Leakers Say FBI “Secret Phones” Was Cover for Affair, Nothing to See Here


The Washington Post reports that there were no secret phones used to enable communications between the FBI and Hillary Clinton or her campaign. Texts suggesting that such phones existed were part of a cover story to hide an affair.

However, by not mentioning in their report the other texts by the seemingly compromised FBI agents, WaPo appears to suggest that all those text messages about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump between Agents Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page were simply a cover story for their illicit love affair.

The assumptions being made are the stuff of conspiracy theories, reports WaPo. Really? Is that it? The opposition are nativists, Islamophobes, sexists, homophobes and conspiracy theorists for making logical assumptions.

This must be one of the innocent explanations Attorney General Jeff Sessions said provides answers to our questions. Then why the secrecy? Why not say it outright instead of refusing to answer during hearings? It’s obviously a sensitive personnel issue but there are ways to reference it if they really wanted to be transparent. They could have at least revealed it behind closed doors to Congress.

The two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from Strzok’s spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to new leaks from two of WaPo’s anonymous sources.

The secret phones conversation about Hillary was due to the fact that Page wanted her lover to use Hillary as the cover for talking to Page so often.

That could be, but those texts about hating Trump and promoting Hillary had a real feel about them.

The two officials, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page and senior counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, are the subjects of an internal investigation that has roiled the FBI and brought out its Republican critics who have accused the bureau of political bias. Had Page and Strzok used personal phones instead, people close to case say, it’s unlikely their text messages would have come to the FBI’s attention, WaPo reported.

“What people are forgetting is the human foible of a having an affair — they forget that the system itself will betray you and your texts,” said David Gomez, a former FBI counterterrorism official speaking to Wapo. “Using language like that is something a lot of people who have affairs do, but it does create problems with people who are conspiracy minded.’’

People are conspiracy minded for reading their texts and making the natural assumption?

The article doesn’t mention their exchanges about hating Trump and having an “insurance policy” to keep Trump from being elected, nor does it mention the exchange on that same issue between Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page which Strzok referenced.

It also doesn’t mention the ten Hillary supporters on Mueller’s investigative team or the fact that Jim Comey manipulated the sequence of events after he was fired to get Robert Mueller, his friend, appointed in the first place.

If this is true, why not say it at hearings? Why leak it illegally instead? Plausible deniability?

Strzok was a convincing Trump hater and said he wanted to use his powers to stop Trump.

He was the lead investigator in the Hillary investigation. He tainted the investigation by changing the wording in Comey’s draft of exoneration. He was the man who caught Flynn in lies. He was also involved with Mueller’s team until July, a fact Mueller kept hidden from Congress months after he transferred Strzok out of the unit.

When Rod Rosenstein said that having a political opinion doesn’t mean there’s bias and that they look at the facts to make a determination of bias, this is likely what he meant. However, the facts are that Hillary committed crimes and Strzok edited Comey’s decision letter to make it a non-crime. Sounds like bias!

If they want us to believe them about the secret phones, they have to come clean about that and all these other issues and stop the leaks!

This DoJ is less transparent than Obama’s according to Judicial Watch and the Congress, why?



  1. Maybe it goes much deeper and others are trying to get ahead of the facts. Clapper had already admitted they used the dossier and Comey admitted he informed Strzok’s supervisor on such matters.

    As I’ve said before, someone who is so conniving can easily fabricate a story that aligns with the facts and only through lengthy interrogation can they be tripped up.

    The way those texts mention the details doesn’t sound plausible, unless they are dumber than people in that position should be. It would mean they “wanted” the texts read by superiors. If they wanted them read they are implicating themselves in a conspiracy. Are we to believe people at that level are unaware of “burner phones”.

    What we DO know from court documents is that the FBI will do whatever necessary to cover up instances that they want hidden from the public eye. Certainly they don’t want their “pristine” imaged damaged and that causes more coverups. No doubt they worry their effectiveness will be damaged. But that damage has already been done by Comey. It’s time for the Bureau to come clean with the public.

  2. I don’t know what to think of this but it surely is intriguing. Someone posted the clip from CNN where Jim Jordan speaks about Strzok’s “I can protect our country at many levels”. When watching C-Span their video switches back and forth to who is talking, but CNN had both together when Jordan says that, And behold, Rosenstein has the biggest grin on his face during Jordan’s statements. This is pretty damn suspicious when someone says he can “protect” the country. This certainly is extremely close to sedition. Couple that with Peter Schweizer on Breitbart News referencing the book “What Washington gets Wrong”. They did a survey of senior Gov’t officials of their attitude towards average Americans. They have contempt for the public and if this public wants a Constitutional course of action that “they”, as bureaucrats, do not agree with, they feel justified in trying to stop it. We should ask ourselves; was Strzok, et.al., the same ones who were surveyed.

Comments are closed.