A Possible Obstruction Case
Still another issue mentioned with some frequency were two potentially related texts:
âAnd we need to open the case weâve been waiting on now while Andy is actingâ; and
âWe need to lock in [redacted] in a formal, chargeable, way.â
Again, Page confirms that âAndyâ is indeed a reference to McCabe. Notably, that text was sent the day after Comey had been fired by Trump. Unfortunately, a certain level of clarity remains lacking as FBI counsel was limited to noting that âthe decision to open the case was not about who was occupying the directorâs chair.â She continued in a somewhat confusingly with, âif I was able to explain in more depth why the director firing precipitated this text, I would.â
One representative kept pursuing the question from multiple angles, asking, âWas that a fear that someone other than McCabe would eventually be put into that slot?â Page again consulted with counsel and noted she couldnât answer that question.
The representative made the logical observation, âWell, that leads at least some of us to conclude that it may have been an obstruction-of-justice case.â Page responded, âThatâs a reasonable inference, sir, but I cannot, sort of, confirm that thatâs what we are referring to.â
The dialogue continued:
Unidentified Representative: âSo the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event, as opposed to the occupant of the directorâs office?â
Page: âYes, thatâs correct.â
Rep.: âWell, other than obstruction, what could it have been?â
Page: âI canât answer that, sir. Iâm sorry.â
Rep.: âIs there anything other than obstruction that it could have been?â
Page: âI canât answer.â
Page maintained that the second text was a separate matter from the firstâbut time may have been a factor as it occurred in the days preceding Muellerâs appointment as special counsel. Page also claimed not to know exactly what it pertained to:
âMy suspicion is, we have either been interviewing some witness or have been getting kind of closer to some target, either weâve already had interviews or we havenât.
âWhat this is suggesting is, like, we need to start thinking about locking in whomever in a way that might be able to support charges. ⌠My suspicion is that we have somebody who we think is lying. ⌠To the extent we want to be able to charge them for lying, we need to lock them in in a formal way, in a way in which we will be able to support those charges.â
The issue of obstruction came up several times, including a notable exchange that took place during the second day of testimony:
Unidentified Representative: âWere there discussions about opening an obstruction-of-justice case or any other case against Donald Trump prior to the firing of Jim Comey on May 9th of 2017, as reflected in the Comey memos?â
FBI legal counsel: âCongressman, to the extent that goes into the equities of the ongoing investigation that the special counsel is now conducting, I will instruct the witness not to answer.â
Normally, this line of questioning ends with inferences having to be made, but, in this case, what appears to be an honest error on the part of Page hinted firmly at the true answer:
Rep.: âI donât want any of the details. I just want to know whether there was a discussion about the possibility of opening that prior to the firing of the director.â
Page: âObstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the timeframe you have described.â
Rep.: âOK. Thenââ
Page: âI think. One second, sir.â
[Discussion off the record.]
Page: âSir, I need toâI need to take back my prior statement.â
Rep.: âWhich one?â
Page: âWhatever the last thing I just said was. Sorry. That there were no discussions of obstruction, yeah. That isâI need to take that statement back.â
Rep.: âSo there were?â
Page: âWell, I think that I canât answer this question without getting into matters which are substantively before the special counsel at this time.â
Rep.: âWell, I think youâve just answered it by not answering it. Was Andy McCabe privy to those same conversations?â
Page: âI canât answer this substantively, sir. Iâm sorry.â
Rep.: âWell, were these related to some charges, whether obstruction or other charges, potentially against Donald Trump?â
Page: âI canâtâI canât answer that question, sir, without getting into the substance of matters that are now before the special counsel.â
Rep.: âAgain, I think youâre answering it by not answering it.â
At a later point in testimony, this issue was potentially further clarified:
Rep.: âComey has admitted that he told the president, I think, that he wasnât under investigation during that timeframe.â
Page: âThat is not inconsistent, sir. ⌠Somebody could not be under investigation, but there still could be discussions about potential criminal activity, and that is totally consistent with FBI policies and would not be unusual with respect to any investigation.â
This provides a perfect explanation as to why Comey refused to tell the press that Trump wasnât under investigationâand the nature of the text messages.
The FBI hadnât placed Trump under any formal investigationâbut they were keeping their ability to do so open, and Acting FBI Director McCabe may have been planning to initialize a formal investigation before a permanent director could be appointed.