The more we learn the more we realize that collusion and obstruction of justice may have actually occurred… under the Obama administration.
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted last year under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Loretta Lynch-run Justice Department not to charge Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.
That’s according to Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who cited transcripts of her private testimony in July 2018 before a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees to make the remarkable assertion.
Ratcliffe tweeted: “Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.”
The transcript he provided in the tweet reflects an exchange the lawmaker had with Page, who was involved in an extramarital affair with fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.
“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —” Ratcliffe said.
“That is correct,” Page replied, before he could finish his sentence.
” — bring a case based on that,” Ratcliffe then added.
More from the Washington Examiner on what led up to that moment:
Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. “We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.
Page further testified the DOJ put a stop to that: “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.” The specific statute being referenced, 18 U.S. Code § 793, deals in part with “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information, which Clinton came under scrutiny for possibly violating.
That’s when Ratcliffe asked if the decision not to charge Clinton was a direct order, as seen in the transcript he provided above.
Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey essentially cleared Clinton at a July 5, 2016 press conference, when he announced that she had been “extremely careless” in handling classified information — carefully altering the language to not use the term “grossly negligent,” which could have criminal implications.
Page’s lover, Peter Strzok, reportedly made that edit.
Comey insisted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton.
Of course, the previous month then-Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton had their infamous meeting on a Phoenix tarmac — and allegedly talked about grandchildren.
As The Examiner noted, Lynch refused to recuse herself from the case, saying that she would accept Comey’s decision on what charges to bring against Clinton — which is a direct contradiction from Page’s testimony that the DOJ made the call.
Page also revealed in her testimony that the text between her and Strzok mentioning an “insurance policy” against Donald Trump was a reference to the Russian collusion investigation.
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., took to the House floor to enter the transcripts of Page’s testimony into the congressional record, explaining it was from an investigation in the previous Congress that has since been closed.
Today, the link https://t.co/lFcxpHhFSJ will be placed in the record so the American people can read the transcripts of Lisa Page's interviews before the Judiciary Committee. pic.twitter.com/3m1ECz4ymf
— Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) March 12, 2019
The question of the day was asked by conservative Hollywood actor James Woods, who tweeted: “Is it just me or does anyone find this to be rather disturbing? Why isn’t a special prosecutor investigating this…?”
Is it just me or does anyone find this to be rather disturbing? Why isn’t a special prosecutor investigating this…? https://t.co/C42EHuTjzL
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) March 13, 2019
- ‘All we wanted was an edit function!’ Twitter feels the wrath after announcing pay for ‘Super Follows’ feature - February 26, 2021
- Ted Cruz pulls no punches at CPAC, optimistic on 2022, 2024: ‘Donald J Trump isn’t going anywhere’ - February 26, 2021
- Biden ignores question about promised $2000 checks, appears to be prodded by VP to retrieve mask - February 26, 2021