>>5658739 lb
I too read the Lisa Page transcripts and want to point out another fine point that some are misquoting. In terms of Obama wanting to know everything that was going on Lisa suddenly draws a distinction and claims that BHO was concerned about the FBI investigation of "Russian active measures" and not the "Russia [collusion] investigation". See pages 109-110 of Day One testimony. I think this is generally reiterated on Day 2, but I cannot now locate the exact text.
No one at the hearing followed up on what evidence there is that the FBI actually had/has a "Russian active measures" investigation. And Lisa does not take any pains to maintain her unique distinction by consistently using "Russian collusion investigation" or "Trump campaign investigation". Instead, throughout the interviews she allowed questioners to refer to the "Russia investigation" without clarification and as in the above quote she refers to the "Russia investigation" routinely as if it is the only notable FBI investigation regarding Russia and the 2016 campaign.
It is possible she just made up the distinction, or she might have latched onto the idea of giving cover to BHO by referencing an actual second Russia investigation.
It is obvious that she prepared herself well for the hearing by reciting acceptable answers for the most controversial texts between her and Strozk. It also seems, like Schiff and M. Cohen, that she might of worked with D members/staff of the committee because of the easy flow of questions and answers during the D sessions.
Her descriptions of her duties under McCabe are suspect in my opinion. Having worked at a law firm, her descriptions of going to meetings and reporting back to McCabe and being a sounding board are the same as an Executive Secretary or paralegal. When it came to any legal issue her favorite responses were, I didn't research that or I have no expertise in that area. Personally, never worked for such a dud attorney.