It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mr. I want to go to March 3, 2016. Well, actually, let
me ask you, Secretary Clinton was interviewed on July
Ms. I think 2nd, I believe so.
Mr. 2. Do you recall when Attorney General
Ms._Eage; Either right beforecn?right after. I don'tremember
Mr. Gowdy. Would she have been still making the decisions on the
case? Would she have still not been recused by the time these
conversations take took place about who could and could not be
Ms. Rage; Oh, oh, oh. So well,two things. I guess,first,
I am not sure she ever formally recused herself? She sort of, I think,
did a half step, which I think she's been criticized for, whictlwas
that she didn't fully sort of step away from the investigation following
the tarmac incident. She said that she would defer to the sort of
judgment of the career prosecutors. So I don't -- I wouldn't we can
call that a recusal if that's how you want to frame it, but 1 don't
know that that legally would be considered one.
Mr. I'm going based on memory here because I don't have
the text in front of me, and if you don't recall it, then we'll.get
somebody to pull it up for us. But I have in the vague recessesof
my memory a text you either sent or received that referred to Loretta
as something other than a profile in courage.
Ms. Rage, Yep, I remember that one.
Mr. ML Would that have been in connection with her decision
to recuse herself?
Ms. Rage; Right. So that was in -- that was in response to the
tarmac episode. And as I said, also from memory, so this may be off
a little bit, but my recollection iS'that she represented publicly that
she would defer to the judgments or the recommendations of the career
prosecutors. And I think my text said something to the effect of:
It's a real profile in courage since she knows no charges would be
At this point, this is late or early July, and so that does
represent a presumption onmy part. I do not have knowledge, actual
personal knowledge that she knew no -- knew charges that she knew
no charges would be brought. But every single person on the team,
whether FBI or knew far earlier than July that we were not going
to be able to make out sufficient evidence to charge a crime. And so
that was my supposition, but I don't actually know that she kneW'that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So if I asked you the question, was the
decision made not to charge Hillary Clinton with the
classified information before or after her July 2nd, 2616, interview,
the answer is what?
Ms. Page; The answer is before her July 2nd interview we had not
seen evidence sufficient to charge her with a crime.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
Ms. Page: If something had changed in the July 2nd interview,
then that would have all changed things. But short of an admission
in that interview, there was nothing that any of us, whether at the
Department or the FBI, could have anticipated that would have changed
that conclusion, short of an admission or something happening --
Mr. Ratcliffe. But your answer was before the decision had been
made before, that everyone had concluded.
Ms. Page; Well, you're putting words in my mouth a little bit.
Mr. Ratcliffe. These are your words.
Ms. Page: No, I'm agreeing with what I'm saying is a decision
isn't final until it's final. So there was no final decision before
July 2nd. But before July 2nd
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
Ms. it was the consensus of the investigative team, both
at the Department and at the FBI, that there was not sufficient evidence
to charge her with a crime.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So where we' re going to leave off is that
the decision had been made before, but the final, final decision was
made after is what you're saying, to use your words.
Ms. Page, The decision isn't final until it's final.
Mr. Ra?tcliffe. Okay. We'll pick up with that when we came back.
Separately, you know, we had multiple conversations with the
Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. 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
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,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. gage, That is correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. -- bring a case based on that. Who at the
Department was telling you that?
Ms. Rage, Richard Laufman is my understanding.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
Mr. Parmiter. Sorry, did you mean David Laufman?
Ms. I?m sorry. Richard Scott. No, no, that's my fault.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Comey made the famous "Statement" on July 5, 2016 a couple of weeks before the Democrat Convention.
Hillary already had the Nomination in the bag.
Everything was "Timed" in sequence from Day1.
All will eventually come out in a clean cut manuscript 😎
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ausername
The OP gives no source for this. None at all. Where did this information allegedly come from.