• 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

No, I didn't. I spoke to the implications of Page's testimony in light of the lies by Comey and Lynch.
:lamo

In other words, you are literally making things up which you have zero evidence to support and is in direct contradiction to what Page testified. Also known as a "lie".

Thanks for the lies, I'm moving on.
While you run around telling everyone they are lying, you missed the fact this was a question.

So Lynch ordered the "stand down" on her own?


Speaking of lying...
This is a lie. There was no "stand down" and Comey did not consult with Lynch. The transcript clearly states it was Richard Scott.

That is literally my first post in the thread. It is in direct response to the question you just re-posted so when you said I "missed" it, you were not telling the truth. Seriously, whether it is posting a lie or are simply unconcerned with reading, Trump defenders have shown zero desire for honest discussion.

Who do you think was telling the DoJ [who in turn told the FBI] what to do?
There was no "stand down". The FBI did not consult with Lynch.

Stop making things up which have already been proven false multiple times in this thread. I would LOVE for a Trump defender to engage in honest discussion just once.
 
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.

.

So what, that happens all the time, prosecutors tell LE that their case is not strong enough to proceed.

Clearly what happened here...
 
:lamo

In other words, you are literally making things up which you have zero evidence to support and is in direct contradiction to what Page testified. Also known as a "lie".

Thanks for the lies, I'm moving on.

[/I]
Speaking of lying...


That is literally my first post in the thread. It is in direct response to the question you just re-posted so when you said I "missed" it, you were not telling the truth. Seriously, whether it is posting a lie or are simply unconcerned with reading, Trump defenders have shown zero desire for honest discussion.

There was no "stand down". The FBI did not consult with Lynch.

Stop making things up which have already been proven false multiple times in this thread. I would LOVE for a Trump defender to engage in honest discussion just once.

The Obama Swamp KGB-FBI/DOJ was told what to do by a DOJ lawyer sent by Lynch. Or are you SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING than a DOJ "underling" was making the calls. :lamo
 
So what, that happens all the time, prosecutors tell LE that their case is not strong enough to proceed.

Clearly what happened here...

IN this case , the prosecution told LE to CHANGE ITS FINDINGS so as not to prosecute.
 
The Obama Swamp KGB-FBI/DOJ was told what to do by a DOJ lawyer sent by Lynch. Or are you SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING than a DOJ "underling" was making the calls. :lamo
You are literally making things up now. Pure propaganda.
 
You are literally making things up now. Pure propaganda.

Do you think Grok realizes that the things he posts are completely unsubstantiated?

What drives me crazy is that people like Grok will deny allegations against Trump even when you have a mountain of evidence but they will completely believe any allegation against a liberal even without a shred of proof.

There is no point talking to people like this. They don't want to have a rational discussion. They don't care about truth or rationality.
 
You are literally making things up now. Pure propaganda.

No, I'm applying LOGIC/LINERAL THOUGHT. Try it , sometime.

Horse ****. Page made it CLEAR that the order to the FBI to "tone down" the wording from GROSS NEGLIGENCE to "extremely careless" came from the DOJ.

Who do you propose made that call ?? Keep in mind that this was the most CRUCIAL (faux) "investigation" of the entire Obama presidency, and was crucial to the DNC's overall political future.

The janitor?
 
Do you think Grok realizes that the things he posts are completely unsubstantiated?

What drives me crazy is that people like Grok will deny allegations against Trump even when you have a mountain of evidence but they will completely believe any allegation against a liberal even without a shred of proof.

There is no point talking to people like this. They don't want to have a rational discussion. They don't care about truth or rationality.


I think you and the rest of the DP Left are in a terrified frenzy of denial, at this point.


If I said I wasn't enjoying it...I'd be lying.


Try a dose of REALITY, for a change:


No, I'm applying LOGIC/LINERAL THOUGHT. Try it , sometime.

Horse ****. Page made it CLEAR that the order to the FBI to "tone down" the wording from GROSS NEGLIGENCE to "extremely careless" came from the DOJ. Who do you propose made that call ?? Keep in mind that this was the most CRUCIAL (faux) "investigation" of the entire Obama presidency, and was crucial to the DNC's overall political future.

The janitor?



She also admitted that there WAS NO EVIDENCE of "COLLUSION" to predicate the Witch Hunt upon...BUT THEY STARTED IT ANYWAY.


Criminal referrals from the House to the NON-OBAMA SWAMP (at last!) DOJ, within the month, coming up.

Enjoy!! Or keep on pretending that the release of the Page testimony transcripts did not KICK THE OBAMA SWAMP KGB-FBI/DOJ right in the balls....if you must.

see no evil monkeys.webp
 
Last edited:
No, I'm applying LOGIC/LINERAL THOUGHT. Try it , sometime.


No, about as rational as a dinosaur.

You posted a picture claiming it was Che Guevera executing citizens. I prove to you that picture was from a theatrical production. You refuse to accept it. You're not a rational person.

It's OK. You're emotional. Maybe you need a hug or a good cry.
 
No, about as rational as a dinosaur.

You posted a picture claiming it was Che Guevera executing citizens. I prove to you that picture was from a theatrical production. You refuse to accept it. You're not a rational person.

It's OK. You're emotional. Maybe you need a hug or a good cry.

If it's not logical why did you immediately DERAIL your own response deflecting to an irrelevant topic...that you ALSO HAVE WRONG, BTW.

( No, you didn't "prove anything" . You posted a LEFTSITE (Snopes) trying to claim it was. See the background of the pic? That's some amazingly realistic set, huh? :roll: )


Once again...Page made it CLEAR that the DOJ insisted on changing the term "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?


Your point is that some UNDERLING at the DOJ made that call, w/o Lynch's knowledge, who you then claim acted w/o Obama's knowledge?


Really?? :lamo


And then there's THIS (just a SMALL PORTION from the transcripts)) :


~ 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.
 
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."..

:lamo
So, as I suspected, you made your original remarks without ever reading a word of the actual transcript itself. Why does that NOT surprise me, one bit?? LOL.

The transcript is all over the internet, for Pete's sake. I read it yesterday, and already knew that you were spewing ignorance in your initial remarks. The FACT is that Page NEVER said that the "DOJ told the FBI not to charge Clinton". That was a LIE, that you repeated, unthinkingly, based upon the fake news source you got it from.

Just a moment...

And, now that you've read some of it, even you KNOW that you were repeating a lie, earlier.

The fact is that the above quote (i.e. "A further explanation will call for classified information") doesn't appear on page 147 of the transcript. But what DOES appear on page 147 is Page repeatedly explaining to the committee that the FBI does not bring charges...that the DOJ tells the FBI what charges are possible based on the evidence....that the DOJ told them there was not a strong enough case to bring charges of gross negligence against Clinton because of the "Constitutional vagueness" and the "untestedness in court" of that statute. So again, there was NEVER an order from the DOJ telling the FBI to do ANYTHING to protect the Clintons.

Anything else you have to say about this is a lie.

So this was EXACTLY as I suggested. You now know you were repeating another fake news LIE. And NO, the quote you posted above would NOT prove that the DOJ told the FBI not to charge, etc. The fact that you won't admit it is immaterial to me.
 
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?

Oh, you mean the crazy, left-wing "Witch Hunt" that has already exposed about 30 "witches"...and already convicted about a dozen of them?

Umm...No, there is no equivalence.

But nice try. It's about what I'd expect from a Trump acolyte. :lamo
 
No, about as rational as a dinosaur.

You posted a picture claiming it was Che Guevera executing citizens. I prove to you that picture was from a theatrical production. You refuse to accept it. You're not a rational person.

It's OK. You're emotional. Maybe you need a hug or a good cry.

Grok can't be bothered by posting actual truths...why should he start now.

His threads are just full of baloney, and he has no actual credibility here.
 
You’re more than 2 years late with this twisted logic thread, Grok. Comey, himself, publicly stated there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove a deliberate attempt to violate any laws. Extremely poor judgment? Yes, no doubt about it. Criminal intent? Not enough evidence. DOJ passes on prosecuting crimes every day when the evidence isn’t sufficient.
 
No, I'm applying LOGIC/LINERAL THOUGHT. Try it , sometime.

Horse ****. Page made it CLEAR that the order to the FBI to "tone down" the wording from GROSS NEGLIGENCE to "extremely careless" came from the DOJ.


I understand that liars lie. It's what they do. But, please, stop lying.



Who do you propose made that call ?? Keep in mind that this was the most CRUCIAL (faux) "investigation" of the entire Obama presidency, and was crucial to the DNC's overall political future.

The Clinton email investigation was never crucial to the Obama administration. It was crucial to the idiots who rabidly opposed Obama (and Clinton) for reasons that were entirely visceral/emotional. The fact that people like you are STILL perseverating over it simply proves how unstable you are.


She also admitted that there WAS NO EVIDENCE of "COLLUSION" to predicate the Witch Hunt upon...BUT THEY STARTED IT ANYWAY.

Another LIE. Page was not in the decision-making loop and had nothing to do with the decision to begin the investigation of the Trump campaign. Lying about it won't change the truth. But I realize it probably does make you feel better, huh?

Criminal referrals from the House to the NON-OBAMA SWAMP (at last!) DOJ, within the month, coming up. Enjoy!! Or keep on pretending that the release of the Page testimony transcripts did not KICK THE OBAMA SWAMP KGB-FBI/DOJ right in the balls....if you must.
This is just rank ignorance. Devin Nunes has no power. The minority party in the House has no authority to refuse to the DOJ. And when a month passes, and we all see that NO CRIMINAL REFERRALS from the Nunes, or the House, been sent to DOJ....you will do what you always do: STFU and quietly move on to your next bat-crap crazy fantasy or conspiracy theory. We see you repeat that cycle over and over on this board.
 
Oh, you mean the crazy, left-wing "Witch Hunt" that has already exposed about 30 "witches"...and already convicted about a dozen of them?

Umm...No, there is no equivalence.

But nice try. It's about what I'd expect from a Trump acolyte. :lamo

It is a Trump witch hunt and there is nothing on Trump. But, a witch hunt is when you find a person and you keep on investigating them until you find something and it is disgusting and un-American to use witch hunt investigations for purely partisan reasons.
 
Do you think Grok realizes that the things he posts are completely unsubstantiated?
Yes. It is intentional.
No, I'm applying LOGIC/LINERAL THOUGHT.
You are posting lies.

Page made it CLEAR that the order to the FBI to "tone down" the wording from GROSS NEGLIGENCE to "extremely careless" came from the DOJ.
That is not what Page testified.

Just more lies.
 
According to Page’s testimony, which was made public on Tuesday, the FBI considered charging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with gross negligence under 18 U.S. Code § 793 for her alleged handling of classified information.
“We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge,” Page told Republican Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe. “And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable.” Ratcliffe responded, “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.’” “That’s correct,” Page answered.​
Compare Page’s closed-door interview to Lynch’s 2016 congressional testimony. According to the Washington Times, the former attorney general told members of Congress, “I made the decision, some time ago, that I would accept the recommendation of that team ... "When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it and again I reiterate my pride and faith in them.”
She also said, “I met with … career prosecutors and agents who conducted that investigation. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation,” “I received the recommendation of the team and that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. With the unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and what the information that they had received,” and “I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it.”
Source; Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch Tarmac Meeting Reemerges After Lisa Page Bombshell | Neon Nettle
 
So, Comey and the Obama Swamp KGB-FBI/DOJ were FOLLOWING ORDERS from the Obama White House when they failed to charge Hillary Clinton for OBVIOUS CRIMES, and the "insurance policy" WAS/IS THE WITCH HUNT, with NO SIGNIFIICANT EVIDENCE to INITIATE IT, as the more sentient among us have been saying for over TWO YEARS...as the RELEASED TRANSCRIPTS of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page's SWORN TESTIMONY REVEALS.

Gee...looks like the Tarmac Meeting was to give Slick Willie word that "the FIX WAS IN"...

So , let's talk about what "OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE" actually is, and SEDITION , as well, shall we?






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



Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer 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 congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page's closed-door testimony.

Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says | Fox News







One of the biggest revelations was that Page, who was having an affair with then-FBI agent Peter Strzok, said that the infamous "insurance policy" text message was referring to the Russia investigation. "During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned at length about that text — and essentially confirmed this referred to the Russia investigation while explaining that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at 'total breakneck speed' and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn't be elected anyway," Fox News reported. "Further, she confirmed investigators only had a 'paucity' of evidence at the start."

Obama DOJ Told FBI Not To Charge Hillary, Lisa Page Reveals What The 'Insurance Policy' Was | Daily Wire

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


Let's see if Barr pursues THESE EXPOSED OUTRAGES...
6 months ago your side said Paige was a lying slut. Now, she is a good slut, I assume.

:2rofll:
 
The name of the game is to destroy Donald Trump.

By any means. Hmm I will take your assertion seriously and lets take a look at recent events in time and see exactly who is destroying our institutions and exhibiting lawlessness.

After a long history of peaceful transitions of power in the US..1860s notwithstanding we see....Second Night of Anti-Trump Protests End in Violence

Quite revealing, but not enough to do anything of note. Luckily no one was seriously hurt. I did not hear anything to that effect anyway. Not so lucky other times.

So lets move on and try something else....Starting with Jill Stein recounts.....Nearly 3 years later the Stein campaign is still spending the millions in recount money they raised paying themselves. The recount actually raised trumps vote count by the way....The recount was of course not illegal in itself but attention from investigators was drawn over "her attendance at a December 2015 party in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of state broadcaster RT. There she dined with Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. Gen. Michael Flynn" and the disposition of over half a million in leftover cash.

So that backfired...lets try bullying a lawful institution of the USA...How about electors receive death threats-CNN

Much like a child kicking over a chessboard when they do not win in a fit of pique.


So then during a sacred process that has stood for many years, Over 50 house democrats boycott the inauguration and progressives show up to riot and destroy private property and businesses totally unrelated to anything.



Having failed to keep Trump from being sworn in, impeachment calls and processes begin. This type of behavior occurs before the seat in the oval is even warm.

Example

In direct conflict with progressive claims."Reporter who broke Steele dossier story says ex-British agent's claims 'likely false'"-USAtoday

So whats next? Lets create a fund to pay off women to come forward to make accusations.

"Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians." -NYT

Well that failed. Now what? Oh...25th amendment!! That will work..Right? Not so much.

"President Trump is in excellent overall health and achieved a perfect score on a cognitive test that the president requested as part of his first formal medical exam"

Oh my. I have not even bothered to go into the actual weaponization of our institutions by the previous administration, the unprecedented unmasking's, the IRS apologies and settles for unfairly targeting certain groups.

It is not like we have not seen this type of behavior before.



Indifference? Willful intellectual dishonesty may apply as well.
 
Obama is guilty of obstruction of justice...obviously.

There are some pretty shady texts about that.

FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'

"In a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange, Page writes that she was preparing the talking points because "potus wants to know everything we’re doing." Potus is an acronym for president of the United States.

But it is not clear that the text message between the two refers to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. Johnson's report only says that the text "may relate" to the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since the Justice Department had redacted other text messages that related to other investigations. An earlier text in that sequence refers to the need to develop talking points for Comey in connection with a morning meeting "on the 7th."

The text in question was sent just as Obama was preparing to attend an international summit in China, where he would meet face-to-face with Vladimir Putin on Sept. 5. Describing that conversation months later, Obama said he told Putin at that meeting to "cut it out" in relation to attempts to meddle in the U.S. election."

Did republicans throw a distracting bs investigation while the former resident of the white house was away conduction important foreign policy or " being more flexible" err telling russian leadership to "cut it out"?

There are two whoppers I am interested in right now.

Comey used the steele papers to generate a fisa and then told the president it was unverified.

Obama said he knew nothing about a private server when he and hrc had been emailing..
 
By any means. Hmm I will take your assertion seriously and lets take a look at recent events in time and see exactly who is destroying our institutions and exhibiting lawlessness.

So some people oppose Trump and make it known. So what?
 
There are some pretty shady texts about that.

FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'

"In a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange, Page writes that she was preparing the talking points because "potus wants to know everything we’re doing." Potus is an acronym for president of the United States.

But it is not clear that the text message between the two refers to the FBI's investigation of Clinton. Johnson's report only says that the text "may relate" to the FBI’s Clinton investigation, since the Justice Department had redacted other text messages that related to other investigations. An earlier text in that sequence refers to the need to develop talking points for Comey in connection with a morning meeting "on the 7th."

The text in question was sent just as Obama was preparing to attend an international summit in China, where he would meet face-to-face with Vladimir Putin on Sept. 5. Describing that conversation months later, Obama said he told Putin at that meeting to "cut it out" in relation to attempts to meddle in the U.S. election."

Did republicans throw a distracting bs investigation while the former resident of the white house was away conduction important foreign policy or " being more flexible" err telling russian leadership to "cut it out"?

There are two whoppers I am interested in right now.

Comey used the steele papers to generate a fisa and then told the president it was unverified.

Obama said he knew nothing about a private server when he and hrc had been emailing..

In addition, the DOJ was acting under the direction of USAG "TARMAC", and who did she answer to?

Point made.
 
Back
Top Bottom