It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Page's Testimony: FBI Wanted To Charge Hillary With 'Gross Negligence' in 2016 DOJ Told Them No

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Lumenari
...the poor guy who cut his head off while shaving.

Yeah I hate when that happens.


All the really cool assassins use a Gillette razor... you can pick one up at any convenience store and they are disposable!





posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does it give a timeline for when this was happening? It seems like it wasn't one conversation, but many.

From a quick search, on or about:

June 14 -- Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting
July 1 -- Lynch announced she would accept FBI's recommendation
July 5 -- FBI announces no charges

I'm just trying to put it all in its proper perspective here... hence wondering about the timeline with the DOJ pushing back on charges.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I think this is where your concerns are addressed:


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
recused herself?

Ms._Eage; Either right beforecn?right after. I don'tremember
exactly.

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
present?

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
brought.

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.


From pages 18, 19, and 20 of Day 1

And


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.
Thank you.


Pages 114 and 115 from Day 2

Now, interestingly enough she states, "The answer is before her July 2nd interview we had not seen evidence sufficient to charge her with a crime.," and in my thread, "FBI Vault releases part 30 of Hillary Clinton Files - Weiner Laptop related," it was learned that there was an FBI Filter team as well as an FBI Investigative team. The Filter team determined what the Investigative team was allowed to see and consider. I wonder if the same Filter Team was in place for the entire investigation and this is why Page is able to state that, "we had not seen evidence sufficient to charge her with a crime?"

Both days transcripts can be found here

There is likely more, but these are two segments that jump out to me especially when considering the bit I mentioned above from my thread.

 


Even more explicitly, here:


Ms. Page:...

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
sustainable.

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.


From page 95.
edit on 12-3-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: extra quote

edit on 12-3-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: fixed odd spacing i one paragraph



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Hillary in gross negligee, charged and pressed.

neg·li·gee
/ˌneɡləˈZHā/Submit
noun
a woman's light dressing gown, typically made of a filmy, soft fabric.
"a black silk negligee"



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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 😎

I think you should write the book!

Why did sillyol Jimmy comey decide to break that news right after a holiday when seemingly no one would be paying attention? Everyone stayed up way too late for fireworks last night right jim?

Hillary is 100% a crook and hated by 98% of the population on earth.

Lol



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Their "strategy" failed.

They thought she would get away clean.

😎



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Wouldn’t it be exciting if Hillary left the country soon?



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

And he left continue to cannibalize their own lol. Page throws the DOJ and the Clintons under the bus. I wonder if her life expectancy is now about the same as a grunt dropped into Vietnam in 1964?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks, J&C -- I've got some reading to do! Thanks for linking your thread too. I remembered that and was going to hunt it up as well, so you saved me the trouble! I also need to re-visit my thread about "Obama wants to know everything..."

So it is the damn filters that allowed them to claim no "evidence" because they didn't see any... and I'm more and more convinced that the unholy alliance between the Feds and the NYPD is much deeper and uglier than we think. Or at least than I previously realized.

Lots of wondering and speculating going on in my head right now. I need to read some more before jumping to conclusions.

Thanks again -- much appreciated!



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Going mainstream viral now. AG Loretta Lynch ordered Hillary protected. Too big to indict.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

Who was Loretta Lynch's boss? hmmm??




posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I'm wondering if Lisa was intentionally extremely careless ? 😆



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Obama's administration will be remembered as the most corrupt in American history.


Re-quoting for liberals' meltdown.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Let this sink in:

RATCLIFFE:

“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 —"

PAGE:

"That is correct."

edit on 13-3-2019 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

This was before the "investigation" was complete?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: IAMTAT

This was before the "investigation" was complete?


Orders from Obama DOJ...back when FBI was considering charging HRC.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Where were these supposed transcripts obtained?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

The OP gives no source for this. None at all. Where did this information allegedly come from.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Where were these supposed transcripts obtained?


You are questioning the validity of the Page transcripts?

TRANSCRIPTS for SILLY:
dougcollins.house.gov...

edit on 13-3-2019 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

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.

There you are!

You are not going to argue what was said, just how the transcripts were obtained?

Lol

Have you heard the news lately about how the dossier was obtained?

Lol



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Also, is Washington Post good enough for you? It's not only on Fox News.

You should be prepared 'cause your fake reality is about to be blown out of space.
edit on 13/3/2019 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join