FTA: “Congressional investigators are still trying to determine what the “CF article” reference means and who the agents thought they were trying to throw “under the bus.


FBI agents’ text messages spur congressional probe into possible news leaks [1]

In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues. “Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016. “Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”

The text messages, which were reviewed by The Hill, show the two FBI agents discussed how they might make it appear they innocently discovered the article, such as through Google News alerts. “I can get it like I do every other article that hits any Google News alerts, seriously,” Strzok wrote, adding he didn’t want his team hearing about the article “from someone else.” … A few days earlier Strzok texted Page about another new article, suggesting it was anti-FBI. “Yep, the whole tone is anti-Bu. Just a tiny bit from us,” he wrote. Page texted she had seen the article. “Makes me feel WAY less bad about throwing him under the bus to the forthcoming CF article,” she texted. Congressional investigators are still trying to determine what the “CF article” reference means and who the agents thought they were trying to throw “under the bus.” Republicans want to interview Page to determine if she assisted with any “forthcoming” articles or helped another FBI employee “give” information to the news media, particularly because she helped advise then-deputy director McCabe.


The answer is within this WaPo article Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were discussing:

‘He’s got to get control of the ship again’: How tensions at the FBI will persist after the election [2]

… The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with a series of leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.

… “He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.”


The “CF” was Clinton Foundation. The person “thrown under the bus” was James Comey. Lisa Page stating: …”Makes me feel WAY less bad about throwing him under the bus to the forthcoming CF article.”… Indicates that DOJ/FBI lawyer Lisa Page was one of the sources for the Washington Post article.

So now we know that FBI Attorney, and legal aide to Andrew “Andy” McCabe, Lisa Page was also a leaker. Which makes sense for a few reasons. #1) Because the Washington Post is the primary outlet for Intelligence Community leaks. The New York Times is their secondary outlet. Also #2) Because Lisa Page was an active participant, and openly partisan ideologue, inside the DOJ/FBI investigative unit working to protect Hillary Clinton. And #3) Because the substantive issue within the story at the time was anger by the Clinton Camp, against Comey, for announcing the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation. What that individual series of text messages from Lisa Page highlights is how far she was willing to go to shape DOJ/FBI investigative action to the benefit of her favorite political candidate. Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were not only willing to manipulate their official investigative duty to the benefit of Hillary Clinton, but they were also willing to leak information to the media in an effort to shape the narrative around their investigative duties.

Both Page and Strzok are scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee *VERY* soon. Like, within a matter of days.

Given the revelation(s) within the text messaging today, and the evidence therein that proves the politicization of their offices, it is highly likely *NOW* they will plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions. Which immediately makes me wonder about the motive behind whomever gave that text messaging information to John Solomon and Sara Carter  Were those specific text messages, which clearly prove Lisa Page was leaking to the media, INTENTIONALLY given to Solomon and Sara Carter because someone on “The Hill” was trying to warn Page about known evidence against her? I don’t expect that Sara Carter would reveal her sourcing on this. However, I would WARN HER, *strongly* that there’s a serious possibility she is being used by her SOURCE to dilute damage against the “small group” co-conspirators. Those who have followed (The Conservative Tree House) CTH closely will note my historic suspicions toward a strong likelihood that Sean Hannity’s favorite journalists are being handled by DC control agents who know how manipulate media people.

The alternative possibility, willing participation, is more troubling… I’ll need further information before discussing that. 

Interesting Bits from Comments:

MP – DOJ released the text messages themselves (Politico – https://t.co/9G7UhWt7xt)

Response – That was for the prior release. If the same origin holds true for this release, then someone inside the DOJ, participating in the releases to congress, is giving cover to their teammates by leaking out the damaging information so they can prep for it.

JG – It’s an interesting angle to look at, but I don’t know if I feel that is the case. Sara Carter broke the news about the FBI informants who was under gag order, whom is going to testify about Rosatom and Uranium one. Your saying they wanted this story leaked? I don’t see how!

Response – I’m saying those text messages held strong prosecutorial value before they were released. Now that value is gone. The subject being investigated now knows the question that would be coming. So yeah, someone is tipping them off and getting rid of the prosecutorial value.

Rabid Republican Blog − Andrew McCabe’s 8-Hour Long Day


[1] The Hill

[2] Washington Post