• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BOMBSHELL: Obama DOJ Told FBI Not To Charge Hillary, Lisa Page Reveals What 'Insurance Policy' Was

ultmd said:
Great. Of course, we all know you haven't read a word of it, don't we?

Please, now....direct us to the page where Page states, as a matter of fact, that the DOJ told the FBI not to charge Hillary Clinton.

If you can't (and you already know you can't), then please just acknowledge that you all are being played for fools by the same media that plays you for fools every day.

And if you can't do that, at least understand why most people consider you at Trump acolytes with (proverbial) a mix of bewilderment and sadness.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I am on 147 of 165. Research is very interesting to me. You should try it sometime.

I will reply with what she said to that exact question. "A further explanation will call for classified information."..
 
Last edited:
Was this supposed to be classified material?
 
akyron said:
Wrong again. I am on 147 of 165. Research is very interesting to me. You should try it sometime. I saw no other link to the direct transcript so I posted it just so you could read it yourself and made no commentary except to point out the transcript exists.

It is fascinating how you can fly at me like a screeching burned weasel for that though. Thanks for that. Too funny.

Another fan of transparency.
Click to expand...

That's his job here, apparently.:mrgreen:
 
akyron said:
Lisa Page Day 1 transcript.

There is actually 165 pages of testimony to review.

Why do you hate transparency?
Click to expand...

You confuse hate with indifference. The name of the game is to destroy Donald Trump as the man has destroyed our government and institutions - the man who occupies the Oval Office in the White House. That is the goal and anything which does not further that is something I do not care about.
 
ultmd said:
More feckless deflection.

Just remember what I've said in this thread, because I will.

This entire "bombshell" story will NEVER extend beyond the confines of the bat-crap crazy, right-wing conspiracy theory-loving faction of the media. It will die a quiet death, and you (and people like you) will quietly just stop mentioning and move on to your next bat-crap crazy conspiracy theory.

It's all just part of being a right wing ideologue.
Click to expand...

You mean kind of like the confines of the bat-crap crazy, left-wing conspiracy theory-loving faction of the media which is out to get Trump?
 
Let me know when this "Bombshell" grows any legs and gets an investigation outside of the lying right-wing echo-chamber. Until then... :yawn:
 
poweRob said:
Let me know when this "Bombshell" grows any legs and gets an investigation outside of the lying right-wing echo-chamber. Until then... :yawn:
Click to expand...

This BOMBSHELL!!!!! is not getting any play on cable tv or local news for that matter. It is a Republican right wing nothing burger.
 
poweRob said:
Let me know when this "Bombshell" grows any legs and gets an investigation outside of the lying right-wing echo-chamber. Until then... :yawn:
Click to expand...

Let me know when "Bombshell" investigations against Trump grows any legs and gets an investigation outside of the lying left-wing echo-chamber. Until then...
 
Moderate Right said:
Let me know when "Bombshell" investigations against Trump grows any legs and gets an investigation outside of the lying left-wing echo-chamber. Until then...
Click to expand...

:lamo

So now you are going to go with believing there are no investigations? After spending the last couple years bitching about the investigations.

You will say anything no matter how untrue won't you. :lol:
 
Nunes just announced that there will be CRIMINAL REFERRALS to the DOJ over this, etal….within weeks.
 
I doubt anyone is surprised by this discovery.
 
Grokmaster said:
Nunes just announced that there will be CRIMINAL REFERRALS to the DOJ over this, etal….within weeks.
Click to expand...
Once again the Legislative Branch having to tell Trump_DoJ how to do their job.

What is the Legislative Branch gonna do if Trump_DoJ says something like "gross negligence" is "constitutionally vague" and has "either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago," and so Trump_DoJ does "not feel they could sustain a charge"?
What can the Legislative Branch do in such a situation?


Will the Legislative Branch hold the Executive Branch's feet to the fire in re these serious charges?
Or will Nunes just roll over and forget about it if Trump is unable to handle Trump_DoJ?
Will Nunes just roll over and forget about it if Trump is unable to get Trump_DoJ to do Trump_DoJ's job?

Why hasn't Trump_DoJ already rounded up these egregious felons? [especially Crooked Killary Clinton?]

Has Trump-DoJ moved on the referrals the conrgesscritters said they were going to make for M Cohen after Cohen delivered his recent public testimony?

When will Trump_DoJ finally step up?

It's gonna be any day now.
yep

...any day now...
 
ultmd said:
Please, now....direct us to the page where Page states, as a matter of fact, that the DOJ told the FBI not to charge Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't bring charges, the Department of Justice does.

When the FBI on multiple occasions discussed the investigation with the DOJ and brought up the possibility of charging Hillary with gross negligence, the DOJ told the FBI that they were not going to charge her with that (or anything else).

From Page 95 of the first transcripts:

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So let me if I can, I know I'm testing your
memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department (DOJ),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 -- bring a case based on that.

Ms. Page: That is correct.​

Page made it clear a few pages before that based on their investigation, the FBI felt a charge of gross negligence was very possible, which is why they brought it up with the DOJ on multiple occasions.

This case was huge, so any decision on whether to charge Clinton came from the very top and wasn't going to be made by some DOJ staff prosecutor. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or hopelessly brainwashed by their partisan political beliefs.

.
 
Grim17 said:
The FBI doesn't bring charges, the Department of Justice does.
When the FBI on multiple occasions discussed the investigation with the DOJ and brought up the possibility of charging Hillary with gross negligence, the DOJ told the FBI that they were not going to charge her with that (or anything else).
From Page 95 of the first transcripts:
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So let me if I can, I know I'm testing your
memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department (DOJ),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 -- bring a case based on that.

Ms. Page: That is correct.​
Page made it clear a few pages before that based on their investigation, the FBI felt a charge of gross negligence was very possible, which is why they brought it up with the DOJ on multiple occasions.
This case was huge, so any decision on whether to charge Clinton came from the very top and wasn't going to be made by some DOJ staff prosecutor. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or hopelessly brainwashed by their partisan political beliefs.
.
Click to expand...

What was the charge the DoJ is referring to in those comments?

What was the DoJ's reasoning for declining to use that charge?

Will Trump_DoJ decide to use that charge the DoJ declined to use?

Or will Trump_DoJ see things the same way?
When will we know what Trump_DoJ is going to do about this?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Once again the Legislative Branch having to tell Trump_DoJ how to do their job.

What is the Legislative Branch gonna do if Trump_DoJ says something like "gross negligence" is "constitutionally vague" and has "either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago," and so Trump_DoJ does "not feel they could sustain a charge"?
What can the Legislative Branch do in such a situation?


Will the Legislative Branch hold the Executive Branch's feet to the fire in re these serious charges?
Or will Nunes just roll over and forget about it if Trump is unable to handle Trump_DoJ?
Will Nunes just roll over and forget about it if Trump is unable to get Trump_DoJ to do Trump_DoJ's job?

Why hasn't Trump_DoJ already rounded up these egregious felons? [especially Crooked Killary Clinton?]

Has Trump-DoJ moved on the referrals the conrgesscritters said they were going to make for M Cohen after Cohen delivered his recent public testimony?

When will Trump_DoJ finally step up?

It's gonna be any day now.
yep

...any day now...
Click to expand...

No...it's proper procedure , regarding the findings of a Congressional action. This was not a DOJ probe, as there is no way Rosenstein ( a co-conspirator) would have ever allowed that. The House did its job, and is referring its findings to the DOJ.

As it should be.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
What was the charge the DoJ is referring to in those comments?

What was the DoJ's reasoning for declining to use that charge?

Will Trump_DoJ decide to use that charge the DoJ declined to use?

Or will Trump_DoJ see things the same way?
When will we know what Trump_DoJ is going to do about this?
Click to expand...

Trump will not be making the decision(s) to prosecute; the NON-OBAMA SWAMP (at last!) DOJ will, which is as it should be, UNLIKE UNDER OBAMA.

An INDEPENDENT DOJ, enforcing and prosecuting the LAW, also UNLIKE UNDER OBAMA....
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
The FBI doesn't bring charges, the Department of Justice does.

When the FBI on multiple occasions discussed the investigation with the DOJ and brought up the possibility of charging Hillary with gross negligence, the DOJ told the FBI that they were not going to charge her with that (or anything else).

From Page 95 of the first transcripts:

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So let me if I can, I know I'm testing your
memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department (DOJ),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 -- bring a case based on that.

Ms. Page: That is correct.​

Page made it clear a few pages before that based on their investigation, the FBI felt a charge of gross negligence was very possible, which is why they brought it up with the DOJ on multiple occasions.

This case was huge, so any decision on whether to charge Clinton came from the very top and wasn't going to be made by some DOJ staff prosecutor. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or hopelessly brainwashed by their partisan political beliefs..
Click to expand...

Exactly. ^^^^^^^^^
 
Simon W. Moon said:
What was the charge the DoJ is referring to in those comments?
Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 793 f

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.​

This also explains why Comey calling her actions "Grossly Negligent" in the original draft of his speech exonerating her (before Clinton and her aids had ever testified), had to be edited out. He couldn't tell the country that her actions were grossly negligent, making them a violation of the law, when the DOJ made it clear they were not going to charge her with any crime.

.
 
Grim17 said:
18 U.S. Code § 793 f

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.​

This also explains why Comey calling her actions "Grossly Negligent" in the original draft of his speech exonerating her (before Clinton and her aids had ever testified), had to be edited out. He couldn't tell the country that her actions were grossly negligent, making them a violation of the law, when the DOJ made it clear they were not going to charge her with any crime.

.
Click to expand...

Obama is guilty of obstruction of justice...obviously.


And the entire Witch Hunt was initiated on FALSE PREMISES, as well, in an attempt to UNSEAT a DULY-ELECTED POTUS; that would be the very DEFINITION of a SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY.




If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom