
3562Ms. Page. None.
3563
3564Mr. Meadows. All night. So there were never' any briefings that
3565you attended where there was other intelligence officials part of the
3566briefing outside the FBI and D03?
3567
3568Ms. Page. Not about the Crossfire investigation, sir. So
3569there's two things operating at this time. I certainly participated
3570in pr'epar'ation sessions for, the Director when the Director would either,
3571be going to the white House or maybe have a call --
3572
3573Mr. Meadows. Right. We've got that. I think we've talked
3574about that before, because I think early on, August 5th, there's maybe
3575the first original what we called at that time the Russia investigation
3576briefing that happened. Peter, Strzok comes back -ll, makes
3577it Just in time for, you to have that. There's a briefing that occurs
3578on August 8th.
3579
3580And then there's a briefing with Denis McDonough at the white
3581House where Jonathan Moffa and others attended. Were you aware of
3582that?
3583
3584Ms. Page. I'm sure you're night. I was aware of the briefings
3585
3586that were occurring at the White House. But those were not about the
3587
3588COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3589
3590
3591############################
3592
359385
3594COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3595
3596Crossfire. To the best of my knowledge, those were not --
3597
3598Mr. meadows. So they had nothing to do with any potential
3599collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? That was never'
3600mentioned?
3601
3602Ms. Page.. Not to my knowledge. It was always about the Russian
3603active measures effort.
3604
3605Mr. Meadows. All right. And so if that's, indeed, the case, at
3606some point it changed. At some point, there were other, people outside
3607the FBI and D03 that were involved with that . And so I'm going to dir'ect
3608your' attention a little bit later.
3609
3610Because on August the 25th, there's a text Message going back and
3611forth where I think it talks about the fact, you know, what are you
3612doing after, -- and it's redacted -- the I brief. And it's August 25th
3613at 19:30:56.
3614
3615Ms. Page. I see that. But mine's redacted. What does it say?
3616
3617Mr. Meadows. Yeah, yours is redacted. But it says: what are
3618you doing after, the . brief? And so that I brief you're saying was
3619an internal brief within the D03 and FBI?
3620
3621Ms. Page. Oh, yes, within, to the best of my knowledge.
3622
3623Mr. Meadows. Because it's the same day that Director Brennan is
3624briefing Harry Reid, is why I ask. And so what you're saying is you
3625were unaware that Director Brennan was briefing Harry Reid that same
3626day?
3627
3628Ms. Page.. I had no knowledge of that, no.
3629
3630Mr. Meadows. Okay. All right. So if you' re looking at a brief,
3631
3632COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3633
3634
3635############################
3636
363786
3638COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3639
3640typically who would you brief?
3641
3642Ms. Page. So we had regular updates for, the Director, and the
3643Deputy Director. I'd say certainly every 2 weeks, but possibly even
3644more frequently. We had sort of standing sort of update meeting for,
3645either, the deputy --
3646
3647Mr. Meadows. Similar, to you did during the MYE --
3648
3649Ms. Page. Correct.
3650
3651Mr. Meadows. -- and you're doing that now. And so you do those.
3652And those briefings were intended for the Director or the Deputy
3653Director to do what?
3654
3655Ms. Page. To stay abreast of what we had found to the extent
3656we -- it allowed for a r'egular' tempo, so that if we had a question about
3657an investigative step or really Just to sort of stay abreast of what
3658we were doing and what we were learning.
3659
3660Mr. Meadows. So because ofthe critical nature, you know, as you
3661characterized it earlier, you believe that this was more important than
3662the NYE in terms of its potential.
3663
3664when you were doing those briefings with the Director and the
3665Deputy Director -- and the minority were talking about the defensive
3666briefings -- to my knowledge, and it's been -- we've looked to try to
3667find anything other than what I would say the normal defensive briefing
3668that you do for, candidates, where you say, by the way be careful, change
3669your' passwords, you know, this is what you look for.
3670
3671Did any of that brief that you ever' did for, the Deputy Director
3672
3673or Director end up in a detailed defensive briefing for at that point
3674
3675COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3676
3677
3678############################
3679
3680COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 87
3681candidate Trump?
3682
3683Ms. Page. I don't believe so.
3684
3685Mr. Meadows. And if it were critical, especially in light of some
3686of the individuals and because Donald Trump was not a subject of your'
3687investigation, and you were taking it seriously, who would have made
3688the decision not to do a defensive briefing, to say, "Hey, by the way,
3689you may have someonethat's really getting contacted by afor'eign entity
3690and you may want to be aware of it"? who would have made the decision
3691to either, tell the candidate or not tell the candidate?
3692
3693Ms. Page. That's a good question. I don't recall it ever' coming
3694up.
3695
3696Mr. Meadows. So you're telling me it never' came up
3697to -- something this important, it never' came up to tell the potential
3698candidate that they might have a problem with somebody talking to the
3699Russians?
3700
3701Ms.P_age, Sothat'sright,sir,butthat'sbecausewedidn'tknow
3702
3703what we had. So typically, when we have a defensive brief, wehave
3704
3705pretty unassailable evidence. -
3706
3707Mr. Meadows. Right, and I don't want you to.
3708
3709Ms. Page. No, no, no, I won't, but --
3710
3711Mr. Meadows. Because it's been characterized sometimes that I
3712do, and I don't want you to go into that. I guess --
3713
3714Ms. Page. No, but --
3715
3716Mr. Meadows. So you're saying you didn't have a conclusion. You
3717
3718COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3719
3720
3721############################
3722
372388
3724COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3725
3726didn't have a specific --
3727
3728Ms. Page. Right. So typically what would happen is if we had
3729much more unassailable evidence -- or much more frequently is you would
3730haveanindividua1whowasa1readyknowntotheUnitedStatesGovermment
3731as suspicious in some way and associated with a hostile foreign
3732government.
3733
3734So we already know that, you know, Joe is of a concern to us. Once
3735we see Joe starting to reach out to a Member of Congress or starting
3736to reach out to a candidate, you know, to the extent we know what Joe
3737is saying or what Joe might be doing, that's when we would probably
3738flag for that individual: You need to be aware that so-and-so may not
3739be what they seem.
3740
3741In this case, we don't know what we have. So it's not to say that
3742we never, would have gotten to a place where we might have done that,
3743depending on how -- what the evidence demonstrated, but certainly at
3744this stage, but even later, in the investigation, my personal view is
3745I don't think that it would have been appropriate to do.
3746
3747Mr. Meadows. So under, your' personal opinion, there was never'
3748enough evidence to do a defensive briefing with specific targets? And
3749I don't want to put words in your' mouth and I see you smiling, sol
3750don't -- but that's what I'm getting to.
3751
3752I mean, at some point you have to have enough "there" there, I
3753guess, to quote someone else, to be able to suggest that there would
3754be a defensive briefing, and you're saying that that defensive briefing
3755
3756never" took place because of a lack of specificity.
3757
3758COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3759
3760
3761############################
3762
376389
3764COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3765
3766Ms. Page. No, notexactly, sir. You would want to know for, sure
3767what you had in front of you.
3768
3769Mr. Meadows. So you wouldn't want to falsely accuse somebody?
3770
3771Ms. Page. You wouldn't want to -- well, you would want to
3772know -- you would want to be able to say: We believe that so-and-so
3773is, you know, an agent of a foreign power' or we believe that so-and-so
3774may be working with, you know, a hostile foreign source.
3775
3776Mr. Meadows. And so that did not happen prior to November, 8th
3777of 2916 at least, because you would have done a defensive briefing,
3778based on --
3779
3780Ms. Page. Not -- there's no -- no, sir. There's no
3781hand-and-fast rule. I don't -- I don't -- I don't want to leave the
3782impression that once you meet X criteria a defensive briefing occurs.
3783This is fluid and happens at the sort of discretion and judgment of
3784senior, counterintelligence officials and, fr'ankly, the deputy or the
3785Director himself with respect to certain high-level individuals.
3786
3787It's -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm a little constrained. I feel a little
3788constrained in terms of what I can say. Let's try to speak
3789hypothetically.
3790
3791One of two things might lead you not to conduct -- multiple things
3792might lead you not to conduct a defensive briefing. One of then might
3793be insufficient evidence.
3794
3795Mr. Meadows. which is what you said at least at this date, you
3796had insufficient --
3797
3798Ms. Page. Certainly in August, I would agree with that. A
3799
3800COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3801
3802
3803############################
3804
380590
3806COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3807
3808couple weeks in, we don't know what we have. I think that that's fair'.
3809
3810On the opposite spectrum, it might be inappropriate for
3811investigative reasons to provide a defensive brief.
3812
3813Mr. Meadows. But that would only be if Donald Trump was the
3814subject of your' investigation.
3815
3816Ms. Page. No, sin.
3817
3818Mr. Meadows. I mean, at what point -- so I guess take it from
3819my standpoint. As a Member of Congr'ess, if I'm inadvertently having
3820contact with somebody, of which I have contact with Russian diplomats
3821on a weekly basis many times, and I assume every one of them want to
3822do us harm. I mean, so --
3823
3824Ms. Page. You should, sip.
3825
3826Mr. Meadows. -- for, the record --
3827
3828Ms. Page. I agree with you totally.
3829
3830Mr. Meadows. -- I want to make sure that I assume every one of
3831them wants to do harm to us.
3832
3833Ms. Page. Yes.
3834
3835Mr. Meadows. So in doing that, at what point would you peach out
3836and say, you know, Mark, by the way, you may want to be -- this -- I
3837mean --
3838
3839Ms. Page. So the reason I am trying to tread lightly here is I
3840don't think that Donald Trump would need to be the subject of the
3841investigation in order for, us to make a decision that a defensive
3842briefing is not appropriate.
3843
3844But there are certainly gradations shy of subject which, if
3845
3846COMMITTEE SENSITIVE]
3847
3848
3849############################
3850
385191
3852COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3853
3854true -- and I'm not suggesting that they ace true -- but if
3855hypothetically, and I truly mean this in the hypothetical, if we thought
3856that Donald Trump is not the subject, we're not suggesting that he's
3857the person in touch with Russia, but maybe the evidence suggests that
3858he knows that his people are in touch with Russia.
3859
3860Mr. Meadows. But to be clean for, the record, there was no
3861evidence that suggested that.
3862
3863Ms. Page. I am not speaking with respect to the evidence at all.
3864
3865Mr. Meadows. I just want to make sure we're clear' for'the record.
3866
3867Ms. Page. I am making no statement with respect to the evidence
3868we had. I am speaking hypothetically.
3869
3870Mr. Meadows. So let me go back, because one thing gets really
3871concerning. So you give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan
3872is giving a brief. It's not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one,
3873from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that
3874point.
3875
3876And it becomes apparent, based on your" text messages and based
3877on Director Comey's emails, that you all are aware that that
3878conversation took place.
3879
3880Were you aware that Director Brennan had a briefing with Harry
3881Reid and that you expected a letter, from Harry Reid?
3882
3883Ms. Page. I take your' word that I was.
3884
3885Mr. Meadows. Well, no, I don't want you to take my word.
3886
3887Ms. Page. Ijustdon't --Ir'emembenHartyReidsentiingaletter,
3888
3889like I remember that happening sometime during the course of this
3890
3891COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3892
3893
3894############################
3895
3896COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 92
3897investigation. But I do not have any recollection if I knew -- we had
3898regular Crossfire briefs of the entire team for, the Director. I do
3899not recall the Director telling us that Brennan was planning to brief
3900Harry Reid that day and --
3901
3902Mr. Meadows. No, no, I'm not saying that he knew that he was
3903planning to brief him, but that once he briefed him, because it appear's
3904that certain elements of what is now referred to as the dossier were
3905communicated to Harry Reid, based on that letter, because --
3906
3907Ms. Page. I have no knowledge of that. We didn't have the
3908reports yet.
3909
3910Mr. Meadows. So -- and I know. According to othertestimony,
3911apparently you didn't actually physically get the documents until
3912mid-September. Is that correct?
3913
3914Ms. Page. That is correct, sir.
3915
3916Mr. Meadows. So on August --
3917
3918Ms. Page. Not just physically. Even electronically, like --
3919
3920Mr. Meadows. So on August 30th -- but you were aware of it prior
3921to that?
3922
3923Ms. Page. No, sir. No, sip.
3924
3925Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is, is that you had no
3926knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle part
3927of September' in your' investigation?
3928
3929Ms. Page. That is correct, sir.
3930
3931Mr. Meadows. Okay. So on August 30th, you and Peter' are going
3932
3933back and forth, and you go, "Here we go." If you'll look at 9:44:50
3934
3935COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3936
3937
3938############################
3939
394093
3941COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3942
3943on August the 30th, you go, "Here we go." And it's referencing "Harry
3944Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tamper'ing in the U.S. Vote and Seeks
3945FBI."
3946
3947Now, what happens is, and what I guess gives me a little bit of
3948concern is, if you drop down, that if you drop down to the same day,
3949August 36th, 9:45, it says: "The D" -- which I assume means
3950Director -- "said at the a.m. brief that Reid had called him and told
3951him that he would be sending the letter."
3952
3953Ms. Page. Okay.
3954
3955Mr. Meadows. So you get a brief that says, well, we got the
3956letter, but it's almost like it's a coordinated effort between Harry
3957Reid and the FBI Director, because obviously, he's briefing you.
3958
3959Ms. Page. I - I don't see -- so, again, this is just my personal
3960experience. We just don't really deal with the Hill that much.
3961
3962Mr. Meadows. No, I know you don't, but --
3963
3964Ms. Page. No, no, no, but even the --
3965
3966Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is you don't recall even being
3967briefed that a letter, was coming from Harry Reid?
3968
3969Ms. Page. Not until -- this is the morning brief that this is
3970a reference to, so I must have attended the morning brief. And so this
3971is me just saying, yeah, the Director said we're going to be getting
3972a letter. But no, I'm not aware --
3973
3974Mr. meadows. Well, indeed, you did get a letter that got
3975published very quickly in The New York Times, and that was kind of the
3976
3977start of much of that.
3978
3979COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3980
3981
3982############################
3983
398494
3985COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3986
3987You know, here's the other, concern, because I guess Peter Strzok
3988sends an email to Bill Priestap that same day, with you carbon copied,
3989and it says: "Unfor'tunately, this will politicize things but was
3990unavoidable, I suppose."
3991
3992So, I mean, obviously it's going back and forth.
3993
3994Ms. Page. So my view on that is exactly what the FBI always is,
3995which is, no offense, politicians ace involved, night? Like --
3996
3997Mr. Meadows. None taken.
3998
3999Ms. Page. We want to do this in secret. We want to do this the
4000way we do it. I don't know what Harry Reid was told or' why or what
4001the purpose of Brennan -- you know, this is way out of my pay grade.
4002But like that's not how we want to proceed. We do thingseffectively
4003when they're in secret. And so I think that that, you know, it's
4004unavoidable, I guess, is, you know, well, these things happen, but not
4005on our watch.
4006
4007Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let's -- taking you at your' word, then
4008I guess what concern I have is why would Director Brennan be aware of
4009things that the FBI was not aware of at this particular point when it
4010actually would potentially involve, according to Peter, Strzok's word
4011on January 16th of 2017, an unverified salacious set of memos?
4012
4013Ms. Page. So I don't understand why you're saying
4014this -- whatever, is in the -- whatever, occurs between Brennan and Reid,
4015I don't understand what the relationship-to the dossier, is. That's
4016what I'm not following.
4017
4018Mr. Meadows. So the dossier, apparently was mentioned. In fact,
4019
4020COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4021
4022
4023############################
4024
4025COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4026
4027we have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier,
4028was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we're going to have to
4029have conversations. Does that surprise you --
4030
4031Ms. Page. Totally surprises me.
4032
4033Mr. Meadows. -- that Director Brennan would be aware of --
4034
4035Ms. Page. Yes, sin. Because with all due honesty, if Director
4036
4037Brennan -- so we got that information -
4038
4039Mr. Meadows. We do know there are multiple sources.
4040
4041Ms. Page. I do know that. I do know that the information
4042ultimately found its way lots of different places, certainly in October,
4043of 2016. But if the CIA as early as August, in fact, had those same
4044
4045reports, I am not aware of -- I'm not aware of that and -
4046
4047Mr. Meadows. _So you say"our source." Is your' source, is that
4048because he was working for, you?
4049
4050Ms. Page.. No, sin.
4051
4052Mr. Meadows. Well, I mean, how could he be -- is he exclusively
4053your" source?
4054
4055Ms. Page. I don't know. If the CIA has -- had Mr'. Steele open
4056as a source, I would not know that.
4057
4058Mr. Meadows. So if we ' pe talking about sources and we' re looking
4059
4060at sources, were you aware at the point that there was ongoing
4061
4062COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4063
4064
4065############################
4066
406796
4068COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4069
4070communication with other, players, i.e., Fusion GPS and others, as it
4071relates to this confidential human source?
4072
4073Ms. Page. I didn't follow yourquestion, sip. Are you asking
4074was I --
4075
4076Mr. Meadows. Were you aware that Chr'istopher' Steele had
4077conversations or multiple conversations with Fusion GPS and others
4078outside of just wor'king special intel for you?
4079
4080Ms. Page. No, no, no. So let me try to be more clean.
4081
4082As of August of 2616, I don't know who Christopher Steele is. I
4083don't know that he's an FBI source. I don't know what he does. I have
4084never' heard of him in all of my life. So let me just sort of be clear.
4085
4086When the FBI first receives the reports that are known as the
4087dossier, from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele's handler in
4088September of 2616 --
4089
4090Mr. Meadows. Right.
4091
4092Ms. Page. -- at that time, we do not know who -- we don't know
4093why these reports have been generated. We don't know fonwhat purpose.
4094We don't know -- we know that this is a reliable source who has
4095previously reported on other' things. We know who he -- I don't know
4096who he is personally. We know his history --
4097
4098Mr. Meadows. Right.
4099
4100Ms. Page. -- such that we know him to be reliable. And I think
4101we know that he's a former, intel person.
4102
4103But we do not know, to the best of my recollection, why these
4104
4105reports have been generated, what they're for, what they're -- why they
4106
4107COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4108
4109
4110############################
4111
411297
4113COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4114
4115have sort of come to us, other, than here's a reliable source and here
4116are some things that he has gathered.
4117
4118Certainly between --
4119
4120Mr. Meadows. So you don't know whether it's a coordinated effort
4121to get you those documents or not at that point in September'?
4122
4123Ms. Page.. Coordinated by whom, sip?
4124
4125Mr. Meadows. Anybody, other, than a confidential human sour‘ce
4126saying, "Listen, I've got reason to be concerned and bring it to you."
4127- It could have been coordinated
4128by Fusion GPS. You don't know.
4129
4130Ms. Page. At the time that we received the documentation, no.
4131What we have is the preexisting relationship with the source and the
4132reliability of his prior r'epor'ting.
4133
4134Mr. Meadows. Okay. So on October 16th and 19th, there's a
4135couple of text messages. I want to read them to you, because it's
4136actually text messages between you -- you won't have them in your' book.
4137
4138Ms. Page. Oh, okay.
4139
4140Mr'. Meadows. Because I actually got these From a different
4141source. And so I'm asking you to see if you remember those so you can
4142help authentic them. But apparently it's a text message between you
4143and NP. McCabe.
4144
4145Ms. Page. Okay.
4146
4147Mr. Meadows. And it says: "Just called. Apparently the DAG
4148now wants to be there and the white House wants DOI to host. So we're
4149
4150setting up a time now. We very much need to get Cohen's view" -- which
4151
4152COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4153
4154
4155############################
4156
415798
4158COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4159
4160we believe is probably Deputy Director of the CIA Cohen, David
4161Cohen -- "before we meet with hep" -- and by the "her'," I think it's
4162Sally Yates at that point, we're trying to put this all together.
4163"Better, have him weigh in before this meeting. We need to speak with
4164one voice if that is, in fact, the case." That is October 14th.
4165
4166And then on October' 19th, it says:, "Hey, can you give me a call
4167when you get out. Meeting with the White House counsel is finally set
4168up and I want to talk about the timing things."
4169
4170Is that --
4171
4172Ms. Page. Are those about Russia?
4173
4174Mr. Meadows. That was my question.
4175
4176Ms. Page. Oh, I'm not sure, sip. I'm not certain that itis,
4177to be honest with you, but I'm not sure.
4178
4179Mr. Meadows. All night. Because it's just a couple of days
4180before the FISA application.
4181
4182Ms. Page. Oh. There would be no need to go to the White House
4183on give any sort of briefing about the FISA. So if that's the timing
4184concern, I don't think that it's related, would be my guess.
4185
4186Mr. Meadows. All right. So, as we look at this, one of the
4187concerns that I have is that there seemed to be a whole lot of chatter,
4188back and forth in terms of between the FBI and the DOJ being at odds
4189in terms of -- and by "odds" what I mean is, you know, I guess pushing
4190back against George Toscas and some of the others in terms of some of
4191the opinions, based on text messages and emails.
4192
4193Ms. Page. On Russia?
4194
4195COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4196
4197
4198############################
4199
420099
4201COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4202
4203Mr. Meadows. 0n Russia.
4204
4205Ms. Page. I don't know that I agree with that assessment. The
4206only source of frustration, really the only source of frustration that
4207I can recall, at least in the time that I was most heavily involved
4208in the Russia investigation -- so this is from August to reallythe
4209end of the year', till December: of 2016 -- was the sort of speed or lack
4210thereof with respect to getting the FISA initiated. I mean, thatwas
4211a source of frustration. But I don't recall other, -- other
4212controversies or other disagreements or other issues.
4213
4214Mr. Meadows. Yeah, because I think -- and the reason why these
4215dates on the other, text messages that I ask are critical, because
4216there's an email from Peter' Strzok to you on Octoberthe 14th. And
4217that's where, you know, we've got to keep the pressure, hurry theF
4218up and --
4219
4220Ms. Page. Yeah, night. And that was definitely happening, but
4221the white House doesn't have anything to do with that.
4222
4223Mr. Meadows. And so the Stu, I haven't heard back from Stu, is
4224that Stu Evans who --
4225
4226Ms. Page. That is correct.
4227
4228Mr. Meadows. So why was there a push for a FISA warrant coming
4229from you guys and potentially less than expeditious on the -- I mean,
4230what's your perception of why that was? Obviously, it was important
4231enough for Peter to send you an email.
4232
4233Ms. Page. Well, we sent a lot of emails.
4234
4235COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4236
4237
4238############################
4239
4240mo
4241COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4242
4243--
4244
4245But separate from that, this again goes to kind of cultural
4246differences between us and D03. So D03 is necessarily going to be a
4247little more handwringing and a little more apprehensive and a little
4248more cautious.
4249
4250Mr. Meadows. And why is that?
4251
4252Ms. Page. Just the institutional differences between us,
4253honestly. I mean, we're the investigators, we're hard-charging.
4254
4255Mr. Meadows. The fact that they were opening up a FISA warrant
4256on a U.S. citizen that might be attached to a --
4257
4258Ms. Page. Well, almost all FISA warrants are on U.S. citizens.
4259
4260Mr. Meadows. That's cor'r'ect, but that might -- you didn't let
4261me finish --
4262
4263Ms. Page. Oh, I'm sorry.
4264
4265Mr. Meadows. That might be attached to a Presidential campaign.
4266
4267Ms. Page. Well, he was no longer' with the Presidential campaign.
4268But your' point is taken. Certainly, this was one that, if leaked, was
4269going to get attention.
4270
4271And so I'm not necessarily even criticizing them for their,
4272handwringing. I'm just saying we had an operational reason thatwe
4273wanted to get this thing up quickly with respect to the subject himself,
4274and the Department is always going to operate with less alacrity.
4275
4276Mr. Meadows. So is Stu Evans, is that his primary
4277responsibility, was processing FISAs?
4278
4279Ms. Page. So he is the head'of the Office of Intelligence. The
4280
4281COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4282
4283
4284############################
4285
4286101
4287COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4288
4289Office of Intelligence is the organization within the Department that
4290writes the FISAs, that takes them to count. So he is the -- he's a
4291DAAG, a deputy assistant Attorney General, and he is the person in
4292change of the entire FISA process for the Department.
4293
4294Mr. Meadows. So I guess the question -- and this is my last
4295series of questions -- I guess the question I would have then is, going
4296back to August 18th, there's text messages back and forth between you
4297and Peter that would say, I remember what it was, Toscas already told
4298Stu Evans everything. Sally called to set up a meeting. You already
4299knew about the campaign individual. So there's conversations
4300happening on August the 10th already --
4301
4302Ms. Page. But that's not about a FISA. That's not about a FISA
4303at that point, I don't think.
4304
4305Mr. meadows. But it was about the campaign, because it's
4306redacted.
4307
4308Ms. Page. Right.
4309
4310Mr. Meadows. I mean, it was redacted.
4311
4312Ms. Page. So what that reflects, because I remember that,
4313because we were -- we were so concerned about the fact that we were
4314opening this investigation and we were so concerned about leaks that
4315we were literally individually making decisions about who to tell and
4316who not to tell, because we were trying to keep it so closely held.
4317
4318ble had told George Toscas, because he's sort of the senior-most
4319career person in the National Security Division.
4320
4321None of us had told Stu Evans, and I don't think any of us intended
4322
4323COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4324
4325
4326############################
4327
4328102
4329COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4330
4331to tell Stu Evans until which time we would actually need something
4332from him. And so that text is a reflection of frustration, that like,
4333great, George told Stu. That's not what we would have done, because
4334we were trying to keep it so close-hold.
4335
4336So I don't think it has anything to do with an actual FISA. It
4337was more that more people are learning about this investigation and
4338we ape trying to keep it as tight as possible.
4339
4340Mr. Meadows. And so what you're saying is when the Director
4341briefed the White House 2 days prior to that, on August the 8th, or
4342prepared for it, actually briefed him on the 10th, that it had nothing
4343to do with any campaign. Even though George Toscas and Stu Evans knew
4344about it, it had -- I mean, there was no mention of this at all at any
4345time?
4346
4347Ms. Page. Sir, I would be shocked. I would truly be stunned to
4348discover, that the Director had briefed the President on the substance
4349of our investigation or even the existence of our' investigation. I
4350would be -... I can't say it didn't happen, I wasn't there, but I would
4351be stunned to discover, that. That is just not how we --
4352
4353Mr. Meadows. So when did it happen? Ultimately never'?
4354
4355Ms. Page. I don't know. I honestly don't know. And to be
4356honest with you, I guess I should clarify.
4357
4358I think it's entirely possible that the Director, himself never"
4359briefed the White House about this. He Just did not have that kind
4360of -- not relationship, that's not the right word. That's justnot
4361
4362how he viewed us institutionally. I cannot speak to whether, the
4363
4364COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4365
4366
4367############################
4368
4369103
4370COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4371
4372Department ever briefed the White House about it.
4373
4374Mr. Meadows. I'll yield to John.
4375
4376Mr. Ratcliffe. Ms. Page, I do want to follow this line of
4377questioning about the FISA application and try and determine when you
4378were first awar'e of or' there was a discussion of a possibility ofa
4379FISA warrant in connection with the Trump-Russia matter, from a timing
4380perspective. Do you recall?
4381
4382Ms. Page. Maybe a month before we got it, possibly. I'm not
4383positive.
4384
4385Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So the dates, the date of the FISA
4386application, October, 21st of 2816.
4387
4388The reason I'm trying to find out is we know that the pr'edicating
4389information that opened it was July 3Ist. We know on August 8th, we've
4390talked about the text message about stopping Donald Trump, a text
4391message that involved the lead investigative agent.
4392
4393So I'm wondering, do you know whether or not there had been any
4394discussion of a FISA applications by that time?
4395
4396Ms. Page. No way. You have to understand, sir, it takes a lot
4397to get a FISA.
4398
4399Mr. Ratcliffe. I know. I'm just trying -- I'm trying todive
4400in on where it is.
4401
4402So on -- we know that there was the first interview conducted,
4403based on your' prior testimony, sometime before August 11th of 2016.
4404Do you know if there was any discussion of a FISA application before
4405
4406or after -- or" before that?
4407
4408COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4409
4410
4411############################
4412
4413104
4414COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4415
4416Ms. Page. Not to my knowledge.
4417
4418Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. With respect to -- you talked earlier
4419about testing the information from confidential human sources. If a
4420confidential human source has a conversation with the subject of
4421surveillance that would undermine the presence -- I mean, the premise
4422that anyone associated with the Trump campaign either wascolluding
4423or' would be willing to collude with the Russians, is that the type of
4424disclosure that would have to be made to the FISC?
4425
4426Ms. Page. No, sir. what do you mean? We don't have a --
4427
4428Mr.Ratcliffe. DoBrady/Gigliodisclosurerequirementsapplyto
4429the FISA court?
4430
4431Ms. Page. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sur'e. I mean, we have a duty of
4432candor, to the court.
4433
4434Mr. Ratcliffe. Duty of candor.
4435
4436Ms. Page. So certainly to the extent we were to find reliable
4437information that we thought undermined a FISA application, wewould
4438inform the court of that information.
4439
4440Mr. Ratcliffe. Supposed to inform the court?
4441
4442Ms. Page. To the best of my knowledge, sin, we would inform; the
4443court.
4444
4445Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I'm Just saying the obligation is -- you
4446can't speak to whether, it was or it wasn't.
4447
4448Ms. Page. I don't know what you're talking about. I
4449thought -- if --
4450
4451Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm not getting into any of the specific content
4452
4453COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4454
4455
4456############################
4457
4458105
4459COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4460
4461of it. I Just want to know --
4462
4463Ms. Page. If -- in all cases --
4464
4465Mr. Ratcliffe. If there is exculpatory or --
4466
4467Ms. Page. -- if the FBI discovers, you know, reliable
4468information which it believes to be exculpatory or somehow affect the
4469probable cause of the FISA warrant, I would expect that we would provide
4470that to the court, yes, sir.
4471
4472Mr. Ratcliffe. That's my question.
4473
4474Ms. Page. Yes.
4475
4476Mr. Ratcliffe. Because there would be an obligation to do that.
4477
4478Ms. Page. I think so. I'm not nearly as well-versed in the FISA
4479rules. But I would just -- I would presume that we would, because
4480that's how we generally operate.
4481
4482Mr. Ratcliffe. And you know that Brady/Giglio disclosure
4483requirements would apply in the FISA court?
4484
4485Ms. Page. So Brady really doesn't -- I don't really want to be
4486so legalistic -- but Brady is a right of a criminal defendant. So what
4487I'm saying is I have no idea if it is absolutely obligatory. what I
4488am saying is I believe that that is - would be the practice ofthe
4489Department and the FBI to be fully candid.
4490
4491Mr. Ratcliffe. And should have been done if there was any
4492exculpatory information.
4493
4494Ms. Page. I think that that's what we would do. I believe so,
4495sip.
4496
4497Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay, great.
4498
4499COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4500
4501
4502############################
4503
4504106
4505COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4506
4507On Friday, Congressman Jordan asked you about the trip that you
4508took ll-l-ll with Peter, Stpzok and three others.
4509I don't know if he asked you the pur'pose of that trip. Can you tell
4510us the pur"pose of the trip?
4511
4512Ms. Page. I cannot, sip.
4513
4514Mr. Ratcliffe. why not?
4515
4516Ms. Page. 0n advice of FBI counsel, because it would get into
4517the investigative steps we took.
4518
4519Mr. Ratcliffe. Investigative steps related to the --
4520
4521Ms. Page. The Russia investigation.
4522
4523Mr. Ratcliffe. -- Russia investigation?
4524
4525Ms. Page. Yes, sip.
4526
4527Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Mr. Jordan also asked you about and you
4528reviewed with him the January 10 email that you were on with Mr. Strzok
4529talking about the different versions of the Steele dossier, involving
4530David Corn and Glenn Simpson and others. Do you recall that?
4531
4532Ms. Page. I do, sip.
4533
4534Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. That was around the same time as the first
4535of Jim Comey's now somewhat infamous memos of his conversations with
4536both President-elect Trump and then President Trump. When did you
4537first become aware of the Comey memos?
4538
4539Ms. Page. I was aware of them as they were -- in real time. I
4540was aware of almost all of them in real time.
4541
4542Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So you were aware of them before they
4543
4544became leaked to The New York Times by Daniel Richman?
4545
4546COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4547
4548
4549############################
4550
4551107
4552COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4553
4554Ms. Page. I was aware of them. I reviewed most of'them. I can't
4555say all. I reviewed most of them within a day or on the same day that
4556they were created.
4557
4558Mr. Ratcliffe. Would Peter' Strzok have been -- I'm.sorry.
4559Would -- well, let me ask that. Would Peter, Strzok have been aware
4560of those?
4561
4562Ms. Page. No, sip.
4563
4564Mr. Ratcliffe. Would Andrew McCabe have been aware of those?
4565
4566Ms. Page. Yes, sip. I don't kntmwhether, Peter, Strzok was aware
4567of them or not. I did not provide them to him so --
4568
4569Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But Andrew McCabe would have been?
4570
4571Ms. Page. Yes, sip.
4572
4573Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And was that -- the fact that you would
4574have been aware of them, were there discussions about opening an
4575obstrugctionofjusticecaseoranyother'caseagainstDtona1dTtumpprdor
4576to the firing of Jim Comey on May 9th of 2017, as reflected in the Comey
4577memos?
4578
4579Ms. Bessee. Congressman, to the extent that goes into the
4580equities of the ongoing investigation that the special counsel is now
4581conducting, I will instruct the witness not to answer'.
4582
4583Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah, I don't want to go into what the special
4584counsel, whether, or not they are going to do it, but I think it'sa
4585fair -- I think it's a very fair question, Cecilia, because the former
4586Director of the FBI has talked about it. He's talked about it a lot.
4587
4588He's given interviews about it. He has gone on TV about it. He has
4589
4590COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4591
4592
4593############################
4594
4595108
4596COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4597
4598written books about it.
4599
4600And he has said explicitly publicly in a congressional hearing
4601that he wanted a special counsel to be appointed for that purpose, to
4602investigate Donald Trump for, obstruction of justice.
4603
4604So I think asking her, about it at this point is a very fair request.
4605
4606Ms. Bessee. To the extent that it doesn't go into what the
4607special counsel is looking at or their, gathering of evidence, I
4608understand, Congressman, that former Director Comey has talked about
4609thememosandhasta1kedaboutwhetherther'eshouldbeaninvestigation.
4610So I Just want --
4611
4612Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't want any of the details. I just want to
4613know whether there was a discussion about the possibility of opening
4614that prior to the firing of the Director.
4615
4616Ms. Page. Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation
4617during the timeframe you have described.
4618
4619Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Then --
4620
4621Ms. Page. I think. One second, sir.
4622
4623[Discussion off the record.]
4624
4625Ms. Page. Sin, I need to -- I need to take back my prior
4626statement.
4627
4628Mr. Ratcliffe. which one?
4629
4630Ms. Page.. Whatever the last thing I Just said was. Sorry. That
4631there were no discussions of obstruction, yeah. That is -- I need to
4632take that statement back.
4633
4634Mr. Ratcliffe. So there were?
4635
4636COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4637
4638
4639############################
4640
4641109
4642COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4643
4644r1s.P_age_. Well,IthinkthatIcan'tanswerthisquestionwithout
4645gettingintomatterswhicharesubstantivelybeforethespecialcounsel
4646at this time.
4647
4648Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I think you've just answered it by not
4649answering it.
4650
4651Was Andy McCabe privy to those same conversations?
4652
4653Ms. Page. I can't answer this substantively, sir. I'm sorry.
4654
4655Mr. Ratcliffe. Nell, were these related to some charges, whether
4656obstruction or other charges, potentially against Donald Trump?
4657
4658Ms. Page. I can't -- I can't answer' that question, sir, without
4659getting into the substance of matters that ace now before the special
4660counsel.
4661
4662Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, I think you're answering it by not
4663answering it.
4664
4665Did you have knowledge about Daniel Richman's special role for,
4666Director Comey?
4667
4668Ms. Page. what do you mean, sin?
4669
4670Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you know that he -- or' when, I guess, did you
4671learn that he was the source through which Director, Comey would
4672communicate information to the press?
4673
4674Ms. Page. I learned that publicly, when it became publicly
4675known.
4676
4677Mr. Ratcliffe. But not before that?
4678
4679Ms. Page. I don't believe so.
4680
4681Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you have interactions with Daniel Richman?
4682
4683COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4684
4685
4686############################
4687
4688110
4689COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4690
4691Ms. Page. I had one interaction with him, but with respect to
4692a going dank sort of broad legislative interest, but that's it. That
4693was many months prior.
4694
4695Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So back to these Comey memos. You had
4696conversations about the Comey memos with Andy McCabe. Did you have
4697conversations about them with Jim Comey?
4698
4699Ns.p_age_. Ithinkonce. Ithinktherewasonetime --so,again,
4700I guess I should make -- be more clear. ble didn't talk about the Comey
4701memos as a set, like the Comey memos. If Comey were to have a meeting
4702that concerned him, he might come back and inform, for example,
4703
4704Mr. McCabe about them.
4705
4706There was one time I believe in which I was part of a small group
4707in which he came back and reported back the details of a par'ticular'
4708meeting. Those ultimately made their, way into the memos.
4709
4710So I was present for, at least one, possibly more, I Just don't
4711know for sure, readouts of a meeting that he would have just had with
4712the President, Donald Trump, and then subsequently read the memos that
4713he created about each of these meetings.
4714
4715Mr. Ratcliffe. What was it about Donald Trump that created a
4716practice that Director Comey told us didn't exist with President Obama?
4717
4718Ms. Page. I can't speak for Director, Comey, sip.
4719
4720Mr. Ratcliffe. Did this process of the FBI Director shaping
4721information with others in the FBI about his conversations, giving
4722readouts of his conversations with the President, was that a standard
4723
4724practice?
4725
4726COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4727
4728
4729############################
4730
4731111
4732COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4733
4734Ms. Page. That's not unusual, if there was a need to shape what
4735had happened. He certainly did that with r'espect to President Obama
4736as well.
4737
4738Mr. Ratcliffe. But never' documented it in a memo form?
4739
4740Ms. Page. I think that's his representation.
4741
4742Mr. Ratcliffe. So you said --
4743
4744Ms. Page. But I think he also answered, at least in his open
4745testimony, that it was about the nature of the person. So I
4746can't -- that's -- those are his words, but I can't speak beyond that.
4747
4748Mr. Ratcliffe. I might come back to that, but I want to move on
4749to this now infamous tarmac meeting and at least get started in asking
4750you about that.
4751
4752To refresh your' recollection from a timing standpoint, the
4753meeting occurred on June the 27th of 2916 between former, President
4754Clinton and Loretta Lynch.
4755
4756I want to ask you about an email on June the 39th of 2916 that
4757Peter Strzok texted to you, if you'd look at that.
4758
4759Ms. Page. June 30th, you said?
4760
4761Mr. Ratcliffe. June 30th. We're 3 days after, the tarmac
4762meeting.
4763
4764Ms. Page. Okay.
4765
4766Mr. Ratcliffe. It says: Oh my God, he -- I think speaking about
4767Bill Priestap -- Oh, my God, he is spinning about the tarmac meeting.
4768Viewed in conjunction with [redacted] wants to meet at 4, have us bring
4769
4770lists of what we would do in ordinary circumstance, paren, easy,
4771
4772COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4773
4774
4775############################
4776
4777112
4778COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4779
4780referred to PC, and in this circumstance, paren, easy, referred to the
4781seventh floor.
4782
4783Do you see that?
4784
4785Ms. Page. I do.
4786
4787Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Let's -- first of all, is Bill, is that
4788Bill Priestap?
4789
4790Ms. Page. I'm sure it is, yes.
4791
4792Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Do you know what redacted is?
4793
4794Ms. Page. I don't.
4795
4796Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Do you know what PC is?
4797
4798Ms. Page. Public corruption --
4799
4800Mr. Ratcliffe. Public corruption.
4801
4802Ms. Page. -- is my guess.
4803
4804Mr. Ratcliffe. It's my guess, too. So --
4805
4806Ms. Page. I mean, this I think is sort of a snar'ky text, r'ight?
4807So my guess is he's spinning in conjunction with the -- maybe that is
4808like the statement, because we know that we're -- we're planningto
4809do the -- public announcement is sort of imminent. I'mspeculating
4810there, because I have no idea what's under, the redaction.
4811
4812But I think this is mostly us just being a little unkind with
4813r'espect to Bill Clinton -- Bill Clinton -- Bill Priestap, because
4814he -- he was a worrier. And so I think that this is more snarky, right?
4815There's nothing for us to do with respect to this.
4816
4817Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But I'm trying to find out whether this
4818
4819is a big deal or not. You know, the Attorney General referred to the
4820
4821COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4822
4823
4824############################
4825
4826113
4827COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4828
4829meeting as something she admitted cast a shadow over" the integrity of
4830the Department. It's the reason for, what you referred to earlier as
4831a quasi-recusal or' halfway recusal. It is something that Director
4832Comey referred to as a gmne-changer' and told the IG that it tipped the
4833scales with respect to holding a public announcement. It soundslike
4834Bill Priestap is spinning about it.
4835
4836Was it a big deal or not?
4837
4838Ms. Page. To be honest with you, sir, and I'm speaking for
4839myself, it was a boneheaded move, certainly. But I guess
4840investigatively, I don't see it as a particularly big deal, because
4841absolutely every single person on the Midyear investigation, both at
4842the FBI and the Department, had concluded that there was no prosecution
4843to be had here.
4844
4845Soit'snotasthoughthemeetingwithBi11C1inton,evennomatter'
4846what was said, even taken in the worst possible light, theevidence
4847is what the evidence is. So there's no way to have sort of changed
4848it.
4849
4850Mr. Ratcliffe. Right.
4851
4852Ms. Page. So even if, in fact, everyone's worst possible
4853nightmare about what may have transpired on that plane is alltrue,
4854it still doesn't change whether, there's a viable prosecution.
4855
4856Mr'. Ratcliffe. Right.
4857
4858Ms. Page. So, again, in my view, it's bad judgment and misguided,
4859but not actually impactful of anything in particular.
4860
4861Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So I'm going to come back to this one,
4862
4863COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4864
4865
4866############################
4867
4868114
4869COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4870
4871because I think we're about out of time. But you Just said, and you
4872said this yesterday or on Friday, but that it was not a big deal.
4873Boneheaded but not a big deal investigatively, because everyperson
4874involved with the Midyear had concluded that she wasn't going tobe
4875charged. Is that night?
4876
4877Ms. Page. That's correct, sip.
4878
4879Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So if I asked you the question, was the
4880decision made not to charge Hillary Clinton with the mishandlingof
4881classified information before or' after hen July 2nd, 2016, interview,
4882the answer' is what?
4883
4884Ms. Page. The answer' is before hen July 2nd interview we had not
4885seen evidence sufficient to change hen with a crime.
4886
4887Mr. Ratcliffe. okay.
4888
4889Ms. Page. If something had changed in the July 2nd interview,
4890then that would have all changed things. But short of an admission
4891in that interview, there was nothing that any of us, whether, at the
4892Department or the FBI, could have anticipated that would have changed
4893that conclusion, short of an admission or something happening --
4894
4895Mr. Ratcliffe. But your' answer, was before the decision had been
4896made before, that everyone had concluded.
4897
4898Ms. Page. Well, you're putting words in my mouth a little bit.
4899
4900Mr. Ratcliffe. These are your" words.
4901
4902Ms. Page. No, I'm agreeing with -- what I'm saying is a decision
4903isn't final until it's final. So there was no final decision before
4904
4905July 2nd. But before July 2nd --
4906
4907COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4908
4909
4910############################
4911
4912115
4913COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4914
4915Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
4916
4917Ms. Page. --itwastheconsensusoftheinvestigativeteam,both
4918at the Department and at the FBI, that there was not sufficient evidence
4919to charge hen with a crime.
4920
4921Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So where we're going to leave off is that
4922the decision had been made befor'e, but the final, final decision was
4923made after is what you‘re saying, to use your words.
4924
4925Ms. Page. The decision isn't final until it's final.
4926
4927MP, Ratcliffe. Okay. We'll pick up with that when we come back.
4928Thank you.
4929
4930[Recess.]
4931
4932COMMITTEE) SENSITIVE
4933
4934
4935############################
4936
4937COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 116
4938[2:36 pm.)
4939
4940Mr. Swalwell. Back on the record.
4941
4942Thank you, Ms. Page, again for' spending the morning and afternoon
4943with us. I only have a few questions. Our counsel may have some, and
4944I understand Mr. Cummings might be coming in today.
4945
4946So, again, I first just want to say that, today, our' President,
4947on foreign soil, insulted the men and women of the FBI. I'm sorry that
4948here in Congress that you're also seeing leaders of our country insult
4949the work that you do.
4950
4951But I do think there are some fair, questions, and I want to get
4952Just to some of those.
4953
4954Do you regret, like, some of the messages you sent or the way that
4955you framed some of those texts? And if you could Just talk about that.
4956
4957Ms. Page. I do. I think that this has been an incredibly
4958humbling experience. Obviously, these were messages sent to somebody
4959close to me whom I intended to be private, and I think that there are
4960fewpeop1eonthisplanetwhowou1dwanttheiPprdvateinessagesr'e1eased
4961publicly, regardless of what they said.
4962
4963I think I'm entitled to the views that I'm entitled to, and I'm
4964entitled to express those views both publicly and privately. But I
4965would have made different decisions had I thought about what the
4966possible repercussions could have been.
4967
4968I can't do it over' again. I can only learn from it.
4969
4970Mr. Swalwell. Did you ever' -- were you ever" pant of a criminal
4971
4972prosecution where you so detested the defendant because of what they
4973
4974COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4975
4976
4977############################
4978
4979117
4980COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4981
4982did or who they hunt and you had to set aside those feelings and just
4983stick to the four, corners of the evidence?
4984
4985Ms. Page. So I actually spoke about this at length on Friday,
4986Mr. Swalwell. In fact, not just me but I think I can speak for many
4987people at the FBI and the Department that we often loathe the subject
4988of our investigations. And we generally do not look kindly on
4989cr"vuna1singenerNa1andneserwep1entyofharshlanguagefor'thepeop1e
4990that we investigate.
4991
4992But we, regardless and in every instance, put our personal
4993feelings, both about them individually or the criminal activity that
4994they ace accused of, we always put it aside and conduct investigations
4995independently and fairly.
4996
4997Mr. Swalwell. Did you ever have an investigation where you
4998received exculpatory evidence and, you know, you've got a bad guy and
4999you really want to make sure that justice is done and then you get the
5000evidence and you're like, crap, like, if I turn this over', it's going
5001to make the case harder, if I keep it and I don't tell anyone, we've
5002got a better chance of a conviction, but I know what it means if I don't
5003turn it over? Have you ever' had to make those decisions as a
5004prosecutor?
5005
5006Ms. Page. So they're not usually quite as stark, but,
5007absolutely, you often have information which could be exculpatory or
5008certainly could lust simply be damaging to your' case, and it is your'
5009obligation as a prosecutor, it is your' obligation to the fairness to
5010
5011the defendant and the fairness in the system, to turn that information
5012
5013COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5014
5015
5016############################
5017
5018COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 118
5019over'.
5020
5021So that is something that happens regularly, and it is a part of
5022our being, it's a part of our' identity and the roles that we abide by
5023in order to --
5024
5025Mr. Swalwell. Regardless of how you feel about the defendant.
5026
5027Ms. Page. Of course.
5028
5029Mr. Swalwell. In the Clinton case, were you the sole lawyer'
5030making decisions about the direction of the case?
5031
5032Ms. Page. I was not making decisions about the direction of the
5033case at all. I was a lawyer supporting the Deputy Director. ble had
5034multiple lawyers in OGC who supported the investigation, and, of
5035course, it was run by prosecutors at the Department.
5036
5037Mr. Swalwell. How many lawyers could you estimate were involved
5038in the Clinton case --
5039
5040Ms. Page. So there were --
5041
5042Mr. Swalwell. -- on the -- on your' side.
5043
5044Ms. Page. 0n the FBI side, there were two primary lawyers who
5045were involved. There was a lawyer who was involved on the filter team.
5046And then there were five prosecutors who had either r'egular' or
5047semir'egular' involvement at the Department, and then their management.
5048
5049Mr. Swalwell. And on the decision to open the Russia
5050investigation, how many lawyers were involved in that decision?
5051
5052Ms. Page. The decision to open the investigation? I mean, the
5053general counsel was involved, the deputy gener'al counsel was involved.
5054
5055At least, probably -- the decision to open? I'm not sure myself.
5056
5057COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5058
5059
5060############################
5061
5062119
5063COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5064
5065Mr. Swalwell. Is it fair to say you were not --
5066
5067Ms. Page. No, no.
5068
5069Mr. Swalwell. -- the person or lawyer that --
5070
5071Ms. Page. No.
5072
5073Mr. Swalwell. -- signed off?
5074
5075Ms. Page. I did not make any decisions with respect to opening
5076the Russia investigation.
5077
5078Mr. Swalwell. Can you speak to -- well, Bob Mueller. How long
5079did you work with Mr. Mueller?
5080
5081Ms. Page. So I went over for a 45-day detail.
5082
5083Mr. Swalwell. Oh, I Just mean in your' career.
5084
5085Ms. Page. Oh. So I didn't have -- I had limited interaction
5086with Mr. Mueller, when he was the Director of the FBI.
5087
5088Mr.Swalwell. Inyourlimitedinteractionandthediscussionyou
5089had with colleagues, can you speak to his character for, truthfulness
5090and integrity?
5091
5092Ms. Page. He is unassailable on those grounds. He is an
5093unbelievably upstanding, honest, rule-following, hard-charging,
5094thoughtful, fair individual.
5095
5096Mr. Swalwell. And with respect to other, lawyers and agents on
5097the special counsel's team, are those individuals that you had worked
5098with in some --
5099
5100Ms. P-age-.' Yes.
5101
5102Mr. Swalwell. -- manners?
5103
5104Ms. Page. Some of them, yes, sip.
5105
5106COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5107
5108
5109############################
5110
5111120
5112COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5113
5114Mr. Swalwell. And is there anyone on that team that you have
5115concerns about their, integrity, their character for truthfulness?
5116
5117Ms. Page. No, sir. And, in fact, at least two of them I've
5118worked quite closely with, and I know both to be incredibly bright,
5119incredibly fair, honest, brilliant prosecutors.
5120
5121Mr. Swalwell. And did you observe dur'ing the time on the team
5122any, you know, cafeteria talk, any prejudging of the direction of the
5123Russia investigation? [
5124
5125Ms. Page. No, sir.
5126
5127Mr. Swalwell. I don't have anything else. I'll defer, backto
5128counsel.
5129
5130Thank you, Ms. Page.
5131
5132Ms. Page. You're welcome.
5133
5134BY MS. KIM:
5135
5136Q Thank you, Ms. Page.
5137
5138I'd like to ask you about several FBI employees who ape mentioned
5139in the inspector general's report. To the extent that it asks about
5140things of which you have no knowledge, please let me know.
5141
5142This, as you will see, will turn out to be a process of
5143elimination. To be totally candid with you, there is an individual,
5144Sally Meyer, whose name has been repeatedly brought up in connection
5145withthesealiases. AndIjustwanttoconfir'mwhethenyoucanidentify
5146Sally Moyer' as any of the aliases named in the inspector' general's
5147r'epor't.
5148
5149A I think you need to ask that question more specifically.
5150
5151COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5152
5153
5154############################
5155
5156121
5157COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5158
5159Q Yes. Exactly. And so I will attempt to do so.
5160
5161A Okay.
5162
5163Q The inspector' general's report discussed instant messages
5164between two FBI agents, agent 1 and agent 5. The two were in a
5165preexisting romantic relationship.
5166
5167As I understand it, Sally Moyer' is not an FBI agent. Is that
5168correct?
5169
5170A That is correct.
5171
5172Q So do you have any reason to believe that Sally Moyer is agent
51731 or agent 5?
5174
5175A I know who agent 1 and agent 5 are, and Sally Moyer" is not
5176agent 1 or agent 5.
5177
5178Q Thank you.
5179
5180The inspector general's r'epor't also discusses FBI attorney 2 as
5181an individual who sent instant messages of what the inspector' general
5182called a political nature. That attorney, FBI attorney 2, is referred
5183to throughout with male pronouns.
5184
5185Do you know if the FBI attorney 2 is Sally Moyer'?
5186
5187A I also know who FBI Attorney General 2 is, and FBI attorney
51882 is not Sally Moyer'.
5189
5190Q Thank you.
5191
5192Ms. Lhpi. Okay, Ms. Page, I'm going to introduce a few text
5193messages in which it appears that you and Mr. Strzok arediscussing
5194the Russians and, sort of, their, attempts at espionage and Just kind
5195
5196of ask some of the context behind it.
5197
5198COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5199
5200
5201############################
5202
5203122
5204COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5205
5206[Page Exhibit No. 9
5207Was marked for identification.]
5208BY MS. SHEN:
5209
5210Q So, for, exhibit 9, I believe, if you can direct your'
5211attention to the bottom of the page. So I'm looking at the
5212second-to-last text on July 18th at 10:54.
5213
5214Okay. So that text reads -- and I believe this text is sent from
5215you --
5216
5217A Oh, no, I don't think so.
5218
5219Q Oh, I'm sorry. The first text is --
5220
5221A Yeah.
5222
5223Q Sorry. The first text is sent by Mr. Strzok, and it reads:
5224Andfuckthecheatingmother'fuckingRussians. Bastards. Ihatethem.
5225
5226I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
5227
5228And in response, you write: I'm sorry. Ne too.
5229
5230Ms. Page, do you recall sending that text?
5231
5232A The "me too"? Yeah.
5233
5234It The "me too," yes. And do you recall under, what
5235circumstances that exchange was sent? Was there any particular
5236context or issue that it was responding to?
5237
5238A I honestly don't remember. But I do always hate the
5239Russians, so --
5240
5241Q Okay.
5242
5243Has Mr. Strzok ever" communicated to you in other instances his
5244
5245hatred for the Russians?
5246
5247COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5248
5249
5250############################
5251
5252123
5253COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5254
5255A Uh-huh, yes. I mean, most everybody who works
5256counterintelligence at the FBI has pretty str'ong feelings aboutthe
5257Russian Federation. So this is not an unusually held view.
5258
5259Q Okay. So, generally speaking, at the FBI, you've heard
5260other, instances across the agency where agents or officials have
5261expressed their, hatred for, the Russians as well?
5262
5263A Russia poses the most severe existential threat to Western
5264democracy in the world. So for those of us who cape about democracy
5265and for, those of us who think America is great, we have pretty str'ong
5266feelings about the Russians.
5267
5268Q Okay. Thank you.
5269
5270[Page Exhibit No. 10
5271Was marked for identification.]
5272BY MS. SHEN:
5273
5274Q I'd now like to introduce another, text message from
5275July 3Ist, 2016, as exhibit 10. And if you can direct your" attention
5276to the top of the page this time -- I'm sorry, let me correctthat.
5277The first text message would be July 30th, 2016.
5278
5279A Uh-huh.
5280
5281q So I believe that first text message is from you, correct?
5282
5283A That's right, yes.
5284
5285Q So a portion redacted. So ends the sentence: Hate them.
5286I think they're probably the worst. Very little I find r'edeeming about
5287this even in history. A couple of good writers and artists I guess.
5288
5289And then redaction.
5290
5291COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5292
5293
5294############################
5295
5296124
5297COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5298
5299In response to that, Mr. Strzok responds, with a redaction:
5300Fucking conniving, cheating savages at statecraft, athletics, you name
5301it. I'm glad on I'm Team USA.
5302
5303Okay. Ms. Page, do you recall writing those texts?
5304
5305A I do.
5306
5307Q Okay. And do you recall any particular context those texts
5308were made around?
5309
5310A I don't.
5311
5312q So --
5313
5314A I mean, this is -- we've just opened -- or, you know, we're
5315about to open the Russia investigation, so it is very much, you know,
5316on the forefront of all of our' minds. So it would not surprise me if
5317it's a reflection of that. But, as I said, this is an enduring
5318sentiment for, people who are in the intelligence community.
5319
5320Q Well, in the intelligence community, I imagine there
5321are -- you know, there are countries other' than Russia who engage in
5322espionage efforts. And so --
5323
5324A There are countries other, than Russia who engage in espionage
5325efforts, but there are probably no other countries who ape more
5326singularly focused on the destruction of Western ideals around the
5327world.
5328
5329So it's true, other, countries engage in espionage, and other'
5330countries steal, and other countries lie. But I wouldn't say that
5331other countries do it the way that Russia does it and have as a goal,
5332
5333sort of, creating fractions within the Western alliance in order to,
5334
5335COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5336
5337
5338############################
5339
5340125
5341COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5342
5343you know, ascend to dominance the way that Russia does.
5344
5345Q So would it be fair to say that Russia's espionage efforts
5346are just fan more of a threat to the U.S. national security than some
5347other, countries' espionage efforts?
5348
5349A They are one of our most pernicious and dangerous threats.
5350
5351Q Okay.
5352
5353In Mr. Strzok's text, he refers to them as, quote, "cheating."
5354We're in an unclassified setting, so I wouldn't want to go there, but
5355can you describe some examples of what he may be referring to or just
5356generally what Russia has done to be cheating?
5357
5358A Well, I mean, look at the doping scandals in the Olympic
5359Committee stuff. Look at the effort to get the World Cup in Russia
5360that was Just recently completed. I mean, they cheat.
5361
5362Q And in terms of statecraft, again, in unclassified setting,
5363are there certain examples of Russian statecraft that you find, you
5364know, particularly egregious?
5365
5366A I mean, not beyond what I've already, sort of, attempted to
5367describe.
5368
5369Q And then the last comment, Mr. Strzok, he says: I'm glad I'm
5370on Team USA.
5371
5372Would you agree that, for example, investigating the Russians for
5373their attempts to interfere with the U.S. election would be an example
5374of being on Team USA?
5375
5376A Right. I mean, this is just being proud about being
5377
5378Americans. Right? We want to spread American values and American
5379
5380COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5381
5382
5383############################
5384
5385126
5386COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5387
5388democnacyar'oundthewor'1d,andwethinkthatweuveinthebestcountry
5389in the world. And so this is simply a statement of pride and one that
5390is in contrast to the way that the Russian Federation operates.
5391
5392Q So, last Friday, the special counsel's investigation, it
5393became public that they indicted 12 members of the Russian military
5394intelligence, the GRU. Are you familiar with the r'epor't?
5395
5396A I read about it, yes.
5397
5398Q Okay. The GRU, they are Russian military intelligence,
5399which means President Putin would be in charge of them. Is that
5400correct?
5401
5402A That's my understanding.
5403
5404Q And so any attempts that the Russian military intelligence
5405would have of interfering with the U.S. Presidential election,
5406President Putin would be aware of that. Do you believe that to be true?
5407
5408A Ask me that question again, please.
5409
5410Q Okay. Sorry. I'll rephrase. Would President Vladimir,
5411Putin be aware of any attempts the GRU had in interfering with the U.S.
5412Presidential election?
5413
5414A I'm -- President Putin is the President of his country and
5415
5416certainly is in charge of his intelligence apparatus.
5417
5418Q Okay.
5419
5420A I don't want to answer' that question with more specificity.
5421Q Fain enough. I think the point I'm just --
5422
5423A Okay.
5424
5425r0
5426
5427._ getting at is that, as the President of Russia, he would
5428
5429COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5430
5431
5432############################
5433
5434127
5435COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5436
5437be the head of the Russian military intelligence.
5438
5439A I would agree with that.
5440
5441Q Okay.
5442
5443So, actually, just earlier today, r'epor'ts have come out from
5444President Trump's meeting, summit with President Putin, and I'm just
5445going to read to you from a Washington Post article from 12:49 p.m.
5446today.
5447
5448So the title of the article is "Putin Again Denies Russian
5449Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election. Trump Calls Probe a Disaster
5450for Our Country."
5451
5452So thearticle reads: After' Putin said his government played no
5453role in trying to sabotage the U.S. election, Trump offered no pushback
5454and went on to condemn the Justice Department's investigation of
5455Russian interference as, quote, a disaster for our country.
5456
5457Ms. Page, do you believe that the Justice Department's
5458investigation of Russian interference is a disaster' for, our country?
5459
5460A I do not.
5461
5462Q Okay.
5463
5464So it goes on to say: Putin insisted publicly that the, quote,
5465Russian state has never' interfered and is not going to interferein
5466internal American affairs, unquote. And Trump declined to dispute
5467these assertions, instead saying that Putin, quote, has an interesting
5468idea, unquote, about the issue of interference.
5469
5470Now, Ms. Page, it is my understanding that the U.S. intelligence
5471
5472community unanimously concluded that the Russian state did attempt to
5473
5474COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5475
5476
5477############################
5478
5479128
5480COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5481
5482interfere in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election. Is that alsoyour
5483understanding?
5484
5485A Yes, it is.
5486
5487tt Okay. And, Ms. Page, are you inclined to believe Putin's
5488denial that Russia ever' interfered, or are you inclined to believe in
5489the U.S. intelligence community's assessment?
5490
5491A As a pant of the -- as a former part ofthe U.S. intelligence
5492community, I will go with the intelligence community assessment.
5493
5494Q okay. Thank you.
5495
5496Later, in the article, it also says: Trump says that he holds,
5497quote, both countries responsible, unquote, for the frayed relations
5498between the two nations and attacked Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller
5499III's investigation.
5500
5501Ms. Page, do you believe that the United States is responsible
5502for the frayed relations between the United States and Russia?
5503
5504A Well, we're responsible to the extent we're not going to
5505accept their, meddling in a U.S. election. I suppose so.
5506
5507Q Okay. Well, would you blame Robert Mueller's investigation
5508for, fr'ayed relations with Russia?
5509
5510A No.
5511
5512Q Okay.
5513
5514And this is the last one, I promise. The article also goes on
5515to say: In response to the questions, Trump said that both countries
5516were to blame for, the deterioration of relations. Quote, I do feel
5517
5518that we have both made mistakes. He added that, quote, there was no
5519
5520COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5521
5522
5523############################
5524
5525129
5526COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5527
5528collusion, unquote, between his campaign and Russia, and he lamented
5529that the special counsel's investigation into the matter has had an
5530impact on U.S.-Russian relations. Quote, I think the probe has been
5531a disaster, for, our' country, unquote. He said, quote, it's ridiculous,
5532what's going on with the probe, unquote.
5533
5534Ms. page,ar'eyouawar'eofanythingr'idicu1ousgoingoninSpecia1
5535Counsel Mueller's probe?
5536
5537A No.
5538
5539Q Okay. Thank you. I think that's all I have.
5540
5541BY MS. KIM:
5542
5543Q I think this might be the last tranche of questions I have
5544for you, Ms. Page. I'd like to ask you about Dir'ector' Comey.
5545
5546You spoke earlier in general terms about Special Counsel Mueller.
5547Can you explain to me how long you worked in proximity with Director
5548Comey?
5549
5550A So it would cover' the span of time that I worked for, Deputy
5551Director McCabe. So, prior to February 2016, I certainly had
5552interactionswithMr. Comey,but,onceTstar'tedwor'kingforMr'. McCabe
5553in the context of Mr. McCabe being Deputy Director, myinteractions
5554with Mr. Comey became fan more frequent.
5555
5556Q And can you describe for me Mr. Comey's general character
5557and honesty as you understood them?
5558
5559A He is a man of enormous integrity. I am a better, lawyer and
5560a better, person for, having, sort of, learned from his examples. He
5561
5562is obviously an extraordinary communicator, but he's also just a very
5563
5564COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5565
5566
5567############################
5568
5569130
5570COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5571
5572good person and is thoughtful about how to approach problems and is
5573a man of unassailable integrity, in my view.
5574
5575Q To your' knowledge, has Director Comey ever' lied to you?
5576
5577A No.
5578
5579Q Are you personally aware of any instances where Director
5580Comey was shown to have lied or been knowingly untruthful?
5581
5582A Never'.
5583
5584Q Overall, do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of
5585Director Comey's oral or written representations of the facts from when
5586he was the FBI Director?
5587
5588A No, not at all.
5589
5590Q Have you followed the recent press coverage of Director
5591Comey's public descriptions of his meetings with President Trump?
5592
5593A Yes.
5594
5595Q And you said you had -- usually you had -- you have Firsthand
5596knowledge of Director Comey's memoranda that he kept to document those
5597meetings. Is that correct?
5598
5599A So I either in one or two instances was present for his
5600initial retelling of the meeting, and in most other instances Iwas
5601provided with his memo to review in real-time, like, shortly after his
5602production of those memos.
5603
5604Q Have you noted any discrepancies between Director Comey's
5605contemporaneous recollections of the facts on one hand and his public
5606representation of those facts on the other hand?
5607
5608A No.
5609
5610COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5611
5612
5613############################
5614
5615131
5616COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5617
5618Q Are you generally familiar, with Director Comey's testimony
5619to the Senate Intelligence Committee about his interactions with
5620President Trump?
5621
5622A I am.
5623
5624Q Do you have any reason to believe that Director' Comey did
5625not -- I'm sorry, let me put that in the affirmative. Do you believe
5626that Director Comey accurately shaped with Senate Intelligence
5627Committee his memory of his interactions with President Trump?
5628
5629A Absolutely, yes.
5630
5631Q I imagine you are fairly familiar, with the inspector
5632general's report. Is that correct?
5633
5634A I have not read it all. I hope to never" do so. But I am
5635familiar, with pants of it, yes.
5636
5637It On June 16th, President Trump tweeted: The IG r'epor't
5638tota11ydestroys0amesComeyanda11ofhisminions,inc1udingthegreat
5639lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful witch
5640hunt against so many innocent people. It will go down as a dark and
5641dangerous period in American history.
5642
5643To your" knowledge, did the inspector general's report contain any
5644information discr'editing the special counsel's probe?
5645
5646A No.
5647
5648Q And ace you aware of the inspector general's report
5649destroying anything about Director Comey's ability to testify as a
5650witness in the special counsel's probe?
5651
5652A No.
5653
5654COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5655
5656
5657############################
5658
5659132
5660COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5661
5662Ms. Kim; I think that ends our questioning for this Pound.
5663Thank you.
5664
5665[Recess.]
5666
5667Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. Back on the record.
5668
5669So, Ms. Page, when we left off, I was asking you -- well, I asked
5670you a question based on the answer' that you'd given, and I asked you
5671whether a decision had been made to charge Hillary Clinton -- not to
5672charge Hillary Clinton before or after hen July 2nd, 2016, interview.
5673And your" first answer' was before. You said something to the effect
5674of, because every person -- I'm par'aphr'asing -- because virtually
5675every person on the Midyear Exam team had concluded that shewasn't
5676going to be changed.
5677
5678And then --
5679
5680[Phone ringing.]
5681
5682Mr. Meadows. You can tell a lot about a man by his ringtone.
5683
5684Ms. Page. will it say "boing, boing" on the transcript?
5685
5686Mr. Ratcliffe. But then, in fairness to you, Ms. Page, you
5687qualified that a little bit and said, well, a final-final decision was
5688made after. I want to give you a chance to be clean.
5689
5690Ms. Page. So the word -- and I don't mean to be overly lawyenly,
5691but it comes naturally, so forgive me. The word “decision"suggests
5692the finality. And my only point is that before the July 2nd interview
5693the uniform view was that there was not sufficient evidence to bring
5694any charges against Hillary Clinton.That's not a final decision,
5695
5696because it's not a final decision. But to that point, there was
5697
5698COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5699
5700
5701############################
5702
5703133
5704COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5705
5706insufficient evidence to change her' with any crime. And that was
5707uniformly agreed to by both the FBI individuals involved and the D03
5708individuals involved.
5709
5710But that, certainly, in the event, unlikely was our estimation,
5711but in the event that there was some admission or some other' revelation
5712which changed our assessment, we were all open to that possibility.
5713
5714Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. But you talked about -- you started your'
5715answer' before about, "to be candid," and I think that's an important
5716word, because "candor"' has a specific meaning when you're talking about
5717an FBI agent, right? Candor and lack of candor?
5718
5719Ms. Page. Everybody at the Department has an obligation to
5720candor', yes.
5721
5722Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. And you gave a very long explanation for,
5723you know, the decision and before, and you made reference to the
5724discussions. We know this went all the way back to a memo -- at least,
5725a memo drafted by Director, Corey on May the 2nd of 2616. And there
5726were multiple drafts and a lot of conversation. All of that, night?
5727
5728Ms. Page. That's correct.
5729
5730Mr. Ratcliffe. what is a lack of candor for -- what does that
5731mean in the context of anyone associated with the FBI when they're
5732talking to an investigator?
5733
5734Ms. Page. That they're being untruthful?
5735
5736Mr. Ratcliffe. A lack of candor?
5737
5738Ms. Page. Yeah. A lack of candor, means that they're being
5739
5740untruthful.
5741
5742COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5743
5744
5745############################
5746
5747134
5748COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5749
5750Mr. Ratcliffe. 0h, untruthful. I thought you said being
5751truthful.
5752
5753Ms. Page. Oh, no. Sorry.
5754
5755Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm sorry. I misheard you.
5756
5757Ms. Page. That's okay. That's okay. Yeah.
5758
5759Mr. Ratcliffe. Or that they're leaving out material facts,
5760night? Only telling part of the story?
5761
5762Ms. Page. Sure. Yes.
5763
5764Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Okay.
5765
5766The reason I ask is I asked that same question that I asked of
5767you, that you gave a very long explanation, went into great detail about
5768a great many factors that impacted it, I asked that same question to
5769Director Comey under' oath, did you make the decision before or after',
5770and his answer' was after.
5771
5772He didn't explain it at all. He didn't qualify it at all. He
5773didn't give any context to it. He didn't discuss number, of decisions.
5774He didn't say, well, we made it after, but everyone had concluded long
5775before.
5776
5777Do you have any reason to give me any explanation or Justification
5778for why Director Comey wouldn't have given that information to
5779congressiona1investigatorsorwhi1eunder'oathtolembersofcongress?
5780
5781Ms. Page. I don't know, sip.
5782
5783Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
5784
5785Ms. Page. I can't answer' that.
5786
5787Mr. Ratcliffe. He were talking about the tarmac meeting, as
5788
5789COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5790
5791
5792############################
5793
5794135
5795COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5796
5797well. And I was asking you about this email on June the 30th of 2016
5798that related to Bill Priestap. And you gave me the context that it
5799was, to use your' words, of being a little bit unkind.
5800
5801But I did want to ask, the reference to what we would do in ordinary
5802circumstance, in parentheses Peter Strzok says, "Easy, refer to PC,"
5803which you and I both think is "public corruption." Was he makinga
5804Joke there? I'm just trying to find out --
5805
5806Ms.P_age, Yeah. Imean,Ithinkthatyouhavetotakethiswhole
5807text in the, sort of, somewhat snarky tone in which it's intended.
5808Because there's nothing to do, night? Like, as I sort of described
5809already, the investigation is what the investigation is. It is
5810virtually over'. We have seen what the evidence fails to, sort of,
5811demonstrate.
5812
5813And so I think, as I said -- and I'm certainly not, sort of, pr'oud
5814of this, but I think that it's more a reflection of, "Oh, gosh, he's
5815worrying again" --
5816
5817Mr. Ratcliffe. Right.
5818
5819Ms. Page. -- and this is, sort of, not a basis to be worried
5820about. And so I think that's why you have the, like --
5821
5822Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. And all --
5823
5824Ms. Page. -- flippant responses at the end.
5825
5826Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And all of that is somewhat reinforced by
5827the text message that we've talked about before that you sent the next
5828day on July lst about: She's not exactly a profile in courage because
5829
5830she knows that Hillary Clinton is not going to be charged.
5831
5832COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5833
5834
5835############################
5836
5837136
5838COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5839
5840Ms. Page. Right. I think they're of a kind.
5841
5842Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah.
5843
5844But, nevertheless, this tarmac meeting, obviously it generated
5845a lot of attention. And, again, the reason that the Director said that
5846he did the unprecedented step of acting as investigator and prosecutor
5847on July the 5th and, she said, cast a shadow.
5848
5849The day after you sent the pPofile-in-coutNsge text message was
5850July 2nd, which was the interview of Hillary Clinton, connect?
5851
5852Ms. Page. This says the lst here, but I take you at --
5853
5854Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah, I think --
5855
5856Ms. Page. -- that you have -- you know, I know some of them ace
5857in UTC and some of them aren't, so I -- yeah.
5858
5859Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you that it occurred on
5860Saturday, July the 2nd of 2916.
5861
5862Ms. Page. Okay.
5863
5864Mr. Ratcliffe. And I've only got one copy of this, but I've got
5865a document I want to show you and Just -- it's essentially, Ithink
5866you'd call it an LHM, or a letterhead memorandum, which is a summary
5867of -- supposed to be a summary of the interview based on the 3025 of
5868the people that were in the room.
5869
5870Ms. Page._ It's a summary of, sort of, the investigation, of, sort
5871of, all the investigative steps and what we found.
5872
5873Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah. But specifically in connection with her
5874interview on July the 2nd of 2916.
5875
5876Ms. Page. Okay.
5877
5878COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5879
5880
5881############################
5882
5883137
5884COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5885
5886Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah. Well, I mean, you look at -- did you play
5887a role in preparing that?
5888
5889Ms. Page. I --
5890
5891Mr. Ratcliffe. Because there were some text messages, I thought,
5892where you --
5893
5894Ms. Page. Yeah. So I did not play a role in preparing it. We
5895went through, like, 52 billion drafts of this thing, like, frmttt''a''
5896to "the" to, you know, like, all kinds of changes, because we wanted
5897to be as perfect as we could get it. So I am certain I am on a jillion
5898dpafts as well. I am not positive I ever' read the entire' thing. I
5899started to a couple of times, but other' things --
5900
5901Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, I went through it, and I read it a
5902couple times, and I'll r'epr'esent to you that the word “tarmac" doesn't
5903appear" in there or' "Loretta Lynch" doesn't appear' in there. And I --
5904
5905Ms. Page. That makes sense to me.
5906
5907Mr'. Ratcliffe. It does?
5908
5909Ms. Page. That's not -- yes. So, I mean, I believe you. I have
5910no way to disagree with you. But those were not investigative steps.
5911This was not designed to, sort of, be every single thing that happened
5912during the course of the Clinton email investigation. This is designed
5913to be an assessment of what the FBI did and what the FBI found. And
5914the tarmac incident doesn't really play a role with respect to those
5915two things.
5916
5917Mr. Ratcliffe. So -- and that's your" opinion. You're entitled
5918
5919to it. I just want to be clean, though. So, if a meeting took place
5920
5921COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5922
5923
5924############################
5925
5926138
5927COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5928
59295 days before the interview that everyone in the country is talking
5930about, in terms of it being inappropriate, casting a shadow, calling
5931for, a quasi-r‘ecusal, that involves the husband of the subject of the
5932investigation and the boss of five people from the Department of Justice
5933that are in the room, you think it's not unusual that someone wouldn't
5934ask a question of the subject of the investigation about that meeting
5935that had occurred 5 days before in public view?
5936
5937Ms. Page. Well, so that's not what you asked me. You asked me
5938why it wasn't in here. And so that's, sort of, my reflection of why
5939that statement isn't in here.
5940
5941With respect to why they didn't ask hen -- you're asking why the
5942prosecutor‘s didn't ask her a question in the interview? I can't answer"
5943that except that MP. -- it kind of goes to the point I was making
5944earlier. If we were close to changing hen and then suddenly this tar'mac
5945meeting happens and now we are not going to charge hen, then I agree
5946with you, and then we have a serious controversy on our hands.
5947
5948But I guess I just don't -- I fully understand and remember and
5949appreciate the firestorm it created. I completely agree with you on
5950that. But if there was 0.6 percent evidence the day befope the tarmac
5951meeting and there's 6.0 percent evidence the day after the tarmac
5952meeting, it doesn't change anything. It's a terrible optic, but it
5953doesn't change the outcome of the investigation.
5954
5955So I was not a part of a decision to ask or' not ask. I didn't
5956review the outlines with respect to whether to ask or' not ask. I don't
5957
5958know who made the decision whether to ask or' not ask. I'm just saying,
5959
5960COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5961
5962
5963############################
5964
5965139
5966COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5967
5968in my opinion, it's not that weird to me. I'm not sur'e what you would
5969get out of that question.
5970
5971Mr. Ratcliffe. Hell, I guess --
5972
5973Ms. Page. Because there still wasn't sufficient evidence to
5974charge her.
5975
5976Mr. Ratcliffe. -- what you'd get -- if the stated premise that
5977everyonesemnstohavegivenisthatshe'snotgoingtobechar'gedunless
5978she lies in her interview, she can't lie if she isn't asked the
5979questions.
5980
5981Ms. Page. But she wasn't at this meeting. Her, husband was.
5982
5983Mr. Ratcliffe. I --
5984
5985Ms. Page. Right? So what is --
5986
5987Mr. Ratcliffe. I guess you could confirm that if you asked hen,
5988just like you could confirm what they talked about and whether, or not
5989there was any number, of discussions.
5990
5991Anyway, you're entitled to your' opinion. I just wanted to ask
5992you about it because I'd seen something in these text messagesthat
5993indicate that you were involved in this.
5994
5995And do you recall some text messages with Agent Strzok about some
5996of the 3625 being inflammatory and not letting Congr'ess havethose?
5997
5998Ms. Page. Yes.
5999
6000Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. What do you recall about that?
6001
6002Ms. Page. So that was when we were starting our production of
6003the materials that Congress had requested. So it's not so much -- and,
6004
6005ultimately, they were all turned over' anyway. They were emails which
6006
6007COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6008
6009
6010############################
6011
6012140
6013COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6014
6015were -- or emails, excuse me. They were 302s which were -- didn't
6016ultimately speak to any of the evidence that we found. They were
6017inflammatory, they were certainly -..
6018
6019Mr. Ratcliffe. What do you recall about them? How were they
6020inflammatory? Because I don't know that they have been turned over'.
6021
6022Ns. gage; So one is the quid pro quo. I mean, that we've
6023gone -- that's gone, sort of, to the end of the Earth, the Brian -- what
6024was his last name? McCauley maybe?
6025
6026So this was the claim -- sorry. I haven't thought about this in
6027a while, so I don't want to get this wrong. So this was the claim that,
6028very early in the Clinton -- in the -- shortly after, opening the
6029investigation -- no. Sorry. Before that. Sorry, let me think about
6030this for, a second.
6031
6032when the State Department was first, I think, complying with
6033either, their FOIA or something and had first determined that there may
6034be classified information among the emails which had been collected,
6035there was an allegation that Patrick Kennedy, who was then the Under,
6036Secretary for Management, I think, at the State Department, had reached
6037out to Brian McCauley, I think is his last name -- but I could be getting
6038it wrong -- who was an executive in our' International Operations
6039Division, and had essentially -- the allegation was that if McCauley
6040could get the classification of this particular' document changed, that
6041the FBI could get the legat spots that they wanted at certain embassies
6042or something like that. I don't -- I might be getting some of this
6043
6044wrong.
6045
6046COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6047
6048
6049############################
6050
6051141
6052COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6053
6054And so that had been investigated. I think both individuals had
6055been interviewed by the FBI. The classification of the document never,
6056changed. The legat spots were never' granted. And so it was sort of
6057a wash.
6058
6059So the point was we were trying to prioritize the 3025 and the
6060documents which actually went to the underlying decision not to
6061prosecute. Those werenot those. And so, in terms of having limited
6062resources and trying to prioritize the things which would be most
6063salient to Congress' review of our investigation, the McCauley
6064stuff -- there was something else; I can't remember now what it is.
6065But the, sort of, sideshow things that didn't actually affect what the
6066outcome was or' what the evidence was in the investigation were, sort
6067of, deprioritized.
6068
6069So, I mean, that's all that's meant to r'eflect, ultimately. It's
6070obviously a text message, so it doesn't have all of that context and
6071
6072background, but that's what that's a reflection of.
6073
6074COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6075
6076
6077############################
6078
6079142
6080COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6081
6082[3:11 p.m.]
6083
6084Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. I want to go back the Comey memos that we
6085were talking about. And you were relating sort of the process that
6086you and Andy McCabe and others, apparently, would have a conversation
6087with Director Comey about the material and what became his memosas
6088a readout.
6089
6090Did I miss anyone besides you and Andy McCabe?
6091
6092Ms. Page. It's a very small number.
6093
6094Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. who else can you think of?
6095
6096Ms. Page. I think the Director's testimony was Jim
6097Rybicki -- and this is from memory, so it's in some hearing transcript
6098somewhere -- Jim Rybicki, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ghattas, maybe Mr. Bowdich,
6099and myself.
6100
6101There may have been one or two other, times in which one or two
6102other, people may have been aware of a particular -- hearing a readout
6103of a particular, memo -- I'm sorry; let me correct one thing. The one
6104exception to the list I Just provided was that Mr. Comey did brief his
6105senior Crossfire Hurricane team of the meeting in early January when
6106he's there with Clapper and Brennan and the rest of the -- Admiral
6107Roger's, and the head of the -- the leaders ofthe intelligence community
6108briefing him on the Intelligence community's assessment of the Russian
6109interference and the Russia active measures report.
6110
6111The memo that he drafted following that meeting, in which he
6112also -- is that public? -- let me stop there -- the memo that he drafted,
6113
6114he did brief the sort of senior, Crossfire team of the events.
6115
6116COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6117
6118
6119############################
6120
6121143
6122COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6123
6124We had talked about it in advance of that meeting, and he gave
6125a readout of, you know, a debrief following that meeting. So that's
6126the only exception in terms of the Comey memos that had a more expanded
6127personnel list, to my knowledge.
6128
6129Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And so was the discussion -- before you
6130had talked about, and you said, when, you know, when we talk about
6131concerns that the Director had -- were those concerns about the topics
6132that the President was talking about, or were they concerns about the
6133President?
6134
6135Ms. Page. I don't know what you'retalking about. I'm sorry.
6136what do you mean? What concerns I had?
6137
6138Mr. Ratcliffe. Giving the answer', you said he would bring us
6139together to talk about -- from his meetings with the
6140President -- concerns that came about.
6141
6142And I'm wondering were they concerns about topics that the
6143President was talking about, or was the concern the President?
6144
6145Ms. Page. Well, I only recall being -- I think I was only present
6146for one -- other than the January one about the ICA, I think I was only
6147present for, one meeting in which he kind of had described what had just
6148transpired. I don't remember which one that was of the memos that I've
6149read and was privy to. I Just don't remember which particular one I
6150was present for. I Just remember being present for, one of them.
6151
6152Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, do you remember I asked you before
6153about an obstruction of justice as a topic, and you gave an answer',
6154
6155and then you came back and said: I need to take my answer' back.
6156
6157COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6158
6159
6160############################
6161
6162144
6163COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6164
6165Ms. Page. That answer, back, yeah.
6166
6167Mr. Ratcliffe. But generally talked about certain matters, I
6168guess. Let me ask you this: I asked you the other, day about a text
6169message that Peter Strzok sent you the day that Jim Comey got fired
6170where he said: And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now
6171while Andy is acting.
6172
6173And you explained: It didn't have anything to do with when Andy
6174was acting, but the case we were waiting on.
6175
6176Is that the same information that's reflected in some of the Comey
6177
6178memos?18Usc924c@@
6179
6180Ms. Page. Just a moment, please.
6181
6182[Discussion off the r'ecor'd.)
6183
6184Ms. Page. Mr. Ratcliffe, I'm sure this is going to be an
6185unsatisfying answer, but I have reviewed all the Comey memos, as I said,
61861haver,eatuostoftheminrea1'time,atthetimethattheywer,ewr,itten.
6187I don't have any basis to disagree with the claims made in the Corey
6188memos, but with respect to what steps we may or' may not havetaken,
6189based either on those claims or following the Director's firing,on
6190advice of FBI counsel, I can't answer that at this time.
6191
6192Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Your, inability to answer' tells me a lot.
6193And what it tells me is inconsistent. And what I'm trying to get at,
6194it is inconsistent with what Jim Comey has admitted that he told the
6195President, I think, that he wasn't under, investigation during that
6196timeframe.
6197
6198Maybe --
6199COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6200
6201
6202############################
6203
6204145
6205COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6206
6207Ms. Page. That is not inconsistent, sir.
6208
6209Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So he wasn't under' investigation, but
6210thatdoesn'tmeantherewasadiscussiongoingonaboutpotentialcrimes
6211involving the FBI Director's senior, leadership team. That's what
6212you're telling us?
6213
6214Ms.P_age_. Iamnottellingyouthat. Butthestatement,iftaken
6215as a hypothetical, somebody could not be under investigation, but there
6216still could be discussions about potential criminal activity, and that
6217is totally consistent with FBI policies and would not be unusual with
6218respect to any investigation.
6219
6220Mr. Ratcliffe. Except the unusual part about memorializing it
6221in memos that hadn't been done with other Presidents, right?
6222
6223Ms. Page. I don't know what you're asking me. I'm sorry. How
6224do you -- what?
6225
6226Mr. Meadows. Well, let me follow up, if you don't mind.
6227
6228Are you aware of any other, time that Director Comey memorialized
6229conversations with President Obama?
6230
6231Ms. Page. I think he has testified that he did not do that.
6232That's correct.
6233
6234Mr. Meadows. Okay. And so did you not find it unique that he
6235would be memonia1izing these conversations, and they weren't in
6236tota1ityofthea11theconver'sationsytouhad,butherremtoi1izedthese
6237particular conversations. Did you not find that unique?
6238
6239Ms. Page. I think that he did memorialize all of his
6240
6241conversations with --
6242
6243COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6244
6245
6246############################
6247
6248146
6249COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6250
6251Mr. Meadows. President-elect.
6252
6253Ms. Page. President-elect or President Trump. I think that's
6254been his testimony. I wouldn't have known that he did or didn'tdo
6255it beforehand, to be honest with you. So I don't know that I can answer'
6256your' question.
6257
6258Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Director Comey have any conversations with
6259you about the purpose behind him creating these memos?
6260
6261Ms. Page. No.
6262
6263Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Did Andy McCabe create any memos?
6264
6265Ms. Page. Yes.
6266
6267Mr. Ratcliffe. Tell us about those.
6268
6269Ms. Page. I can't do that, sir.
6270
6271Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Without -- I'm going to respect -- try and
6272respect as much of this as I can, but given the fact that you've
6273acknowledged that there were memos or at least a memo, I want to find
6274out as much as I can about the timing and the circumstances of it, even
6275if you won't disclose the content of it.
6276
6277So, first of all, let me ask you, are you aware of the content
6278of the memo or memos?
6279
6280Ms. Page. I am.
6281
6282Mr. Ratcliffe. Were you involved in the preparation of the memo
6283or memos?
6284
6285Ms. Page. I reviewed some of them, probably not all, but some
6286of them, mostly for, like spelling and typographical things before he
6287
6288finalized them.
6289
6290COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6291
6292
6293############################
6294
6295147
6296COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6297
6298Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. You say "them," so there were multiple
6299memos. Do you know approximately how many memos?
6300
6301Ms. Page. Let's be more specific about memos with whom, if we
6302could.
6303
6304Mr. Ratcliffe. Memos with r'espect to President Trump.
6305
6306Ms. Page. Just meetings with President Trump?
6307
6308Mr. Ratcliffe. Just what?
6309
6310Ms. Page. Just meetings with President Trump?
6311
6312Mr. Ratcliffe. Meetings, conversations, interactions,
6313communications.
6314
6315Ms. Page. with the President?
6316
6317Mr. Ratcliffe. With President Trump?
6318
6319Ms. Page. There's a very small number. I'm not certain, but one
6320or two. I'm not certain.
6321
6322Mr. Ratcliffe. And can you tell me anything about the timing of
6323those memos? When they were created and the circumstances under' which
6324they were created, without getting into the content?
6325
6326Ms. Page. With respect to those one or two, to the best of my
6327recollection, he would have created them shortly in time following
6328whatever interaction he may have had.
6329
6330Mr. Ratcliffe. And was it his interaction necessarily or could
6331it have been memos about -- I'm trying to find out, again, the timing
6332of this. Is this sort of related to the firing of Jim Comey or' other,
6333events?
6334
6335Ms. Page. I'm sorry. Ask me that question again.
6336
6337COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6338
6339
6340############################
6341
6342148
6343COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6344
6345Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm just trying to determine the context of now
6346what I'm going to refer to as the McCabe memos and when they were created
6347and what the circumstances of the McCabe memos were.
6348
6349So can you give me a -- when was the first McCabe memo created,
6350if you can give me the general timeframe and the circumstances under,
6351which it was created.
6352
6353Ms. Page. I honestly, I could not guess at a date. I do not think
6354that the Deputy Director had any interactions with the President of
6355the United States until after he became the Acting Director.
6356
6357-Mr‘. Ratcliffe. Okay.
6358
6359Ms. Page. But that is my -- I am-speculating about that, as I
6360sit here today.
6361
6362Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. You're not certain about that.
6363
6364Do you know whether, op not there were any McCabe memos during the
6365Obama Administration?
6366
6367Ms. Page. Not to my knowledge -- I'm sorry. Memorializing
6368interaction with President Obama?
6369
6370Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
6371
6372Ms. Page.e_. No, not to my knowledge.
6373
6374Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. what's your' understanding of why Deputy
6375Director on Acting Director McCabe generated a memo or' memos
6376memorializing his interactions with President Trump?
6377
6378Ms. Page. I 'ttt not really crazy about speaking for, them. I would
6379say, in general, that an FBI agent memorializes the substance of a
6380
6381conversation when he thinks there is a reason to memorialize it, whether,
6382
6383COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6384
6385
6386############################
6387
6388149
6389COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6390
6391it is the substance, whether it is the circumstances of the meeting,
6392whether it is the nature of the interaction.
6393
6394We write something down when it seems worth writing down.
6395
6396Mr. Ratcliffe. Were the McCabe memos ever' disclosed outside the
6397FBI, to your' knowledge?
6398
6399Ms. Page. Not outside the Department, to my knowledge.
6400
6401Mr. Ratcliffe. Would the special counsel have access to the
6402McCabe memos?
6403
6404Ms. Page. I -- yes.
6405
6406Mr. Ratcliffe. Would the McCabe memos be relevant to the matters
6407that the special counsel is investigating?
6408
6409Ms. Page. Yes.
6410
6411Mr. Ratcliffe. You mentioned that there were other memos
6412that -- I'm not sure I understood. These ones that we're talking about
6413related to his interactions with the President, but you intimated that
6414there were other, McCabe memos that were responsive to my first
6415over'ar'ching question.
6416
6417Can you tell me what those memos relate to? How you would
6418characterize those?
6419
6420Ms. Page. Mr. McCabe memorialized certain interactions with
6421either, white House personnel or others when there was something
6422noteworthy to memorialize, sir.
6423
6424Mr. Ratcliffe. Did either, Deputy Director McCabe or Acting
6425Director McCabe, whatever, capacity, did he discuss the memos, to your'
6426
6427knowledge with Jim Comey?
6428
6429COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6430
6431
6432############################
6433
6434150
6435COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6436
6437Ms. Page. Cer'tainly, the ones that were written before the
6438Director was fired, I would expect So. He would not have discussed
6439them, any memos that he drafted after the Director was fired because
6440the Director was no longer a government employee.
6441
6442Mr. Ratcliffe. Based on public reports, Acting Director McCabe
6443interviewed with President Trump for the position of Director of the
6444FBI on or about May 18th of 2017.
6445
6446Do you know if -- first of all, do you know if Acting Director
6447McCabe discussed the McCabe memos or' the Comey memos or disclosed the
6448existence of either, to President Tr'ump in that interview?
6449
6450Ms. Page. I, I don't think -- I don't know.
6451
6452Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you have a conversation with Acting Director
6453McCabe about his interview with the President?
6454
6455Ms. Page. I did.
6456
6457Mr. Ratcliffe. His interview for the position of FBI Director?
6458
6459Ms. Page. Yes.
6460
6461Mr. Ratcliffe. What generally did he relate to you about the
6462interview that you may recall?
6463
6464Ms. Page. I'm sorry, sir. I'm not going to go into the details
6465of those conversations at this time.
6466
6467Mr. Ratcliffe. For what stated reason?
6468
6469Ms. Page. Because I have no idea what among the memos that
6470Mr. McCabe drafted is of investigative utility or not to the special
6471counsel, and so because I have no knowledge of that, I can't start
6472
6473parsing some parts of the content and -- versus others.
6474
6475COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6476
6477
6478############################
6479
6480151
6481COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6482
6483Mr. Baker. When Mr. McCabe was Just regular Deputy Director, did
6484he ever" keep any memos from conversations or interactions he had with
6485Director Comey?
6486
6487Ms. Page. He did not keep memos, but he obviously took notes,
6488you know, during the course of his duties.
6489
6490Mr. Baker. Okay.
6491
6492Mr. Meadows. Let me, Lisa, may I do a followup from previously?
6493
6494when we talked about the dossier's existence came into your'
6495knowledge in mid-September, it's, I think, been reported, but also
6496during testimony, that there was a numbers of different versions of
6497different memos, I guess, that became aware -- that the FBI became aware
6498of. Is that correct?
6499
6500Ms. Page. Not memos but of the reports that are called the
6501dossier'.
6502
6503Mr. Meadows. Yeah.
6504
6505Ms. Page. Yeah, I'm --
6506
6507Mr. Meadows. Yeah, I'm not following up on his.
6508
6509Ms. Page. Okay.
6510
6511Mr. Meadows. But as we now know is the dossier, because it had
6512a numbers of different reports there.
6513
6514Ms. Page. My understanding is that, if there ace -- I'm going
6515to make this up -- if there ace 20 reports that the FBI received from
6516Christopher Steele, I've completely made that number up --
6517
6518Mr. Meadows. Right.
6519
6520Ms. Page. -- I'm just using it for example's sake.
6521
6522COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6523
6524
6525############################
6526
6527152
6528COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6529
6530If there are " r'epor'ts that the FBI received from Christopher'
6531Steele at various times and from various individuals, people, other,
6532government employees, wherever, the FBI has received certain subsets
6533of that M.
6534
6535So, from one person, we might have received 11; from another
6536
6537per'son, we might have received 14. I'm -- again, I'm Just doing this
6538
6539for, example's sake -- but, yes, it is my understanding that the FBI
6540has received from various sources -- not confidential human
6541sources -- but from various places --
6542
6543Mr. Meadows. Right.
6544
6545Ms. Page. --. varied subsets of the, quote-unquote, "dossier."
6546
6547Mr. Meadows. So, when that happened, and we started to look at
6548that, and obviously, you've got mid-September through the third week
6549in October, when a FISA application is actually issued on Carter Page,
6550did you receive multiple sources between the mid-September, orwere
6551the multiple sources after the original FISA application?
6552
6553Ms. Page. I think after.
6554
6555Mr. Meadows. okay. So did you communicate that or was that
6556outlined in the followup FISA applications that you might have gotten
6557additional --
6558
6559Ms. Page. I'm not sure -- that's my point -- I'm not sure any
6560were additional.
6561
6562Mr. Meadows. Right, but as a subset, but they were different.
6563So, I mean -- here is --
6564
6565Ms. Page. No, that's --
6566
6567COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6568
6569
6570############################
6571
6572153
6573COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6574
6575Mr. Meadows. So what yOu're saying is they were all consistent;
6576it just was part it --
6577
6578Ms. Page. Duplicative. Right so --
6579
6580Mr. Meadows. Let's say there were 16 different items, you might
6581have gotten 11 from this source and 10 from this, but they were all
6582consistent is what you're saying?
6583
6584Ms. Page. That's my recollection, yes.
6585
6586Mr. Meadows. All night.
6587
6588Ms. Page. So it's not as though, if we had 20, and Joe Smith
6589provided us with 11, all 11 were within the 20 we had. It is not as
6590though one of them was new to us out of the original M. That's my --
6591
6592Mr. Meadows. Right.
6593
6594Ms. Page. I guess I should hedge this, though, because I'm not
6595looking at any of these. That's my understanding based on what had
6596been briefed to Director Corey or otherwise. I never' looked at any
6597of the nonofficial sources--
6598
6599Mr. Meadows. Right.
6600
6601Ms. Page. -- of the dossier'.
6602
6603We got the set of the r'epor'ts that we got from Chr'istopher' Steele,
6604our' confidential human source. That was sort of the authoritative set
6605that we cared about.
6606
6607To the extent we got chunks or subsets from other, people, we
6608collected them, but --
6609
6610Mr. Meadows. At what point did you start to get concerned that
6611
6612there may be some potential credibility issues as it relates to who
6613
6614COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6615
6616
6617############################
6618
6619154
6620COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6621
6622may have paid for the work? Did you ever'?
6623
6624Ms. Page. Me --
6625
6626Mr. Meadows. I mean, because we know that, on January 10th of
66272817, they were still, according to Peter Strzok's email to you and
6628others, that they were unverified still at that particular point.
6629
6630Ms. Page. So, let's -- let -- there's a lot --
6631
6632Mr. Meadows. January 16th.
6633
6634Ms. Page. There's a lot packed inthere, though. So, to your'
6635first question, when did I get concerned?
6636
6637I'm not sure that I ever' actually had a concern. And the reason
6638is that, with r'espect to the -- certainly the first FISA .-.. Ithink
6639we had an understanding that Steele had first been engaged by a
6640Republican opposition but by -- I'm not going to be able to describe
6641it better, and I hope I'm not --
6642
6643Mr. Meadows. Somebody opposite of Trump.
6644
6645Ms. Page. Exactly. By a Republican who is seeking opposition
6646research. And then, after that person had dropped out -- I didn't know
6647who -- but after that had sort of fallen away, that the engagement
6648continued for the Democrats.
6649
6650So that was sort of a wash, as fap as I'm concerned. There wasn't,
6651in my view, a political motive that affected the --
6652
6653Mr. Meadows. No, the one political narrative is that they were
6654all against Donald Trump. That would be the consistent theme there.
6655
6656Ms. Page. Right.
6657
6658Mr. Meadows. Whether it was for, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, they
6659
6660COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6661
6662
6663############################
6664
6665155
6666COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6667
6668were all consistently against Donald Trump.
6669
6670Ms. Page. That's right. But because of the person that
6671Christopher Steele was and the -- both his --
6672
6673Mr. Meadows. Because he was credible from before when you worked
6674with him.
6675
6676Ms. Page. Exactly. And this was not a source of consternation,
6677in my view.
6678
6679Mr. Meadows. So let me drill down. And specifically, Mike
6680Kortan and media contacts, potential media contacts, at what point did
6681that become a concern as it relates to Christopher Steele and some of
6682the communication that was not just a couple? It seemed to be
6683widespread.
6684
6685Ms. Page. Right. So we were very concerned about the existence
6686and the content of Steele's reporting leaking. We were very concerned
6687about.
6688
6689Mr. Meadows. In fact, did you not verify that he had leaked? I
6690mean, today, if you were to --
6691
6692Ms. Page. Let me -- hold on. I'm sorry. One second.
6693
6694Mr. Meadows. Go ahead. Sorry.
6695
6696Ms. Page. No, no. At some point, December-ish, I think,
6697maybe -- well, maybe earlier than that, maybe November'. Mike Kortan,
6698the head of our Public Affairs Office, does start to inform the team
6699that there are more outlets asking him about this.
6700
6701Do you have it?
6702
6703What is it?
6704
6705COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6706
6707
6708############################
6709
6710156
6711COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6712
6713Have you heard of this?
6714
6715Because the existence of these reports is starting to sort of
6716circulate in Washington circles. And I r,emember, the team discussing,
6717as a collective sort of saying, like, how our singular, focus wasto
6718notconfipmthatwehadthembecausethenweknewthatthepPesscou1dn't
6719necessarily report on the substance of the allegations becausethey
6720were so inflammatory.
6721
6722Mr. Meadows. Right.
6723
6724Ms. Page. But if they wanted to report in a way that would be
6725less inflammatory, they could simply say: The FBI has reports that
6726say blahbadee, blahbadee, blah.
6727
6728So our single focus was to make sure they could not do that.
6729
6730And with some regularity Kortan would inform us that this news
6731outlet or that news outlet had asked him: Do you have these? Do you
6732know about them?
6733
6734And we just had a resolute "no comment" because we did not want
6735to allow the opportunity that we did have these to even allow that to
6736be the news story.
6737
6738So --
6739
6740Mr. Meadows. So was Mike Kortan's acknowledgment that this
6741potentia11ycou1dhavebeenhappeningwithchPistopherStee1e,viiasthat
6742pant of the decision to not reimburse Christopher Steele, as has been
6743reported, or pay him for part of the work as a confidential human source?
6744
6745Ms. Page. I don't know what you'retalking about. I'm sor'r'y.
6746
6747Mike -- so Christopher Steele was never' -- he came to us and gave us
6748
6749COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6750
6751
6752############################
6753
6754COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 157
6755this information. We didn't, we didn't --
6756
6757Mr. Meadows. So there was never' an indication to reimburse him
6758for, his expenses or anything else.
6759
6760Ms. Page. No, no, we reimbursed him for his --
6761
6762Mr. Meadows. Pay him for his time?
6763
6764Ms. Page. -- his travel expenses.
6765
6766Mr. Meadows. Pay him for, his time?
6767
6768Ms. Page. No, not to my knowledge.
6769
6770Mr. Meadows. I can see my colleague from Texas getting anxious,
6771so I'm going to yield back.
6772
6773Ms. Page. I was going to say one other thing. One of the other'
6774things you said sort of unverified, salacious. And so that's true,
6775and I can't get into sort of the substance of what we did, but
6776immediately, I mean as soon as we received the reporting from Steele
6777in mid-September, we set about trying to prove or disprove every single
6778factual statement in the dossier.
6779
6780And so, and we had line level analysts who are super' experts on
6781Russia, try to pick apart each statement and either try to prove its
6782veracity or prove its inaccuracy. And to the best of my knowledge,
6783we were never' able to disprove any statement in it. So we were never'
6784able to say: There's a claim about X, and that is untrue.
6785
6786There are some statements For which we have never, been able to
6787confirm or' deny its veracity. But there are no statements contained
6788in the - at least at the last time that the review is done, which is
6789
6790now many months ago -- that we were able to demonstrate or show were
6791
6792COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6793
6794
6795############################
6796
6797158
6798COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6799
6800demonstrably false.
6801
6802Mr. Ratcliffe. Ms. Page, ape you talking about the Woods file?
6803
6804Ms. Page. No. The Woods file is a document that accompanies a
6805FISA, which provides the basis for, each statement contained therein.
6806
6807Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. I've seen it.
6808
6809Ms. Page. Okay.
6810
6811Mr. Ratcliffe. But I F.-
6812
6813Ms. Page. I'm not talking about the Woods file. I'm talking
6814about a separ'ate effort that was undertaken in order to try to verify
6815for investigative purposes, not for' purposes of the FISA, but a separate
6816effort undertaken to try to validate the allegations contained within
6817the Steele reporting.
6818
6819Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So what would that, what was the
6820name -- maybe I missed it. what was the name of that document?
6821
6822Ms. Page. There's no name.
6823
6824Mr. Ratcliffe. If I were trying to locate that or ask for it to
6825be produced, what would I be asking for?
6826
6827Ms. Page. I mean, the efforts to validate the Steele reporting?
6828I don't know. It's not like a document. I mean, it is not a --
6829
6830Mr. Meadows. I guess what he's saying is we have not seen these
6831documents yet. We've made multiple requests. So I guess how can you
6832help us home in on where those requests may or may not be?
6833
6834Mr. Ratcliffe. And the reason I mentioned the Woods file is
6835because I have seen the Woods file because I've wanted --
6836
6837Ms. Page. The Woods file is different.
6838
6839COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6840
6841
6842############################
6843
6844159
6845COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6846
6847Mr. Ratcliffe. And I understand that, but I thought maybe you
6848were talking about it without naming it. So, if there's another,
6849document out there that attempts to do something similar, it sounds
6850like --
6851
6852Ms. Page. No, I don't -- it is not that similar'. Every single
6853FISA that goes to the FISC has a Woods file.
6854
6855Mr. Ratcliffe. Right.
6856
6857Ms. Page. No matter the topic, no matter the subject, no matter
6858the threat.
6859
6860The Woods file is part of the FISA process which is designed to
6861demonstrate that we have done due diligence with r'espect to the facts
6862supporting the FISA application. This is a sort of separate effort
6863that investigative team undertook.
6864
6865Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Ms. Page, I have to -- I've had a chance
6866to ask you questions over' the last Friday and again today. I know I've
6867asked you some tough questions, but I want to get on the record, have
6868I been discourteous to you at all?
6869
6870Ms. Page. No, sir.
6871
6872Mr. Ratcliffe. Have I given you the full opportunity to answer
6873or explain your' answers?
6874
6875Ms. Page. Yes, sip.
6876
6877Mr. Ratcliffe. And have I generally been fair in my questioning?
6878
6879Ms. Page. Yes.
6880
6881Mr. Ratcliffe. Believe it or not, I'm asking that -- believe it
6882
6883or not some folks might misrepresent how we conduct ourselves in here,
6884
6885COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6886
6887
6888############################
6889
6890160
6891COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6892
6893and I want to get that on the record.
6894So I thank you for, your" time.
6895
6896Mr. Meadows. And I'm -- the gentleman from Boston has a couple
6897
6898of questions for me, and you'll tell by his accent very quickly.
6899
6900Mr. Brebbia. Hi. I'm Sean Brebbia, Oversight and Government
6901
6902Reform, Majority.
6903Ms. Page. Sean?
6904Mr. Brebbia. Brebbia. B-R-E-B-B-I-A.
6905BY MR. BREBBIA:
6906
6907Q I show you an email between you and Peter Strzok from
6908
6909October 18, 2016.
6910A I just want to take a second to start from the beginning and
6911look at it.
6912
6913Q Sure. Please do.
6914
6915A Okay.
6916Q Just beginning very basically, can you tell us a little bit
6917
6918about what's being discussed here? The subject is -
6919A Am I allowed to -- I'm sorry. One second, please.
6920Ms. Bessee. May we confer?
6921
6922Mr. Brebbia. Sure.
6923
6924(Discussion off the record.]
6925
6926Ms. Page. So I don't -- I can't -- I believe that I can answer'
6927
6928the question. I don't believe I can answer' the question in an
6929
6930unclassified setting.
6931
6932Mr. Brebbia. Okay.
6933
6934COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6935
6936
6937############################
6938
6939161
6940COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6941
6942Mr. Somers. But you could answer' the question in a classified
6943setting?
6944
6945Ms. Page. Yes.
6946
6947Mr. Brebbia. And FBI.
6948
6949BY MR. BREBBIA:
6950
6951Q Okay. Couple more. In this email, there's mention of
6952"they" editinga document. Subject of the email is "Re -.''
6953
6954The document that's being discussed, did the " have any
6955involvement with preparing that document?
6956
6957A There's no way I can answer' that. I can't answer, that it
6958in this. I'm sorry.
6959
6960Q How about anyone at the white House? Anyone at the White
6961House have involvement in drafting that document?
6962
6963A I can say, generally, I am not aware of the White House
6964ever -- in my personal knowledge, I've never' been a part of any FISA
6965in which the White House has been involved?
6966
6967Q And how about knowledge? Is there at the White
6968House -- anyone in the white House have knowledge of that document?
6969
6970A Not to my knowledge.
6971
6972Q It probably makes more sense to take this up in classified
6973setting?
6974
6975A I think so, sip.
6976
6977Mr. Parmiter. Could I ask just a couple of followup questions
6978to some of the things you talked about with MP. Ratcliffe?
6979
6980You referred to a separate effort that was not the Woods file to
6981
6982COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6983
6984
6985############################
6986
6987162
6988COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6989
6990validate allegations in the Steele reporting. I'm just kind of curious
6991as to the timeframe.
6992
6993when did that sort of separate effort begin to corroborate the
6994Steele reporting, and when did it end?
6995
6996Ms. Page. It began immediately upon receiving the Steele
6997reporting. And I do not know when it ended.
6998
6999BY MR. BAKER:
7000
7001Q And what steps were taken to validate or refute any of the
7002points made in the document?
7003
7004A I can't go into more detail about the specific efforts that
7005were taken, other than that herculean efforts were taken to try to prove
7006and -- or disprove or corroborate in any way the statements contained
7007in the Steele reporting.
7008
7009Q Okay. Let's take the Steele reporting out of it.
7010
7011If you were trying to validate points made in information given
7012from another, source, would it be fair to say one of the techniques to
7013
7014validate or disprove would be to task other sources?
7015
7016Q So would you do everything and anything that's authorized,
7017
7018COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7019
7020
7021############################
7022
7023163
7024COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7025
7026but that could include tasking othep human sources to --
7027A Well, yes I guess it could, but think about really what you're
7028
7029saying. If I have a document that says, "On January 25th of 2013, Joe
7030
7031Smith and Sally Jones were at a restaurant," -
7032- that's a historical event, —
7033
7034Q But if you have a source that owned the restaurant. I mean,
7035you could have a source that --
7036
7037A If you --
7038---,
7039-
7040
7041And then you would get whatever' answer' then, certainly.
7042
7043But more likely, I mean, so maybe you would -ll
7044-. I mean , I'm making this
7045up, obviously, but the more expeditious and likely investigative
7046steps would be to look at what is -
7047---
7048
7049Q Okay.
7050
7051A And that would at least make that statement more likely to
7052be true or less likely to be true, depending on what you find.
7053
7054Q Okay. Thank you.
7055
7056BY MR. BREITENBACH:
7057
7058Q You had indicated on Friday that there was an investigator
7059
7060who had been brought over' to the Special Counsel's Office prior to
7061
7062Mr'. Strzok being employed, but that that person was not a good fit?
7063
7064COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7065
7066
7067############################
7068
7069COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 164
7070
7071A That's correct.
7072
7073tt who was that person?
7074
7075A I think his name was John Brown.
7076
7077Q And why do you think that the special counsel deemed
7078him -- Mr. John Brown, you said?
7079
7080A I think that's his name, yeah.
7081
7082Q why do you think the special counsel deemed him not to be
7083a good fit?
7084
7085A You would have to ask the special counsel.
7086So you're not aware of why he might have been removed --
7087I'm not going to speculate.
7088
7089-- from the team?
7090
7091>0 >0
7092
7093No.
7094
7095Q Why did you leave the Special Counsel's Office?
7096
7097A I talked about this at length on Friday. when Mr. Mueller
7098first asked me to join, I was quite hesitant to do so. It had been
7099an incredibly intense 2 year's, and I have very young children at home.
7100And I wanted to be a better parent to them. And so I originally
7101demurred, and Mr. McCabe encouraged me to go and help out. And so as
7102a sort of compromise position, I talked with Mr. Mueller about coming
7103over' for, 45 days to sort of help them stand up their effort and that
7104we would sort of reassess at the end of those 45 days.
7105
7106And, ultimately, I knew -- I know what a Bob Mueller operation
7107looks like, and I know the intensity and the rigor and the incredibly
7108
7109hand work that is required. And I was lust ready to sort of makea
7110
7111COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7112
7113
7114############################
7115
7116165
7117COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7118
7119change in my personal life. And so I left after the 45 days and
7120returned to the FBI.
7121
7122Q Okay. And also in your' testimony on Friday, you had that
7123indicated -- you had made some statement indicating that we had access
7124to all of your' emails, texts, communications?
7125
7126A I mean, this is my presumption. There's not a whole lot of
7127secrets out there left on me.
7128
7129Q Are you aware whether there was any preservation order ever'
7130issued with respect to any of your' communications?
7131
7132A Preservation by whom and for what?
7133
7134Q That's what I'm asking. Maybe from Special Counsel's
7135Office, the FBI, by -- '
7136
7137A I mean the FBI, to the best of my knowledge, preserves
7138everything. And I'm certain there have been pr'eser'vation orders that
7139the FBI has sort of announced, but I'm not even there anymore. So I
7140don't have access to any of the stuff before you in the first place.
7141
7142Q We understand you communicated through other devices, other
7143accounts, including iMessage and Gmail. Has there been any effort to
7144access any of those communications?
7145
7146A Well, I don't have any iMessages. We communicated using our
7147personal devices for personal purposes. We very infrequently used
7148those devices for, work purposes. And --
7149
7150Q I'm sorry. I missed that.
7151
7152A We very infrequently used our' personal devices for, work
7153
7154purposes.
7155
7156COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7157
7158
7159############################
7160
7161166
7162COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7163
7164Q Have you turned over' those messages that were wor'k-r'elated?
7165
7166A There are no work-related messages in my personal accounts.
7167
7168Q But you indicated you "infrequently," meaning, at some
7169point, you did communicate regarding work-related purposes over
7170personal devices?
7171
7172A I am sure that I have. I never' retained those. And unless
7173they were a record requiring, you know, sending it back throughthe
7174FBI system, there's no need to retain those.
7175
7176Q And neither' the FBI nor the special counsel has ever'
7177attempted or requested your' communications over, per'sonal devicesor
7178personal accounts?
7179
7180A One moment, please.
7181
7182[Discussion off the record.]
7183
7184Ms. Page. So there is -- my understanding is that there is some
7185FOIA litigation, either, at the Department or the FBI for which my
7186personal accounts -- I'm sorry -- for, which work-related material on
7187my personal accounts have been requested to be preserved, but I do not
7188have any such material to preserve.
7189
7190BY NR. BREITENBACH:
7191
7192Q You indicated previously that the importance that you placed
7193on the Russia investigation over the Clinton email investigation in
7194terms of the effect you believed it might have on national security.
7195
7196Are you aware whether there was ever any similar' targeting of the
7197Hillary Clinton campaign by any foreign intelligence service?
7198
7199A No, not that I'm aware. And just to be clear, about your'
7200
7201COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7202
7203
7204############################
7205
7206167
7207COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7208
7209question, that answer was given with respect to, once we were in October,
7210and we had the sort of ongoing Russia investigation and we had the
7211potential additional emails that may have existed on the Weiner laptop.
7212
7213So I just want to make sure we're talking about -- it's not as
7214though, other, than in that one particular month, the two investigations
7215never, overlapped such that we had to do a weighing or balancing of the
7216two investigations.
7217
7218Q Serving as counsel to Mr. McCabe, the number, two at the FBI, is
7219that the kind of information that you might learn of with respect to
7220whether, another.
7221
7222A If there had been a serious attempt by a foreign power' to -- by
7223a threatening foreign power to work with members of the Clinton
7224campaign, I would have expected to know about it, yes.
7225
7226Q Okay. Thank you.
7227
7228BY MR. SOMERS:
7229
7230Q You mentioned the name John Brown a few minutes ago. Can
7231you just clar'ify where he is, what his job is?
7232
7233A I have no idea what his job is right now.
7234
7235Q No. Was at the time. Sorry.
7236
7237A So, when the special counsel first stood up and they were
7238looking to staff that effort, they -- the FBI, I think, originally
7239wanted to put somebody other than Pete on it so that Pete could kind
7240of go back to his day job, as I think I described in some depth on Friday.
7241
7242And so the person that they originally sought to fill the kind
7243
7244of lead FBI role on the special counsel was an individual named John
7245
7246COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7247
7248
7249############################
7250
7251168
7252COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7253
7254Brown.
7255Q National Security Division? Counterintelligence?
7256A I think a Cyber' SAC.
7257
7258Mr. Somers. I think we're out of time for this Pound.
7259
7260COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7261
7262
7263############################
7264
7265169
7266COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7267
7268[4:67 p.m.]
7269Ms. Kim; We're back on the record. It is 4:07.
7270BY MS. KIM.
7271
7272Q Ms. Page, the email that you discussed with the majority
7273about the - has been used as an exhibit for a news article
7274that came out on July 6th, 2018, from The Hill entitled “Memos Detail
7275FBI's Hurry the F Up to Probe Trump Campaign." Are you familiarwith
7276that article?
7277
7278A I'm sorry, can you step just a little bit further from the
7279mike? It's a little bit -- yeah.
7280
7281Q Does this help?
7282
7283A Yeah. Sorry. So say that all over" again, please.
7284
7285Q Yes. The - email that you reviewed with the
7286majority was used in an article from The Hill by opinion contributor
7287John Solomon about how the FBI allegedly kept hurry the F up pressure
7288on the Tr'ump campaign probe. Are you familiar, with that article?
7289
7290A I am familiar, with that article, yes.
7291
7292Q The thesis question from that article, third paragraph of
7293that article I'll read to you is: The question that lingers unanswered
7294is, did those sentiments, meaning anti-Trump sentiments, affect
7295official actions?
7296
7297A Right.
7298
7299Q So, insofar' as you can tell us in an unclassified setting,
7300did the - process reflect any political biases or other
7301
7302improper motives?
7303
7304COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7305
7306
7307############################
7308
7309170
7310COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7311
7312A No. As I -- as I think I discussed earlier -- I probably
7313shouldn't have discussed earlier in that setting. Okay, never mind.
7314
7315No, there were no -- no political interest or, bias which affected
7316the Carter Page FISA.
7317
7318Q Did it reflect any undue haste on the part of the FBI in an
7319attempt to try to stop Donald Trump from becoming elected President?
7320
7321A No, not at all.
7322
7323BY MS. HARIHARAN:
7324
7325Q Also a part of the article is they cite Peter, Strzok's
7326testimony From when he met with us in the transcribed interview where
7327he said, quote, in response to Mr. Gowdy's question of whether, he was
7328involved in the preparation of the affidavit in support of that FISA,
7329he said, quote: "I can tell you that I was aware of the FISA
7330application, but I did not participate in its pr'epar'ation."
7331
7332And then, when asked again, he wrote -- excuse me, he said: I
7333did not provide information. I did speak with people who were
7334preparing it.
7335
7336So, referring back to the emails that the majority showed you,
7337was that Peter Strzok acting in his capacity as a supervisor' for, those
7338responsible for the FISA application?
7339
7340A That's correct. So speaking more generally, a person in a
7341DAD role does not have any pole in the FISA process. It's a very sort
7342of regimented process that goes back and forth from the Department to
7343the FBI. At no time does a DAD need to approve it or read it or write
7344
7345it or' provide intelligence toward it.
7346
7347COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7348
7349
7350############################
7351
7352171
7353COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7354
7355To the extent Pete was involved, it was because he was -- to the
7356extent Pete was knowledgeable that it was happening, it's because he
7357was in charge of the Crossfire investigation. But he -- that's
7358consistent with my understanding and recollection. He did not have
7359a role in the drafting or the sort of approval of the FISA.
7360
7361Q So just to be clear, he was not one of the individuals
7362involved in sort of the pr'epar'ation of the factual --
7363
7364A That's correct.
7365
7366Q Okay. And then, to the best of your' knowledge, then was his
7367testimony accurate?
7368
7369A That's correct, yes.
7370
7371Q Thank you.
7372
7373Mr. Coh_en. Ms. Page, I'm sorry, I've missed your' testimony on
7374Friday and this morning, sothepe might be things that are repetitious.
7375I believe I'm correct that you've said that even if people had political
7376perspectives, and some people were anti-Hillary and some people thought
7377Bennie was beyond the burn, et cetera, that none of those biases
7378affected any of the actions of Mr. Strzok or' of you or anybody else
7379within the Mueller' special counsel investigation.
7380
7381Ms. Page. That's correct, sip.
7382
7383Mr. Coh_en. Anything in the FISA applications that you know of
7384that was not dealt with according to procedures and --
7385
7386Ms. Page. No, sip.
7387
7388Mr. Coh_en. No nefarious activity?
7389
7390Ms. Page. No, sin.
7391
7392CQMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7393
7394
7395############################
7396
7397172
7398COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7399
7400Mr. .coh_en., And wasn't there some information that if you went
7401too far in giving the court -- the court was given information, I
7402believe, about the fact that somebody might have paid for' the dossier',
7403but that if they went too far, they might be outing sources or going
7404beyond what is legitimate activity?
7405
7406Ms. Page. Sin, I'm not sure I can answer, that question in
7407this setting.
7408
7409Mr. gghgn; And I'm not sure if I asked it right.
7410
7411Ms. Page. No, I understand your' question. I'm just not
7412sure -- I'm really not sure what's been classified and -- what remains
7413classified and what's been declassified. So I'm not -- I'm not
7414comfortable answering that in this setting.
7415
7416Mr. Coh_en. And then you were asked about Mr. McCabe's memos and
7417Mr. Comey's and the fact that he made some notes about his conversations
7418with President Trump, and to the best of your' knowledge he didn't do
7419this with any other, Presidents. Is that correct?
7420
7421Ms. Page. I think that's been his testimony, yes, sir.
7422
7423Mr. Coh_en. Do you think in your' history as an attorney, your'
7424knowledge as a human being, that the degree of the -- the reputation
7425a person has for, truth and veracity might have something to dowith
7426the likelihood of somebody making a memo about their, conversation with
7427them?
7428
7429Ms. Page. I agree with you, sir.
7430
7431Mr. Lt2lyi. So he wouldn't -- if he had talked to Abraham Lincoln,
7432
7433he wouldn't have had to make a memo, honest Abe.
7434
7435COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7436
7437
7438############################
7439
7440173
7441COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7442
7443How long were you involved with the FBI?
7444
7445Ms. Page. I was -- I worked at the FBI for, about 6 year's.
7446
7447Mr. Coh_en. And this was -- how many year's were you there during
7448Comey's directorship?
7449
7450Ms. Page. For' all ofhis directorship. So for' the 3-1/2 years
7451that Director Comey was there, I was also an employee.
7452
7453Mr. Coh_en. And were you there after, he was fined too?
7454
7455Ms. Page. I was.
7456
7457Mr. Ctuttrt, Would you say the morale at the FBI went up or down
7458after he left?
7459
7460Ms. Page. We were devastated by his firing, sir.
7461
7462Mr. Coh_en. He was generally respected by members of the FBI?
7463
7464Ms. Page. He was respected and well-liked, and people believed
7465in his vision for, the FBI.
7466
7467Mr. Coh_en. You were never' there during the time Mueller was
7468ther'e, were you?
7469
7470Ms. Page. I was for about the first year', year" and a half of
7471Mr. Mueller's tenure.
7472
7473Mr. Loin. Do you know what his reputation is among members of
7474the Bureau for honesty and for, diligence and for', you know, hard work
7475and caring about America?
7476
7477Ms.nggL He --hisneputationfor'a11ofthosethingsisstPong.
7478He is regarded as very demanding, but also completely honest, you know,
7479with integrity that is really unparalleled.
7480
7481Mr. Cohen. And a lot of the work that Peter, Strzok had done at
7482
7483COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7484
7485
7486############################
7487
7488174
7489COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7490
7491the FBI, particularly back in 2018, when he outed I think it wasas
7492many as 18 Russian spies, was a lot of his work centered in
7493counterintelligence on Russia?
7494
7495Ms. EaggL His entice career has been in the Counterintelligence
7496Division. So his full 20 year's at the FBI has been almost exclusively
7497doing either, counterintelligence or espionage cases, right. So
7498counterintelligence is our effort to counter' foreign adversaries here
7499collecting against us. Espionage cases involve U.S. persons who have
7500decided to turn --
7501
7502Mr. _coh_en.. Join another team.
7503
7504Ms. Page. -- and work for a foreign power'.
7505
7506Mr. Co-hen, Yeah. Maybe go and sit next to Putin and say nice
7507things to him, that kind of stuff.
7508
7509Would you say that if he had a driving force in his life and
7510something that he was most concerned about that it was protecting
7511America and our country from Russian influence?
7512
7513‘Ms. gage; That is -- he is a patriot, first and foremost, and
7514he has devoted his entire life to defending the national security of
7515the United States. And Russia poses probably the most pernicious
7516threat to Western ideals and western democracy. So, yes.
7517
7518Mr. Coh_en. I don't think I have anything else. Thank you. And
7519I'm not going to offer you -- suggest you should get a Purple Heart
7520even though I'll probably be described as sexist for not doing it.
7521
7522Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
7523
7524Ms. Page, I thank you for being here. And I know it's not the
7525
7526COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7527
7528
7529############################
7530
7531175
7532COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7533
7534most pleasant moment in your' life.
7535
7536During his testimony the other' day, Agent Strzok said something
7537to this effect: That while he may have had his own personal opinions
7538about Hillary Clinton and even his own opinions about Donald Trump,
7539that it did not impact his -- the investigation. In other words, when
7540he was deliberating with his colleagues, it did not affect that.
7541
7542Do you believe that?
7543
7544Ms. Page. Yes, sir.
7545
7546Mr. Cummings. And why do you say that?
7547
7548Ms. Page. Because I was present for, all of the investigative
7549steps and for the decisionmaking that occurred on both investigations.
7550And so I know the discussions that went on around them. I know the
7551reasons behind the steps that we took.
7552
7553Certainly, with respect to the Clinton investigation, there was
7554not a single investigative step at all, under, any circumstances, other
7555than the July 5th statement made by the Dir'ector', that wasn't done
7556either in conjunction with or' at the direction of the Justice
7557Department.
7558
7559So there is no room for, bias, to the extent it even exists in the
7560first place, to have influenced official acts, because everysingle
7561act was taken in coordination with a half dozen to a dozen or more
7562people.
7563
7564Mr. Cummings. Can you understand -- and I asked the same
7565question of Mr. Stnzok, Agent Strzok. And I practiced law many years.
7566
7567But can you understand why people might think when they read the texts
7568
7569COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7570
7571
7572############################
7573
7574176
7575COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7576
7577that it would be almost impossible not to interject that, those
7578thoughts, into the discussion?
7579
7580Ms. Page. I do understand that, sir. But I do think that we do
7581not give up our right to have a view as to who is most qualifiedto
7582be President of the United States simply because we work for the FBI
7583or even because we are wor'king on an investigation involving oneor
7584the other of them.
7585
7586Andthesewer'eounper'sonalviews. Theywereviews,particularly
7587before July 28th, which entir'ely reflected our view of the dignity
7588befitting the White House, of the decorum and the way one holds one's
7589self. I don't see how that is relevant at all to whether, Hillary
7590Clinton mishandled classified information 3 years prior.
7591
7592And after, July 28th, we were now concerned about whether, there
7593was a foreign adversary trying to work with a Presidential campaign.
7594And so I think that the concern there is both understandable and
7595recognizable.
7596
7597I guess the other, thing I would say, sir, is that -- and I've said
7598this a number of times in response to other questions -- we don't often
7599like the people we investigate. And that is true whether we are
7600investigating a pedophile or a fraudster or' a terrorist or a drug
7601dealer. We don't like criminals. We don't like people who we think
7602are criminals.
7603
7604And that does not ever' under' any circumstances pervade the
7605activity that an FBI agent or' an FBI lawyer' or a DO3 pr'osecutor' engage
7606
7607in. ble are not driven by political motivations. We are driven bya
7608
7609COMMITTEE] SENSITIVE
7610
7611
7612############################
7613
7614177
7615COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7616
7617search For the truth. This is who we are as FBI employees. It is
7618absolutely what pervades our every decisionmaking.
7619
7620And H at any opportunity we saw somebody acting in a different
7621way, we would not tolerate it. It's Just not the way we operate.
7622
7623Mr. Cummings. You said something a moment ago in I think it was
7624answering one of Congressman Cohen's questions, and I don't remember
7625the exact words. I tried to jot it down. But you were talking about
7626Russia and the threat of Russia. I forget the words you used. You
7627said Russia was the greatest -- can you elaborate on that, please?
7628
7629Ms. Page. So it is my personal view that Russia poses probably
7630the most -- the greatest threat certainly to Western ideals of any of
7631our foreign adversaries. And we have vast foreign adversaries. But
7632even the threats that are posed by China or by Iran or North Korea or
7633others doesn't speak to sort of the core of Western democracy, night?
7634
7635You have -- you have -- in the Russian Federation and in President
7636Putin himself, you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the
7637Western alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more
7638fractious and in order to weaken our ability, America's ability and
7639the West's ability, to spread our democratic ideals. I mean, that's
7640the goal, is to make us less of a moral authority to spread democratic
7641values.
7642
7643And I happen to think that this is the best country on the planet
7644and that our' values ace universal values that can and should be spread
7645across the globe. And that is not a view that is shaped by Russia.
7646
7647And so every effort to sow discord, to make us fractious, to harm
7648
7649COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7650
7651
7652############################
7653
7654178
7655COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7656
7657theblestennand/uner'icanwayof1ifeisawinfor'theRussianFederation.
7658It is a win for President Putin.
7659
7660So it is my opinion -- I am certainly not the world expert on
7661it -- but it is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who
7662it is and what it is we stand for, as Americans, Russia poses the most
7663dangerous threat to that way of life.
7664
7665Mr. Cummings. Me you aware of any FBI investigations motivated
7666by political bias?
7667
7668Ms. Page. Never, sir. No.
7669
7670Mr. Cummings. You never' saw signs of that when you were there?
7671
7672Ms. Page. No.
7673
7674Mr. Cummings. Ape you aware of any Justice Department
7675investigations motivated by political bias?
7676
7677Ms. Page. Not that I'm aware of, no.
7678
7679Ms. Page. On February 2nd, 2018, President Trump tweeted, and
7680I quote: "The top leadership and investigators of the FBI and the
7681Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process
7682in favor of Democrats against Republicans, something which would have
7683been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank and file ape great
7684
7685people,' end of quote.
7686
7687Do you agree that, quote, "the top leadership and investigators
7688of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred
7689investigative process in favor, of Democrats and against Republicans,"
7690
7691and can you explain why you feel whatever you feel?
7692
7693Ms. Page. No, sir, that's not been my experience. My experience
7694
7695COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7696
7697
7698############################
7699
7700179
7701COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7702
7703is as I've described it, which is that every person to a person, there
7704are 36,588 of us, and we all cape about doing things the night way.
7705
7706That is the reason that we have the author'ity that we have as the
7707FBI to show up at your' door in the middle of the night and to knock
7708on it and to hope that you open. And the reason that we ape able to
7709do that is because we have a reputation for honesty and integr'ity.
7710
7711And if we cannot continue to do that, if people question our,
7712motives and people question why we are showing up at their, door in the
7713middle of the night, we are all unquestionably less safe becauseof
7714it.
7715
7716Mr. Cummings. Tell me, why did you become an FBI agent?
7717
7718Ms. Page. So I've been a lawyer, sir, for, the last 12 years. I
7719am one of those nerdy kids who at 14 knew I wanted to be a lawyer', knew
7720I wanted to serve -- be a public servant. I went to a public school
7721for, law school in order to have less debt and lived at home sothat
7722I could not sort of take the route of a private sector job, because
7723I have always wanted to serve my country.
7724
7725Mr. Cummings. I take it this has been a very painful experience.
7726
7727Ms. Page. It has, sin.
7728
7729Mr. Cummings. Do you want me to pause for a minute?
7730
7731Ms. Page. I'm fine.
7732
7733Mr. Cummings. Throughout your' career at the FBI and DOJ, ace you
7734aware of any instances of the FBI and the Justice Department conducting
7735investigations in favor, of any party and against another'?
7736
7737Ms. Page. No, sir.
7738
7739COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7740
7741
7742############################
7743
7744180
7745COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7746
7747Mr. Cummings. On May 22nd, 2018, Republican Members of Congress
7748introduced House Resolution M7. In that, they were requesting that
7749the Attorney General appoint a second special counsel to investigate
7750misconduct at DOO and the FBI.
7751
7752At the bottom of the first page, the resolution asserts the
7753following: "whereas, there is an urgent need for, the appointment of
7754a second special counsel in light of evidence that raises critical
7755concerns about decisions, activities, and inherent bias displayed at
7756the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau
7757of Investigation regarding FISA abuse, how and why the Hillary Clinton
7758emai1pr'obeended,andhtsandwhytheDona1dTrump-Russiapr'obebegan,"
7759end of quote.
7760
7761F1s.Page,doyouthinkthatther'ewasinherentbiasatthehighest
7762levels of DOO and FBI regarding FISA abuse?
7763
7764Ms. Page. No, sir, there has not been.
7765
7766Mr. Cummings. Is there any evidence of inherent bias displayed
7767at the highest levels of DOO and the FBI regarding how and why the
7768Hillary Clinton email probe ended?
7769
7770Ms. Page. No, sir.
7771
7772Mr. Cummings. Is there any evidence of inherent bias displayed
7773at the highest levels of the D03 and the FBI against Donald Trump as
7774part of the Trump-Russia probe?
7775
7776Ms. Page. Sin, no. The actions that we took in that
7777investigation, at least in the time that I've been present for it, are
7778
7779exactly what you want the FBI to do when confronted with the risk that
7780
7781COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7782
7783
7784############################
7785
7786181
7787COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7788
7789a member' of a Presidential campaign may be working in coordination with
7790the Russians.
7791
7792There is no -- at the outset of an investigation, we cannot tell
7793you definitively what is happening.
7794
7795But the notion that we should not have opened the investigation,
7796that we should not have looked into whether or not this is a truthful
7797or accurate allegation is just mind-boggling to me. It is precisely
7798what you want your' FBI to do, investigate counterintelligence threats
7799to this Nation.
7800
7801It doesn't mean that anybody has done anything wrong, not at the
7802outset. It means that we need to look. And that's what we did.
7803
7804Mr. Cummings. Are you aware of any actions ever' taken to damage
7805the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice
7806on the FBI?
7807
7808Ms. EEEQ; No, sir.
7809
7810Mr. Cummings. Ape you aware of any actions ever' taken to
7811personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department
7812of Justice on the FBI?
7813
7814Ms. Page. No.
7815
7816Mr. Cummings. Is there any evidence that any FBI or Department
7817of Justice official took any actions biased in favor, of Clinton or
7818biased against Trump?
7819
7820Ms. Page. No, sir.
7821
7822Mr. Cummings. Not James Comey?
7823
7824Ms. Page. No.
7825
7826COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7827
7828
7829############################
7830
7831182
7832COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7833
7834Mr. Cummings. Andrew McCabe?
7835
7836Ms. Page. No.
7837
7838Mr. Cummings. Peter, Strzok?
7839
7840Ms. Page. No.
7841
7842Mr. Cummings. Loretta Lynch?
7843
7844Ms. L'iige, Not that I'm aware of.
7845
7846Mr. Cummings. Sally Yates?
7847
7848Ms. Page. Again, same answer'.
7849
7850Mr. Cummings. I'm sorry?
7851
7852Ms. Page. Same answer'.
7853
7854Mr. Cummings. Rod Rosenstein?
7855
7856Ms. Page. No.
7857
7858Mr. Cummings. And Robert Mueller?
7859
7860Ms. Page. No, sir.
7861
7862Mr.Cummings. 1sthereanyevidencethatPPesident0bamaor'dePed
7863any investigative activity that was biased in favors of Clinton or' biased
7864against Trump?
7865
7866Ms. Page. No, sir.
7867
7868Mr.Cummings. IstheneanyevidencethatPPesident0bamaonder'ed
7869a wiretap of Donald Trump or the Trump campaign?
7870
7871Ms. Page. There is no evidence of that at all, sin.
7872
7873Mr. Cummings. None?
7874
7875Ms. Page. None.
7876
7877Mr. Cummings. I take it there was some time spent trying to
7878
7879figure out whether there was truth to that.
7880
7881COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7882
7883
7884############################
7885
7886183
7887COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7888
7889Ms. Page. At the Department, certainly, yes, sip.
7890
7891Mr. Cummings. On December' 3rd, 2017, the President tweeted,
7892quote: "After years of Comey with the phony and dishonest Clinton
7893investigation and more running the FBI, its reputation is in tatters,
7894worst in history, but fear not, we will bring it back to greatness,"
7895end of quote.
7896
7897Let me ask you something. I want to go back to somethingthat
7898Congressman Cohen asked you. He asked you about a certain period
7899where -- and he was asking you about the morale. And you said --and
7900I'm not -- I don't remember the exact words. But can you describe,
7901you know, when you -- I'm sure you all saw these tweets. And whenyou
7902get things like that, read stuff like that, how do you think it affected
7903the morale?
7904
7905Ms. Page. I will just say, sir, that that is not consistent with
7906my feeling about Director, Comey or anybody that I know or that I've
7907spoken to about how we held Director Comey. He was widely liked. He
7908was respected. I don't know whether, he would want to work with me ever
7909again, but I would work for, him anywhere he went any time in my life.
7910He is a man of extraordinary intelligence and integrity, and it was
7911a total pleasure to learn from him.
7912
7913Mr. Cummings. Do you agree with the President's statement that
7914the FBI's reputation is in tatters and is the worst -- is theiuorst
7915in history?
7916
7917Ms. Page. Well, it is now.
7918
7919Mr. Cummings. And why do you say that?
7920
7921COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7922
7923
7924############################
7925
7926184
7927COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7928
7929Ms. Page. Because we continue to be a political punching bag.
7930Because some private texts about our' personal opinions continue to be
7931used to -.. as a broad brush to describe the entire activity of 36,509
7932individuals. Because we have been caught up in a place that we never,
7933could have possibly imagined, because all of us did the job that was
7934asked of us.
7935
7936Mr. Cummings. Is that painful?
7937
7938Ms. Page. It's horrendous, sin.
7939
7940Mr. Cummings. Does it make your' job harder to do?
7941
7942Ms. Page. Yes, it does.
7943
7944Mr. Cummings. How so?
7945
7946Ms. Page. Well, it's the very point that Iwas making. If we
7947cannot be trusted to call on you, if we cannot be trusted to protect
7948confidential human sources, then we need to get out of the law
7949enforcement business. Because if we cannot be trusted to keep secrets,
7950if we cannot be trusted to -- to believe that what we do we do for, the
7951night reasons, then we have a very big problem in this country.
7952
7953Mr. Cummings. Do you agree with the President's
7954characterization that the Clinton investigation was, quote, "phony and
7955dishonest"?
7956
7957Ms. Page. I would welcome the President to point out what we
7958should have done differently in that investigation, what the evidence
7959would have shown, how we would have prosecuted beyond a reasonable
7960doubt, given the evidencebefore us. I would welcome aconversation
7961
7962with President Trump about that.
7963
7964COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7965
7966
7967############################
7968
7969185
7970COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7971
7972I am really tired of hearing all of the things that we should have
7973done with nobody actually demonstrating to me why that would have
7974resulted in a different conclusion with r'espect to the prosecution of
7975Mrs. Clinton.
7976
7977Mr. Cummings. In your' opinion, what kind of impact do statements
7978like this have on the morale --
7979
7980Ms. Page. They're demoralizing.
7981
7982Mr. Cummings. -- of the rank and file?
7983
7984Ms. Page. They're demoralizing, sip.
7985
7986Mr. Cummings. And what is the impact of statements like these
7987on the public's confidence in the FBI and how does that impact our
7988national security?
7989
7990Ms. Page. I'm not sure I can expand on that further than I already
7991have, sir.
7992
7993Mr. Cummings. Let mesay this. I don't have anything else, but
7994again, I think I just want to defend the truth. And -- were you about
7995to say something?
7996
7997Ms. Page. I was going to say, so do I, sir.
7998
7999Mr. Cummings. And Ibelieve that. I believe that. And Ithink
8000what I've been trying to get to is the bottom line.
8001
8002You know, when I listen to some of the questioning, I try to figure
8003out where are we going with all of this. And it seems to me when you
8004told me and this body, this group of people, about your' feelings with
8005regard to Russia, it makes it even more urgent that we get to the bottom
8006
8007line or we won't have a democracy.
8008
8009COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8010
8011
8012############################
8013
8014186
8015COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8016
8017And I want to thank you fon your' service. Going through difficult
8018times is difficult, but in the end I think if you survive it you come
8019out a stronger person.
8020
8021Ms. Page. Let's hope so.
8022
8023Mr. Cummings. And I want to -- I do thank you for your' service
8024and thank you for your' testimony.
8025
8026Ms. Page. Thank you.
8027
8028Mr. Cummings. All r'ight.
8029
8030[Recess.]
8031
8032Mr. Parmiter. Let's go back on the record. It's 4:43 p.m.
8033
8034BY MR. PARMITER:
8035
8036Q Ms. Page, I appreciate you bearing with us. It's been a long
8037day. We just have a couple more questions to ask.
8038
8039A No problem.
8040
8041Q Are you aware whether during the investigation, the MYE
8042investigation, there was any evidence that Secretary Clinton or someone
8043on her behalf had transmitted classified material other than by email?
8044
8045A How do you mean?
8046
8047Q For example --
8048
8049A Like a text or something or --
8050
8051Q -- by fax.
8052
8053A Oh..
8054
8055Q On, you know, either, Ms. Clinton herself or someone on her
8056behalf.
8057
8058A I don't know. I'm sorry.
8059
8060COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8061
8062
8063############################
8064
8065187
8066COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8067
8068q So you wouldn't know whether, or not she directed someone to
8069do so?
8070
8071A None of this is ringing a bell. I'm not saying that someone
8072wouldn't have that information. I Just -- none ofthis sounds familiar,
8073to me.
8074
8075Q Okay. Ape you generally familiar, with something called the
8076President's Daily Brief?
8077
8078A I am.
8079
8080Q And is that document generally classified?
8081
8082A It is.
8083
8084Q At what level is it classified?
8085
8086A It depends on the reporting contained therein, but it is
8087certainly a highly restricted document that, broadly speaking, is
8088classified at the TS level.
8089
8090Q And would be inappropriate to transmit via fax or
8091unclassified email or to anybody who is not otherwise authorizedto
8092View it, correct?
8093
8094A It could -- it could go over, secure fax. It would depend
8095on what system you were talking about. But in general, yes.
8096
8097Q Okay. Let me ask you a couple of followup questions also
8098about meetings that were held at the Bureau regarding the Midyear Exam
8099after' the case had wrapped.
8100
8101Did you attend any meetings at the FBI in 2618 regarding the
8102Midyear Exam investigation?
8103
8104A In all of 2918? Oh, yeah, all the time. Yes. 0h, 2018?
8105
8106COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8107
8108
8109############################
8110
8111188
8112COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8113
8114Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, I don't think so. No.
8115
8116q When did you leave the Bureau? Do you recall the date?
8117
8118A May 4th of this year'.
8119
8120Q So I'm not going to -- I'm just going to show you an email
8121that has been produced by the Bureau.
8122
8123A Oh, oh, oh, oh. I'm sorry. Yes. So this I can explain.
8124Sorry. Oh, no, what is this? So -- sorry.
8125
8126When you talked about meetings at -- at FBI, I'm thinking about
8127meetings with the Director about the investigation. I sort of managed
8128or sort of ran point, coordinated, I don't know what the right word
8129is, an effort to try to stay on top, however, unsuccessfully, ofall
8130of the various -- oh, wait. I am gone at this point. Sorry. That's
8131weird.
8132
8133Q Right. So this email, just for, the record, is a May 17th,
81342018, email to a number of folks at the Bureau, including, well, you,
8135even though you had left by this time, correct?
8136
8137A Right. So my guess is that somebody just
8138cancelled the -- let me take a step back.
8139
8140For some period of time, although I was not involved in this after,
8141probably May of 2017, for some period of time starting in maybethe
8142winter of 2016 through probably May of 2017, I tried to assist with
8143the coordination within the Office of Congressional Affairs tosort
8144of stay on top of the myriad requests coming from all the different
8145committees for documents and for letters and sort of the congressional
8146
8147response and all of that.
8148
8149COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8150
8151
8152############################
8153
8154189
8155COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8156
8157And so I wasn't in charge of any of it. I Just tried to convene
8158a meeting weekly so as to try to not let disparate - the disparate
8159people who were responsible for, well, this person's responsible for,
8160this portfolio and this one has HPSCI and this one has HOGR and this
8161one, night, so that we were all talking with one voice, we all knew
8162what requests had come in, the responses were consistent, night, we
8163were pr'oducing the right stuff to the right committees.
8164
8165So for a period of time, like I said, probably from Decemberish
81662016 through May 2017, I sort of led that effort. That's what this
8167is a -- I think there was a sort of standing Midyear meeting that was
8168once a week.
8169
8170I don't know whether, this is -- whether' this reflects that, to
8171be honest with you. I just don't know. It seems like it. It's the
8172right personnel who would have been involved in that.
8173
8174But by the date of this email, which is May 17th, 2018, I was not
8175an FBI employee.
8176
8177Q Okay. Well, would you say that this is canceling a meeting
8178series?
8179
8180A That's what it might be, yeah. So --
8181
8182Q And to your" knowledge --
8183
8184A And maybe it happened automatically. Like when they
8185disabled my account, night, after leaving, it's possible that -- yeah,
8186but this would have -- exactly.
8187
8188So the message contained here could have been whatever, the last
8189
8190time I sent a cancellation. You know, sometimes Outlook savesthat
8191
8192COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8193
8194
8195############################
8196
8197190
8198COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8199
8200last message, because obviously there's no way for me to havetyped
8201this when I'm no longer an employee.
8202
8203Q Correct. So -- but, as far, as you recall, had any meetings
8204of this NYE followup team taken place in 2018?
8205
8206A No, not to my knowledge. The effort has now been --after
8207I left for special counsel, I never, picked it back up. And so, to the
8208best of my knowledge, it was people in OCA who have been responsible
8209for, convening meetings for congressional response, to the extent ones
8210are happening. I just don't know. I don't have knowledge of it
8211anymore.
8212
8213Q Okay. And that would have been when you left for special
8214counsel in May of 2017?
8215
8216A Correct. Correct. I never' took -- my point is when I came
8217back from special counsel, I never' took it back up.
8218
8219Mr. Somers. Since we're at the close of the interview, just to
8220completely switch subjects possibly.
8221
8222Mr. Meadows. Before you close out, Lisa, you have mentioned that
8223you worked for, Andy McCabe. You were probably the closest individual,
8224professionally speaking, that he interacted with. Is that correct?
8225
8226Ms. Page. Certainly -- maybe one or" two people might be equally
8227close. But yes, I would say we were quite close professionally.
8228
8229Mr. Meadows. So one of the things that I guess that I'm trying
8230to put my arms around is, you know, as you heap different things
8231communicated by different people, and we've had the opportunity to
8232
8233intervieler. McCabe previously, but it appears that he, you know, lied
8234
8235COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8236
8237
8238############################
8239
8240191
8241COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8242
8243to the FBI, lied to the IG, was caught in that, admitted it, and then
8244kind of walked it back as it related to, you know, just some ofthe
8245story of sharing with The Wall Street Journal, some of the conversation
8246with Matt Axelrod.
8247
8248How do you -- I mean, would you characterize that as something
8249that you saw typically over' your' professional career?
8250
8251Ms. Page. I am constrained in what I can answer' in light of other,
8252ongoing investigations, but I can say that I have never' seen Andy lie,
8253ever, under any circumstances. I have never' seen Andy do anything
8254other, than make the right decision and often the hand decision, even
8255when it has been personally unpopular or professionally unpopular.
8256
8257I have consistently seen him make hand decisions because they were
8258the night thing to do. I have consistently seen him be the fly in the
8259ointment in the NSC under, President Obama or in this administration
8260because it was the right thing to do.
8261
8262The findings of the inspector' general are entirely inconsistent
8263with the man I know and have worked very closely with for the last 4
8264years of my career. And I cannot -- I simply don't agree with those
8265conclusions, sir.
8266
8267Mr. Meadows. So -- and I thought that that's where you would go.
8268And I guess my question is as it relates to some of the factual things
8269that have now at least come out and been reported.
8270
8271So do you see this as more of and at odds with Director Comey and
8272Andy McCabe? I mean, where is the conflict? Because, I mean,both of
8273
8274them can't be telling the truth. And obviously memos that you were
8275
8276COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8277
8278
8279############################
8280
8281192
8282COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8283
8284talking about earlier tangentially may or' may not relate.
8285
8286Ms. Page. So I really -- I really can't answer' substantively,
8287because it's the subject of other, ongoing activity.
8288
8289Mr.Meadows. Sowoulditbefairtocharacterizethatyoubelieve
8290someone else is not telling the truth?
8291
8292Ms. Page. No. I actually -- I am -- you'll be surprised to know
8293that I develop strong feelings about things. And I am actually quite
8294confident, although I've spoken to neither, Mr. McCabe nor Mr. Comey
8295about this, I have a strong feeling that I understand where the
8296disconnect happened with respect to what Director Comey thought they
8297were talking about and with respect to what Mr. McCabe was talking
8298about.
8299
8300Mr. Meadows. So you think it may be just a big misunderstanding?
8301
8302Ms. Page. I do, sir. I do.
8303
8304Mr'. Meadows. It ' s a pretty big one and you might -- and so I guess
8305where does -- you know, I mentioned earlier Mike Kortan. Where does
8306he come into all this? Because all of a sudden --
8307
8308Ms. Page. Yeah.
8309
8310Mr. Meadows. And what is tr'oubling with me is knowing that there
8311are a number' of unauthorized disclosures that happened --
8312
8313Ms. Eagg; I disagree.
8314
8315Mr. Meadows. Hold on. That happened in Congress and happens at
8316times in other, agencies.
8317
8318Knowing that, as we've been involved in this, that the FBI or'
8319
8320specifically DOO has done a very good job of putting a narrative out
8321
8322COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8323
8324
8325############################
8326
8327193
8328COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8329
8330there that sometimes is not based on truth, I guess the question I have
8331is, what Pole did Mike Kortan, Director Comey, Andy McCabe play in the
8332matter that we have where we have to question a high-ranking FBI
8333official that has now retired?
8334
8335Ms. Page. Yes. I really want to answer' that question, because
8336it is as good one. Give me a moment, please.
8337
8338[Discussion off the record.]
8339
8340Ms. Page. Mr. Meadows, I agree with you that it is curious that
8341there is no reference in the IG report at all to Mr. Kortan,
8342particularly in light of what I reported, which is that both
8343interactions with the reporter were done with Mr. Korean, in
8344coordination with Mr. Kortan and with Mr. Kortan at my side. So I
8345cannot explain why there is no -- there is no reference to Mr. Kortan
8346in any testimony, if he did give any, in the IG report.
8347
8348Mr. Meadows. So would it be prudent for, this committee to have
8349Mr. Kortan come and testify to perhaps add some clarity in termsof
8350what he said, didn't say?
8351
8352Ms. Page. I think that the U.S. Attorney's Office is probably
8353adequately equipped to answer' that question sufficiently, sin.
8354
8355Mr. Meadows. All right.
8356
8357Ms. Page. Particularly, honestly, it's so tangential to --
8358
8359Mr. Meadows. The core issue.
8360
8361Ms. Page. Right.
8362
8363Mr. Meadows. Okay. So there seemed to be great
8364
8365consternation -- and that's me characterizing ..- the decision to
8366
8367COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8368
8369
8370############################
8371
8372194
8373COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8374
8375recuse himself, Mr. McCabe's decision to recuse himself in the final
8376days of, I guess, when we reopened the MYE. It was apparent that he
8377did not necessarily agree with that decision to recuse. Would you
8378agree with that?
8379
8380Ms. Page. I would agree with that, and I agreed with him. I did
8381not think there was a basis to recuse.
8382
8383Mr. Meadows. So was it that he was encouraged to recuse because
8384of the appearance? Or why do you think he was encouraged to recuse
8385himself? I mean, I've read a lot of back-and-forth as it relates to
8386that, and it's still an unanswered question for me.
8387
8388Ms. Page. I know the 16 report has an entire chapter on this.
8389I haven't read it. That was ultimately what Director Comey asked him
8390to do, and so --
8391
8392Mr. Meadows. But I guess did Director Comey ever' tell him or you
8393why he asked him to recuse himself?
8394
8395Ms. Page. I have never' spoken to Director Comeyabout it. He
8396did -- Director Comey did speak to Mr. McCabe about it, obviously,
8397because he instructed him ultimately to -- or asked that he
8398ultimately -- Director Comey asked that Andy ultimately recuse. And
8399I believe it's based on a sort of appearance, but I just -- I simply
8400think that was misguided and ill-timed.
8401
8402Mr. Meadows. So the reason why I ask is because you have -- now
8403you have an Andy McCabe that recused himself, you have an Andy McCabe
8404that's been accused of lying several times to different people within
8405
8406the Department. And what you're saying, that those are two unrelated
8407
8408COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8409
8410
8411############################
8412
8413COMMITTEE SENSITIVE 195
8414
8415events?
8416
8417Ms. Page. Oh, wholly, yes.
8418
8419Mr. meadows. And so one is perception; the other, is perhaps more
8420a direct action of Mr. McCabe?
8421
8422Ms. Page. I guess so, yeah.
8423
8424Mr. Meadows. All r'ight. Yield back.
8425
8426And for, the record, I want to thank you for being cooperative.
8427I want to thank you for doing the very best to answer' as many questions
8428as possible. And I think I speak on behalf of the entire committee,
8429that your willingness to share transparently has served you well and
8430has certainly served this country well.
8431
8432Ms. Eagg; Thank you, sir.
8433
8434BY MR. BAKER:
8435
8436Q Did you say Mr. Kortan was present at your' side when you were
8437having discussions with The Wall Street Journal?
8438
8439A Correct.
8440
8441Q And Mr. Kortan's position at the FBI was what?
8442
8443A He was the head of our Public Affairs.
8444
8445Q He's an assistant director of the Public Affairs Office?
8446
8447A Correct.
8448
8449Q So did you, by the fact he was present, believe that this
8450was an authorized and approved --
8451
8452A It was an authorized. This is why -- we didn't get to it,
8453but it was 109 percent an authorized disclosure. I mean, the whole
8454
8455premise behind the IG report in the first place I take issue with,
8456
8457COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8458
8459
8460############################
8461
8462196
8463COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8464
8465because I was authorized by Deputy Director McCabe and by Mike Kortan
8466to engage with the reporter on this topic.
8467
8468And so, you know, the IG has come up with a different conclusion
8469with r'espect to McCabe ' s inherent authority to authorize it in the first
8470place, but I simply disagr'ee with that.
8471
8472Q So you believed it was authorized?
8473
8474A Yes. It was authorized, as far, as I'm concerned.
8475
8476Q You indicated in a previous round when there was a discussion
8477about McCabe memos that Deputy Director McCabe had made some memos of
8478his own. I had asked whether he had ever" made any memos regarding his
8479conversations or interactions with Director Comey, and you said, well,
8480he took notes.
8481
8482I was referring to any kind of documentation he made for, proof
8483or clarity later on as to what he was told, not just taskings.
8484
8485A Got it. No, I am not aware of him ever' having taken a Itlelt1o
8486as you have just described it with respect to his engagement with
8487Director Comey. I just wanted to clarify that like every single day
8488he likely was taking notes with respect to his interactions with
8489Director, Comey in the course of his official duties.
8490
8491Q And did you have conversations with Mr. McCabe that made you
8492believe that he thought Director Comey instructed him or wanted him
8493to have these conversations with The Wall Street Journal, even though
8494there weren't memos to that effect or' notes to that effect?
8495
8496A I'm sorry, ask me that question one more time.
8497
8498Q Did you ever' have a conversation with Mr. McCabe about the
8499
8500COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8501
8502
8503############################
8504
8505197
8506COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8507
8508whole Wall Street Journal issue regarding whether, the Director knew
8509about it?
8510
8511A Oh, no, we did not have any conversations about that. But
8512the Director need not have known about it. The deputy had his own
8513inherent authority to engage with the media.
8514
8515So it's not something -- my point is, it's not something he
8516necessarily would have needed to seek the Director's authority or
8517approval for.
8518
8519Q Okay. Is Mr. Korean still employed with the FBI?
8520
8521A No, he's not.
8522
8523Q And do you know why he left?
8524
8525A Because he was long eligible to retire.
8526
8527Q So he just retired?
8528
8529A Yes.
8530
8531Q Okay. One final question on an unrelated topic.
8532
8533You had indicated your' role as an assistant to Mr. McCabe was to
8534go to different meetings and sort of bridge back what had happened in
8535these meetings or something like that.
8536
8537A Yeah.
8538
8539Q Are you aware of any meetings or did you hear, discussion about
8540the sophistication level of Secretary Clinton as it related to handling
8541of classified information or emails and communications in general, that
8542she either was or was not sophisticated, and that would have been part
8543of the discussion regarding changing?
8544
8545A I -- I'm not sure if I can tie it to your' last statement.
8546
8547COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8548
8549
8550############################
8551
8552198
8553COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8554
8555It's possible. But I was a pant of -- I was a part of the sort of general
8556briefings that the Director on the Deputy Director had as we gathered
8557more evidence In the Clinton investigation.
8558
8559And I don't remember whether it came out of Secretary Clinton's
8560interview on interviews with some of hen senior staff or both.
8561
8562But yes, we did come to learn that Secretary Clinton was not
8563particularly sophisticated when it came to technology and the use of
8564computers. I mean, she was not a sophisticated cyber user'.
8565
8566it Was there ever, any evidence or any dissent in opposition to
8567that view?
8568
8569A Oh, not to my knowledge, no.
8570
8571Q You had mentioned earlier that Mr. Priestap --
8572
8573Mr. Somers. Can I ask one question?
8574
8575Mr. Egggg; Sure.
8576
8577BY MR. SOMERS:
8578
8579Q what about hen sophistication in terms of knowledge of
8580classification and what classified documents looked like?
8581
8582A She had that knowledge. Yeah. I don't --
8583
8584Q Well, because in her -... the 302 of her interview, for,
8585instance, she says that she did not -- wasn't aware of what the C in
8586parentheses at the beginning of a paragraph meant.
8587
8588A Yeah.. I mean, that's not -- that doesn't shock me. I mean,
8589without the -- without the Pest of the sort of header and footer, and
8590cover' page.
8591
8592Should she have? Yeah, probably. But like on a single line
8593
8594COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8595
8596
8597############################
8598
8599199
8600COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8601
8602randomly in the middle of an email, I don't find that terribly offensive
8603to my sensibilities, but --
8604
8605Q I'm Just bringing that out as an example of whether -- what
8606you saw as her level of understanding of markings on documents and
8607things.
8608
8609A No, I think she -- I have no personal knowledge of this, but
8610given her history in government and her position, I would expect hen
8611to have had, you know, some sophistication with respect to
8612classification.
8613
8614Mr. Parmiter. On what did you base the conclusion that she was
8615not particularly technologically sophisticated?
8616
8617Ms. Page. I think both based on her statements about hen
8618understanding on how a server works and my understanding -- and I never'
8619read her 302, but my understanding is -- at least I don't think I
8620did -- is based on what was briefed to the deputy and the0inectoP,
8621was like as technical questions were asked of her, she lacked the
8622ability to answer' them, as well as other people who were interviewed
8623sort of had consistent statements with respect to her technical
8624sophistication.
8625
8626BY MR. BAKER:
8627
8628Q Are defensive br'iefings Just for Members of Congress, or
8629would Cabinet secretaries also get them if they were potentially
8630targeted?
8631
8632A Oh, certainly. I mean, any -- a defensive briefing would
8633
8634goto any person in a position to have sensitive national secrets and/or
8635
8636COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8637
8638
8639############################
8640
8641200
8642COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8643interactions or exposure with people from foreign countries.
8644
8645Q Do you know if Secretary Clinton had any in hen role as
8646Secretary of State?
8647
8648A Defensive briefings? I
8649
8650Q Yes .
8651
8652A I have no idea, sir.
8653
8654Q Is it likely that she could have?
8655
8656A Entirely plausible, sip. But it would -- again, like
8657there's a difference between a general CI brief, which is you're
8658traveling to this country, beware of these things, versus, you know,
8659we understand that Joe Smith has reached out to you to schedule a
8660meeting, you should be aware that intelligence suggests that Joe Smith
8661is blah, blah, blah.
8662
8663Q So --
8664
8665A That's -- the latter is a defensive briefing.
8666
8667Q Sure. In addition to the specifics of who might be trying to
8668do something to you as the Congr'essper'son or the Cabinet member, is
8669there a boilerplate that would almost go with any defensive briefing as
8670to the how a hostile actor, might try to exploit your' position, exploit a
8671meeting?
8672
8673A I would expect so, but I don't have personal knowledge of
8674it.
8675
8676Q Would you guess if there was that part of that would be that
8677email communications and communications in general and weaknesses in
8678
8679networks would be an area for exploitation?
8680
8681COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8682
8683
8684############################
8685
8686201
8687COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8688
8689A I'm not really sure. You know, that might go to a broader CI
8690briefing, a broader counterintelligence briefing, a warning about
8691spear' phishing, a warming about, you know, how cyber networks might
8692be compromised.
8693
8694But in a defensive briefing, to the best of my knowledge, in a
8695defensive briefing it is usually much more specific and pointed
8696information that we have.
8697
8698So general CI brief, sure, you might talk about how different
8699foreign actors use different tools or vectors to do their work. But
8700if you were conducting a defensive briefing, in my view, it's more
8701likely that it would be specific and sort of narrowly described to the
8702specific threat or risk that you're briefing on.
8703
8704Q So you don't know if someone who received a lot of defensive
8705briefings would have their sophistication of weaknesses in email and
8706servers enhanced by being told such a thing in defensive briefings?
8707
8708A No, I don't know. I don't know.
8709
8710Q Finally, you'd mentioned earlier that Mr. Priestap was -- AD
8711Priestap was kind of a worrier. What was his relationship with
8712Mr. Strzok? I know he would be Mr. Strzok's boss at the time that he's
8713the AD.
8714
8715A Yes. They were very close.
8716
8717Q Very close.
8718
8719A They -- professionally. I mean, they both had a lot of
8720respect for each other'. Both have had long careers in the
8721
8722Counterintelligence Division. And so both respect each other's
8723
8724COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8725
8726
8727############################
8728
8729202
8730COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8731
8732instincts and knowledge and experience working CI targets. So they
8733had a very str'ong professional relationship.
8734
8735Q So no work tensions or --
8736
8737A No, sir.
8738
8739Q -- Issues about decisions made?
8740A No, no. No, sir.
8741
8742Q Okay, thank you.
8743
8744Mr. Somers. I'd like to ask you about an email chain. There's
8745only one email on the chain in particular, but you can take a look at
8746that document. I'm mostly interested in the email from Peter, Strzok
8747to you at 7:10 p.m.
8748
8749Ms. Page. One second.
8750
8751Mr. Somers. That email says: We need all ofthein names to scrub
8752and we should give them ours For the same purpose.
8753
8754My first question is, who is "their'" and "them," to your'
8755knowledge?
8756
8757Ms. Jeffress. It's a long article. Do you know which partof
8758the article this relates to?
8759
8760Mr. Somers. I don't know which part of the article in particular
8761it relates to. I'm just looking at the email from Strzok to Ms. Page,
8762and it looks like --
8763
8764Ms. Page. I don't --
8765
8766Mr. Somers. -- she understood at the time, at least, what that
8767was.
8768
8769Ms. Page. I'm not sure. I'm sorry.
8770
8771COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8772
8773
8774############################
8775
8776203
8777COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8778
8779Mr. Somers. Okay. What about "scpub"?
8780
8781COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8782
8783
8784############################
8785
8786204
8787COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8788
8789[5:13 p.m.]
8790
8791Ms. Page. I don't know what we're r'efer'ring to, but that's
8792usually a"let's see ifwe have any information in our holdings relating
8793to these individuals." But I don't know which individuals we're
8794talking about here.
8795
8796BY NR. SOMERS:
8797
8798Q Well, I took "their" and "them" -- one question on
8799this -- "their" and "them" to mean another, agency and not -- I took
8800it to be a list of their names. Could that - not the people In the
8801article, not names of people in the article. I took it to be an agency
8802or a subagency.
8803
8804A Oh, I don't -- I would have taken it to mean something in
8805the article, but I don't -- I don't remember this particular email as
8806I sit here today.
8807
8808Q If you look up to the second email from the top: That's what
8809Bill said. I suggested we need to exchange our entire list.
8810
8811A I'm not positive, sip. I'm sorry.
8812
8813Q Okay. All night.
8814
8815Mr. Somers. I think that's all we have for this. All right. So
8816I think that will conclude our' interview. And I want to thank you again
8817for, appearing both on Friday and again today. And that'll close the
8818interview.
8819
8820Ms. Page. Thank you.
8821
8822[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the interview was concluded.]
8823
8824COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8825
8826
8827############################
8828
8829205
8830COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8831
8832Certificate of Deponent/Interviewee
8833
8834I have read the foregoing pages, which contain the correct
8835
8836transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded.
8837
8838 
8839
8840witness Name
8841
8842 
8843
8844Date
8845
8846COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8847
8848
8849############################