Lovebird FBI agents Page and Strzok lied about affair, ‘tell-all’ book claims

(File photo from Getty)

Research by a left-wing journalist has revealed that disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page lied to her bosses at the bureau in 2016 when they questioned her about her affair.

The story goes like this, according to James B. Stewart of The New York Times: In December of 2016, then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe approached Page to discuss rumors he’d heard about the affair she was having with then-special agent Peter Strzok.

“Page was acutely embarrassed, mortified that the issue had even come up, especially because the affair was now over. They were still friends, and still texting … she denied the two were romantically involved or had had an affair,” Stewart writes in his newest book.

“I know you and Peter are friends, but you have to be more careful,” McCabe replied. “People are talking and this isn’t good for you.”

When Page asked McCabe whom he’d heard the rumors from, he directed her to Bill Priestap, the then-assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division. She then approached Priestap and lied to him as well.

These and other startling revelations are contained in Stewart’s latest book, “Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law.” Released Tuesday, the book strives to tell “the definitive story of the war between President Trump and America’s principal law enforcement agencies, answering the questions that the Mueller report couldn’t – or wouldn’t.”

Stewart himself appears to be left-wing. He works for one of the most left-wing papers in America, and his book seems to contain a lot of criticism of the president.

Case in point:

But also included in the 384-page tome are revelations about Page and Strzok, both of whom became household names in 2017 when it was revealed they’d exchanged virulently partisan anti-Trump text messages during the investigations into first former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then later Trump.

It was Strzok who reportedly handpicked the tiny stack of Clinton’s emails that then-FBI Director James Comey’s team reviewed.

“James Comey told Congress that they had reviewed all of the Clinton emails — hundreds of thousands — that were found on the Weiner laptop. But that was not true,” RealClear Investigations reporter Paul Sperry revealed on Fox News last year. “They barely looked at any of them. Just 3,000 of 700,000.”

“3,000 out of 700,000 potentially relevant emails were actually, individually examined for classified information and incriminating evidence. Peter Strzok — the disgraced agent who was in charge of this midyear investigation into the Clinton emails — personally handpicked the 3,000 sample.”


(Source: Fox News)

Strzok also played a key role in the Russian collusion delusion probe, i.e., the same probe that’s now being investigated for possible corruption by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

“No one was more steeped in the details of the Russian investigation than Strzok,” Stewart writes.

Because of Page and Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages, as well as Strzok’s intimate involvement with the Clinton and Trump investigations, both the president and his congressional Republican allies have long accused the whole Russia probe of being a farce. Namely, a farce designed originally to prevent his election to office and then later retooled in early 2017 to stymie his agenda and eventually force him out of office.

Stewart reportedly describes this belief as a “dark conspiracy.”

The Times journalist also alleges that prior to his termination in 2017, Comey expressed concerns about the Department of Justice’s pro-Clinton bias. The evidence for this claim seems thin, though.

“According to Stewart, Comey and the FBI also had concerns about a potential pro-Clinton bias at the Justice Department in the midst of an investigation into her use of a private email server,” the New York Post notes.

“Comey was particularly ‘troubled’ by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch after he received a report from a ‘highly placed informant’ that suggested Lynch was trying to shut down the investigation. The document contained an email that Deborah Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, reportedly sent to an executive at Open Society Foundations, founded by billionaire Democratic donor George Soros.”

“Wasserman Schultz assured [executive Leonard] Benardo that Lynch wouldn’t let the Clinton investigation get very far, suggesting that Lynch would protect Clinton,” Stewart writes.

The problem with this particular claim is that it appears to belie the known facts about Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Take for instance the confirmed fact that Comey drafted Clinton’s exoneration months before the conclusion of the investigation and even before the FBI had interviewed all witnesses, including the former secretary of state herself.

Also consider all the “special treatment” Clinton received.

FBI emails obtained by Judicial Watch this summer showed that the investigation into Clinton wasn’t nearly as thorough as the subsequent investigation into Trump.

For someone allegedly concerned about others’ pro-Clinton bias, the disgraced former FBI director seemed to display plenty of his own bias … both for Clinton and against Trump.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles