Lisa Page: DOJ told FBI not to charge Clinton

Lisa Page: DOJ told FBI not to charge Clinton

Lisa Page: DOJ told FBI not to charge Clinton

Tuesday, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) released the 300 page transcript of former FBI attorney Lisa Page’s July 2018 testimony. It isn’t surprising the media has basically ignored Collins’ actions. It doesn’t fit the narrative they’ve so carefully crafted. More than that, Page’s testimony is in direct conflict with statements made by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. It may also focus negative attention once again on former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–and not a moment too soon. It is well past time for justice to be served.

A little background. Page came to our attention not only because of the many texts she shared with former FBI agent Peter Strzok, texts that made it clear they had no problem doing whatever it took to keep Donald Trump from becoming president. During her testimony She “defended herself and the bureau last year against accusations that anti-Trump bias affected federal investigations of the Trump campaign’s suspected Russia ties and of Hillary Clinton’s emails.”

What hasn’t gotten a lot of play in the media are the discussions Page and other members of the FBI, including former Director James Comey, had concerning possible charges against Hillary Clinton. According to the Washington Examiner, they “discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence,’  but the Justice Department shut them down’.”

Wait, that seems to be at odds with what we heard at the time from AG Lynch. After her 30-minute “chance encounter” with former President Bill Clinton on an airfield tarmac, Lynch announced in June 2016 that she would defer to the FBI when it came to charges against HRC.

Even Ms. Lynch’s explanation of how she planned to distance herself from the case — without recusing herself — required further clarification. “The case will be resolved by the team that’s been working on it from the beginning,” she said in Aspen.”

Hmm, but is that what really happened?

According to Page, no.

When Comey “cleared” Clinton of any wrongdoing July 5, 2016, many of us couldn’t believe it. How could they not have charged her with violating federal law by using her personal server, not to mention her dubious handling of classified information? If we’re to believe Page, they did it because they were told to.

Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. ‘We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,’ she said.”

So what is gross negligence in the handling of national defense information?

According to 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.”

That seems fairly straight-forward to me. Yet, according to Page, “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.” Doesn’t that sound like DOJ, and Lynch, were deciding whether or not to charge Clinton, and bending over backward to avoid it, instead of deferring to the FBI?

Not only was this a point of contention between the FBI and DOJ, it was one they revisited a number of times. Each time, they were told the DOJ felt “it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable.” That really sounds like they were making the decision not to follow the FBI’s recommendation.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) apparently thought so as well. He asked Page if the FBI received a “direct order” from the DOJ not to charge Clinton. Her response? “That’s correct.”

Several things are clear from Page’s testimony. She did not want Trump to become president. She also spoke against Clinton. Whether that was because she knew it would play better for her with the Republican controlled Congress if she did or if she was simply trying to tell the truth, we will probably never know. But it all leads to this: if Page is telling the truth, Lynch, at best, hedged the truth about how she would respond to the FBI recommendations concerning HRC. At worst, she acted to obstruct justice.

So where are the howls of outrage from the media? If the media wants to be taken seriously and trusted, it must apply the same standards to the Obama Administration that it does to the Trump Administration. But it hasn’t and it won’t. Mainstream media is the best campaign tool the Democrats have. It might as well admit to being the DNC’s PR arm.

So it is up to us to demand to see the rest of the testimony from the hearings. It is up to us to demand justice, the same justice the Dems demand when it comes to the current administration. As for Lynch, one has to wonder if she really believed the statue was too vague or if she was repaying Bill Clinton for appointing her US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Was it a cover-up?

Something smelled in the Obama Administration and it continues to stink up things in Washington today. Worse, there is little hope anything will be done, at least not as long as the Dems control the House. Between doing their best to get Trump out of the White House and the divisions within their own party, they aren’t going to do anything that might cast a shadow on St. Obama’s legacy.

 

Welcome, Instapundit Readers!

Featured Image: Hillary Clinton by DonkeyHotey. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.o

 

Written by

8 Comments
  • SFC D says:

    There are a whole bunch of mostly-former military members who have run afoul (wittingly or unwittingly) of that “constitutionally vague” statute that now need to appeal their convictions. We now have “The Hillary Defense” in cases of intentional or intentional mishandling of classified information and equipment. Bullshit. There’s nothing vague in that statute, anyone who has ever held a government clearance understands it clearly. This is the handiwork of Obama and Holder, the comedy team that brought you the “Fast and Furious” fatal circle-jerk..

  • Van Slyke says:

    So, when are the Republicans going to hold their own investigations into the corrupt Democrats? It seems crystal clear there was a conspiracy by the DNC to attempt to incriminate the Trump campaign, and win the election by default. In all fairness someone needs to go to jail over this scam.

  • Richard says:

    Obstruction of Justice by Obama and Loretta Lynch. With real evidence, not fake news.

  • Ray Hause says:

    My real concern will be if the new AG will act on any of the corruption or will he protect all of attorney peers.

    a

  • MIke says:

    There was also a bunch of emails released by Wikileaks in the past month or so that showed that the infamous tarmac meeting was about Bill Clinton offering Loretta Lynch a seat on the Supreme Court if sh could make the “investigations” regarding Hillary “go away”. Remember Obama – or whoever the hell he really is – was desperately trying to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so he could appoint her replacement. Obama and Holder are very close – Holder’s wife – Sharon Malone Holder and Loretta Lynch are sorority sisters – they are also founding members of the first all black sorority at Harvard. So the pieces all fall together. If you have never heard of a little cult called SUBUD you should look it up. For starters – the Hawaiian official that certified Barry’s Hawaiian birth certificate – Loretta Fuddy – was a member of this cult. Stanley Ann Dunham was also a member of this cult. The cult originated in Indonesia and has it’s U.S. headquarters in Chicago. Oprah Winfrey teaches SUBUD and George Soros has been funding SUBUD for decades. Soros is also connected to a British company that provides voting machines for 16 states. Chelsea Clinton’s husband – Marc Mezvinsky – is said to be Soros’ nephew. The left denies this – but Chelsea’s – $5,000,000 – Clinton Trust – I mean “Foundation” 😉 paid for wedding was held at one of Soros’ New York estates. Why?

  • […] They drove it by excluding "gross negligence" as a factor, despite that being in the law as written. Page's testimony here contradicts Comey's dramatic speech clearing Clinton, as well as AG Lynch's claim she would let the FBI make the decision after her improper meeting with William Clinton. A little more detail here. […]

  • Jeanna Green says:

    This is why so many Americans have lost their respect and trust in our Justice and Government. They all seem to have lost their minds and refuse to stop the playground fighting. Seems American didn’t only elect liars, but worse yet childish incompetent liars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram