Reader TTS

> This condescension and ad hominem combined with a refusal to grapple > with any of the litany of issues concerning the conduct of Lisa Page > in conjunction with her 

colleagues—while you’re trying to make > her a sympathetic victim coincidentally on eve of IG report—speaks > for itself https://t.co/4PQl7IbHLL > — Benjamin Weingarten 

(@bhweingarten) December 2, 2019 ​Page told Daily Beast “it would be nice” if Horowitz’ report her personal opinions “had absolutely no bearing on the course of the Russia investigations”,

but wasn’t optimistic about such a finding exonerating her in the eyes of “a lot of people”, as the President “has a very loud megaphone”. In one notorious text exchange in August 2016, Page

asked Strzok, “[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right?!”, to which he responded “no, no he won’t, we’ll stop it”. Horowitz’ 2018 report on the conduct of the Bureau and

Justice Department during the inquiry into Hillary Clinton's unauthorized private email server said the text messages between the pair "created the appearance investigative

decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations”, but there was no evidence “improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected specific investigative

decisions”. Nonetheless, the Inspector General concluded text messages sent between Strzok, Page, Clinesmith, and two other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” while harming the

Bureau’s reputation “for neutral fact-finding and political independence”. > Many note Lisa Page has decided to talk on eve of IG report release. > True. But IG has already written (in

 2018) that Page & Strzok caused > damage that 'goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral > factfinding and political independence.' 

https://t.co/8BjabXS5vp > pic.twitter.com/7MomA18Shp > — Byron York (@ByronYork) December 2, 2019 Communications between Strzok and Page have also been cited in legal filings by the

lawyers of Michael Flynn, who contend they show Page, then-Special Counsel to Deputy Director McCabe, edited the details of Flynn’s 302 – the form used by FBI operatives to report or

summarise interviews they conduct – to falsely incriminate him. ​In one text exchange the pair engaged in dated 10th February 2017 provided in the filing, Strzok tells Page to “drop off what

you have” so he can “incorporate” the content – in response, she says “I gave my edits to Bill to put on your desk”. A few texts later, Strzok confirmed he made Page’s requested edits,

stating he also emailed her “an updated 302”. > “I’m not asking you to edit it this weekend, I just wanted to > send it to you, and hopefully it doesn’t need much more editing. I > 

will polish it this weekend, and have it ready for Monday. I really > appreciate your time and edits,” he concluded. > Peter Strzok to Lisa Page: >  > “I made your edits” to 

Michael Flynn’s 302—his FBI report > from the interview Mueller used to convict him >  > What edits were made? >  > Were they a part of their “ insurance policy” >  > 

Who knew? >  > We need answers. >  > RT if the Senate should force them to testify! > — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 25, 2019 ​It’s not entirely certain what prompted

the edits, but Flynn’s lawyers suggest the impetus was news reporting that day alleging Flynn discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Mike Pence had

asserted previously – and a comparison of the 302 before and after Page’s edits seems to strongly support this contention.