• 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


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.

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?
 
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....

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

Or will the DoJ see things the same way as the DoJ?

When will we know what the DoJ is going to do about this?

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

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?
 
Old news that was just uncovered. Heads may yet roll .....

Actually this made the news last summer and what is being quoted here more recently is a "transcript excerpt" the use of which is a favorite tool especially by the GOP because they always have more crooks and shady deals under investigation than you can shake a stick at. The transcripts are available in their entirety now. I would suggest those interested read the entire transcripts. Then you can decide for yourself if its a BOMBSHELL or a dud or if it in fact helps the GOP argument regarding Page and Strzok AT ALL!
 
So some people oppose Trump and make it known. So what?

Others sabotage investigations into the likely candidate of their preferred political party, engage in overt election interference, and , when that fails set about engaging in open sedition.
 
Others sabotage investigations into the likely candidate of their preferred political party, engage in overt election interference, and , when that fails set about engaging in open sedition.

You will get further when you speak in English.
 
You will get further when you speak in English.


Reduced to asinine ad homs, per usual, we see.

Surrender accepted.

Sorry about all the big words; my bad.


.Posted by Grokmaster


Others "sabotage" (mess up) "investigations" ( looks at) into the likely "candidate" (lead person) of their preferred political party, "engage" (do) in "overt" (easy to see) election "interference",(messing up) and , when that fails "set about" ( begin) engaging (doing) in open "sedition".(bad way to try to take over)


There..that help?
 
Last edited:
Reduced to asinine ad homs, per usual, we see.

Surrender accepted.

Sorry about all the big words; my bad.


.Posted by Grokmaster


Others "sabotage" (mess up) "investigations" ( looks at) into the likely "candidate" (lead person) of their preferred political party, "engage" (do) in "overt" (easy to see) election "interference",(messing up) and , when that fails "set about" ( begin) engaging (doing) in open "sedition".(bad way to try to take over)


There..that help?

You got owned...again. I know you won't watch the video because you don't care about the actual truth, but here is an explanation for you.

Maddow reads the GOP’s newly released transcripts of FBI interviews — and they destroy Trump’s accusations of conspiracy

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on Tuesday explained how a conservative lawmaker from Georgia undermined the position of Capitol Hill Republicans through a strategic blunder.

“I should mention, when it comes to efforts by Congressional Republicans and the Trump White House to try to fend off the Russia investigation, one of the things happening over the past few days is the top Republican member of the Judiciary Committee … has unilaterally been releasing unredacted transcripts — or almost totally unredacted transcripts — from witnesses that come before that committee for its part of the Russia investigation,” Maddow noted.

“And the transcripts he’s been releasing are from witnesses who the Republicans and the Trump White House and conservative media have been trying to vilify as terrible bad guys somehow in the Russia investigation,” she explained. “They picked those three — Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr because all of those are people who the Republicans and the White House and conservative media have vilified, tried to turn into terrible, terrible bad guys because of their roles in the Russia investigation.”

“But now this congressman from Georgia, Doug Collins, has decided that unilaterally what he’s going to do — to stick it to the Democrats — is he’s going to release the whole transcripts from these witnesses,” she noted.

“And I know why he’s doing it, but I’m not sure he’s thought it through,” she explained.

Maddow noted that, “now have the whole transcripts to read — and the whole transcripts definitely don’t help their case when it comes to trying to make people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr look like bad guys.”

 
Last edited:
^^ Yeah, I have not read much of Ohr's testimony, but I read several large chunks of Page's yesterday, and let's just say Fox and similar are spinning her testimony to say what it doesn't say to dupe their gullible masses. And of course, being lazy and thoroughly committed to carry Trump's water on a daily basis, they buy it, hook, line, and sinker.
 
^^ Yeah, I have not read much of Ohr's testimony, but I read several large chunks of Page's yesterday, and let's just say Fox and similar are spinning her testimony to say what it doesn't say to dupe their gullible masses. And of course, being lazy and thoroughly committed to carry Trump's water on a daily basis, they buy it, hook, line, and sinker.

Please provide the QUOTE's of PAGE's with the alleged "spin" you are citing.


There will be CRIMINAL REFERRALS to the DOJ, based in no small part, upon her testimony; let's see how they "spin" that...
 
Last edited:
You got owned...again. I know you won't watch the video because you don't care about the actual truth, but here is an explanation for you.

Maddow reads the GOP’s newly released transcripts of FBI interviews — and they destroy Trump’s accusations of conspiracy





Right. Madcow's entire bull**** premise is that Page's involvement , and the GOP's recognition of it, somehow, "disqualifies" her as a witness, when, in fact, it is EXACTLY what makes her SWRON TESTIMONY so COMPELLING.

All while FAILING TO REFUTE A SINGLE SYLLABE of her testimony...naturally.

Page was IN ON the CONSPIRACY she testified to....and she made it clear that that is exactly what took place.

Madcow = stupidity elevated to an artform.
 
Last edited:
Please provide the QUOTE's of PAGE's with the alleged "spin" you are citing.
I already did. And you are still posting lies about what she said anyways.

Nothing but propaganda.
 
Please provide the QUOTE's of PAGE's with the alleged "spin" you are citing.


There will be CRIMINAL REFERRALS to the DOJ, based in no small part, upon her testimony; let's see how they "spin" that...

Are criminal referrals supposed to mean anything? In this case, partisan pandering and nothing else.

As far as "spin", it seems Fox and others have led you to believe that Page said the "insurance policy" was the investigation into Trump & Co. over Russian influence. Close, but no cigar. Try p. 86 of Page's day one testimony (though I'm sure you can't be bothered to actually read it).

Come back when you can explain her answer when asked about the "insurance policy".
 
I already did. And you are still posting lies about what she said anyways.

Nothing but propaganda.

You don't actually expect Grok to stop his cherry picking nonsense do you. Christ cherry picking has become a cottage industry around this forum and Grok is not alone.

Page's, Ohr's and I believe Strok's complete testimonies are available to view. Read them if you are actually interested (just Page's is a chore). But if you are actually interested, read them and draw your own conclusions about where they take you or what might result from them. Use your own noodle.

Personally, I think they will get about as far as the Jordan/Meadows referral of Cohen testimony to Justice....as in File 13!
 
I already did. And you are still posting lies about what she said anyways.

Nothing but propaganda.

Uh-huh...sure you did. Here are her ACTUAL WORDS: (on the Witch Hunt)


“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.



Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment | TheHill


And here are her EXACT WORDS citing who told who what about the Hillary outrage:


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 [of Justice], 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.”

Ms. Page: That’s correct



Comey said NO SUCH ORDER was given. No "SPIN" needed....
 
Last edited:
The Maddow show last night was excellent in refuting this garbage you read right here from the alt right.

Right. Madcow's entire bull**** premise is that Page's involvement , and the GOP's recognition of it, somehow, "disqualifies" her as a witness, when, in fact, it is EXACTLY what makes her SWRON TESTIMONY so COMPELLING.

All while FAILING TO REFUTE A SINGLE SYLLABE of her testimony...naturally.

Page was IN ON the CONSPIRACY she testified to....and she made it clear that that is exactly what took place.

Madcow = stupidity elevated to an artform.

Try again.
 
I never expect propagandists to stop spreading propaganda.
I did, multiple times in fact.

Nothing but propaganda.



Uh-huh...sure you did. Here are her ACTUAL WORDS: (on the Witch Hunt)


“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,”
Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.



Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment | TheHill


And here are her EXACT WORDS citing who told who what about the Hillary outrage:


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 [of Justice], 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.”

Ms. Page: That’s correct

Comey said NO SUCH ORDER was given, that is was the FBI's call.

No "SPIN" needed
....
 
Right. Madcow's entire bull**** premise is that Page's involvement , and the GOP's recognition of it, somehow, "disqualifies" her as a witness, when, in fact, it is EXACTLY what makes her SWRON TESTIMONY so COMPELLING.

All while FAILING TO REFUTE A SINGLE SYLLABE of her testimony...naturally.

Page was IN ON the CONSPIRACY she testified to....and she made it clear that that is exactly what took place.

Madcow = stupidity elevated to an artform.

You didn't watch, you don't read, you don't listen.

This was yet another fail for you. Once again, you get all excited, you post what the idiot right wing media tells you, and, it fails under the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

You willing fall for all this crap, you should read and think before you post, but it doesn't matter, you don't have an ounce of credibility left here.

You just provide reams of unintentional comedy and you lie, lie, lie. And look at you, posting all crazy and manic again because you know you got owned again. Keep ramping up the screaming, we will keep laughing.

GROK FAIL
 
The Maddow show last night was excellent in refuting this garbage you read right here from the alt right.

The right wing can't handle a commentator that actually finished college, unlike their screaming idiots.

She earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[20] At graduation, she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[21] She was the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. She had also been awarded a Marshall Scholarship the same year but turned it down in favour of the Rhodes.[22] This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at the University of Oxford.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons, and her supervisor was Lucia Zedner.[25]
 
The right wing can't handle a commentator that actually finished college, unlike their screaming idiots.

So "brilliant" she couldn't do math huh? No surprise there. Nothing but fluff "Poli-Sci" nonsense...oh..and "Philosophy"...pap for DULLARDS.


Still waiting for her refutation of a SINGLE THING PAGE TESTIFIED TO....
 
I did, multiple times in fact.

Nothing but propaganda.


Oh...PAGE's EXACT WORDS are "PROPAGANDA", huh? :lamo

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.



Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment | TheHill


And here are her EXACT WORDS citing who told who what about the Hillary outrage:


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 [of Justice], 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.”

Ms. Page: "That’s correct."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comey said NO SUCH ORDER was given, that is was the FBI's call.

No "SPIN" needed....
 
Back
Top Bottom