╌>

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

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  5 years ago  •  207 comments

Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says
Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information...Rep John Ratcliffe

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



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.

Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved,  exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages   in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page's testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI's supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton's criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged.

"So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory," Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a   transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter . "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 interrupted: "That is correct," as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, " -- bring a case based on that."

The document dump was part of a major release by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, who on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump. Fox News has previously   reviewed portions of Page's testimony .

Page also testified that the DOJ and FBI had "multiple conversations ... about charging gross negligence," and the DOJ decided that the term was "constitutionally vague" and "had either never been done or had only been done once like 99 years ago," and so "they did not feel they could sustain a charge."

lisa20page20peter20strzok20AP.jpg?ve=1&t
Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page and fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok exchanged anti-Trump text messages during their time at the bureau.  (AP, File)

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey publicly announced at a bombshell press conference that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in handling classified information, but insisted that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

Federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines, and there is no requirement that defendants act intentionally or recklessly.

Originally Comey accused the former secretary of state of being “grossly negligent” in handling classified information in a draft dated May 2, 2016, but that   was modified to claim that Clinton had merely been “extremely careless”   in a draft dated June 10, 2016.

Comey also said that "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

He added that "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges," including "the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent."
Comey took the unusual step of holding a press conference and announcing the FBI's purportedly independent conclusions because then-Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch  was spotted meeting secretly with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac as the probe  into Hillary Clinton, which Lynch was overseeing, continued.

D1gWS1HWkAADjMK.jpg

Comey's conclusion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Clinton has become the subject of significant debate in recent weeks. It was revealed last month that FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails' contents sent through her private server.

And he  believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation , according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Strzok and Page were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election, and later served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

Among the texts between the two was one concerning the so-called "insurance policy." 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.

Further, she confirmed investigators only had a "paucity" of evidence at the start. Comey, last December, similarly acknowledged that when the FBI initiated its counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government in July 2016, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."

Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., kicked off that section of questioning by asking about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016 which read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe's] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

The former FBI lawyer explained how the FBI was trying to strike a balance with the investigation into the Trump campaign—which agents called   “Crossfire Hurricane ," in a   nod to a Rolling Stones song.

“So, upon the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” Page said. “And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”

Page continued that, “if the answer is this is a guy just being puffery at a meeting with other people, great, then we don’t need to worry about this, and we can all move on with our lives; if this is, in fact, the Russians have coopted an individual with, you know, maybe wittingly or unwittingly, that’s incredibly grave, and we need to know that as quickly as possible.”

Page explained that the text message reflected their “continuing check-in” as to “how quickly to operate.”

“[W]e don’t need to go at a total breakneck speed because so long as he doesn’t become President, there isn’t the same threat to national security, right,” Page explained, while saying that if Trump were not elected president, the bureau would still investigate.

“But if he becomes president, that totally changes the game because now he is the President of the United States,” Page told lawmakers. “He’s going to immediately start receiving classified briefings. He’s going to be exposed to the most sensitive secrets imaginable. And if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”




By  Gregg Re








Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Here is the confirmation (from the horses mouth) on what any reasonable person already knew

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

Well, well, well. What a surprise ... not!

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

How is it that a failed Kenyan President like Obama can order the FBI to stand down while God's own greatest President ever Trump can't seem to pull it off?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2    5 years ago

race is off topic!!!

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    5 years ago

Kenyan is not a race.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
1.3  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

Wow so much right wing bullshit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

But, but, but her e-mails.

Give it a rest!

Isn't that horse long dead?

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
2.2  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago

I concur.  I was just going to say, 'how quaint'!  As if this comes close to anything being done in the last 2 years.   Oh, and that little bit about the gop's ongoing investigations into everything Hillary for years prior to 2016.   Coming up with .....................nada.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @2.2    5 years ago
Coming up with .....................nada.

Thanks to Obama's rats

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
2.2.2  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    5 years ago

lol.  Where's the conviction? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

I wonder what W alter Cronkite would have said....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    5 years ago

He would have taken a deep breathe and said "about 20 minutes ago the FBI attempted a coup"....

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
3.2  Don Overton  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    5 years ago

Kick the republicans out of office would be his  advice

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Don Overton @3.2    5 years ago

Personally, I think that if he saw what was happening these days in the USA, he would have tearfully said: "Oh...the humanity" (imitating radio announced Morrison on viewing the Hindenburg disaster).

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5  igknorantzrulz    5 years ago

the only thing that stands out in this is

"if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”

Yet all of you farr righties can't or didn't, purposely or not, fricken see it.

R u Ostriches, or R u Ckickens, chicken frickenseeitz not ...?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5    5 years ago
"if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”

The George W Bush DOJ could have wondered the same thing about President-elect Obama's team contacting Iranian officials, but to their credit never crossed that line!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    5 years ago

orange you proud... You can't grow a pear, and compear it to an

Apple of your ire, as your souls sole desire, is on display,

and to me, it looks kinda, fruity   pebbles thrown in bullet proof glass houses, don't mean a damn damn , or is it Bam Bam    cause he is of the Rubles , and when Flynt throws his Stones,,  n 2 cents in,   maybe 

you'll see a Manaforte get pardoned         but    Y  ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.1    5 years ago
you'll see a Manaforte get pardoned

Paul Manafort (not Manaforte) was the closest thing Mueller had to some kind of interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia, thus the Mueller team went after him with all guns blazing, trying to put him in prison for the rest of his life and all they could come up with was "tax fraud" and "an agent of the Ukraine".

After all that investigating!

By Trump haters!

And everyone knows it!  Game over!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    5 years ago

Nope, not yet.  He still faces charges in the SDNY.  I don't think they'll be so lenient like Judge Ellis - I wonder how much he was paid - Ellis that is?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    5 years ago
Game over!

y   do you have two sets of standards ?

Hillary should be arrested for passing gas

Trump should be praised for , you must have heard,

catching up and passing lil' kim some Mustard Gas, as he relishes those buns, little kim keeps warm, by nuking them, and lovin him, long time!

.

Hillary is so much cleaner than this Weiner, hot dawgin as a citizen senior', surrounded buy Mexican bought Walls, believed by bar b qued brainless without the balls, peep holes unables to see that the turnin of the tables doesn't open more doors,

only creates more unsuspecting whores,

getting fuked over   for the money, they were fuced over 

 FORE

playing through !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.3    5 years ago

Manafort?   I think you have your wires crossed.  He is facing sentencing in US District Court in Washington DC, right now as a matter of fact

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.4    5 years ago
playing through !

Something tells me you were a fan of Adam Sandler's "Opera Singer" on SNL, am I correct?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    5 years ago

not familiar, but i'll check out 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.7    5 years ago

I think you'll like it

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.5    5 years ago

Everyone associated with this scum Rump is so corrupt it's hard to keep straight!

Manafort Is Expected to Face Charges in New York, Even if Trump Pardons Him

Paul J. Manafort arriving at court in Washington, D.C., in 2017. Credit Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
22NYMANAFORT-articleLarge-v2.jpg?quality
Imag

[What you need to know to start the day:   Get New York Today in your inbox .]

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is preparing state criminal charges against Paul J. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, in an effort to ensure he will still face prison time even if the president pardons him for his federal crimes, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

Mr. Manafort is scheduled to be sentenced next month for convictions in two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. He faces up to   25 years in prison   for tax and bank fraud and additional time for conspiracy counts in a related case. It could effectively be a life sentence for Mr. Manafort, who turns 70 in April.

The president has broad power to   issue pardons for federal crimes , but no such authority in state cases. And while there has been no clear indication that Mr. Trump intends to pardon Mr. Manafort, the president has spoken repeatedly of his pardon power and defended his former campaign chairman on a number of occasions,   calling him a “brave man.”

The office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., first began investigating Mr. Manafort in 2017 in connection with loans he received from two banks. Those loans were also the subject of some of the counts in the federal indictment that led to his conviction last year. But the state prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

They resumed their investigation in recent months, and a state grand jury began hearing evidence in the case, several people with knowledge of the matter said. The panel is expected to wrap up its work in the coming weeks, several of the people said, and prosecutors likely will ask the grand jurors to vote on charges shortly thereafter.

Mr. Vance’s office is expected to seek charges whether or not the president pardons Mr. Manafort. The plan was   first reported   by Bloomberg.

Any charges brought by Mr. Vance’s office would likely be challenged on double jeopardy grounds. New York state law includes stronger protections than those provided by the United States Constitution, and Mr. Manafort’s defense team is likely to challenge any state charges. But prosecutors in Mr. Vance’s office have expressed confidence that they would prevail, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Mr. Manafort, said his legal team had no comment. Mr. Vance’s office also had no comment.

Mr. Manafort, who worked for Mr. Trump’s campaign during a critical five months when he became the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2016, was convicted in federal court in Virginia in August on eight counts of various financial crimes. Prosecutors said Mr. Manafort used foreign accounts to hide millions of dollars from his political consulting work in Ukraine and evade taxes, and lied to banks to obtain millions of dollars in loans.

Weeks later, he agreed to plead guilty in a related case in federal court in Washington, D.C., and cooperate with prosecutors from Mr. Mueller’s office. But the deal blew up   when a judge ruled he had repeatedly lied   to the government about his contact with a Russian associate during the campaign and after the election. Prosecutors claim that the associate,   Konstantin V. Kilimnik , has ties to Russian intelligence, and have been investigating whether he was involved in a covert attempt to influence the election results.

In the Manhattan case, the evidence presented to a grand jury appears to have been connected to loans issued by Citizens Bank in Rhode Island and Federal Savings Bank in Chicago.

The banks have received grand jury subpoenas for records relating to the loans they issued to Mr. Manafort, which were worth millions of dollars, people with knowledge of the matter said. The grand jury has also been hearing testimony about the loans. Citizens Bank has been cooperating with the investigation, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings Bank did not respond to a request for comment.

It is unclear precisely what charges Mr. Manafort would face, but they could include two state felonies: falsifying business records, if the evidence shows Mr. Manafort used the loan money for an unauthorized purpose, and mortgage fraud.

Correction:  Feb. 22, 2019

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of counts Paul J. Manafort was convicted on. It was eight counts, not 10.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.9    5 years ago

Touche!  I forgot that there was an effort to counter any possible pardon. Shame on Cyrus R. Vance 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    5 years ago

No, shame on Rump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    5 years ago

Thanks to the American people!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.12    5 years ago
Thanks to

Manaforte's lawyers, Trump, their audience of one, knows that there is no collusion...???????????????

WTF r they saying, was Manaforte ever even charged with collusion ???

WTF is collusion anyway ?  Another made up Trump word, as Trump has consistently proven, his word is always made up.

Conspiracy has already been proven by Trump himself, but, one has to wonder, why the hell are Manaforte's layers mntioning crims their traitorous client, was never ever even accused of ...?

please enlighten oh defenders of the indefensibull shitter , also known as the POS POTUS

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.13    5 years ago
Conspiracy has already been proven by Trump himself,

Oh, then where are the charges or the impeachment proceedings?  Yup, Trump gave himself up!/Sar

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    5 years ago

That is the only reason for the indictments in New York, so Trump cannot pardon him if found guilty. Hopefully if he is found guilty, he will appeal to an appeals court and they will see that it is actually double jeopardy, disguising these charges as the same he was convicted on but as civil charges.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.14    5 years ago

Oh good. I sure hope somebody will let us know when he is found guilty in a court of law and convicted...jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
5.1.17  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    5 years ago

So tax fraud, foreign agent (who LIED), money laundering, giving RUSSIANS valuable political information along with obstruction, lying under oath, witness tampering, none of that is important?  Aren't you part of a party that considers crimes by everybody else earthshatteringly massive?  Any mistake one makes is ones own fault, so deal with the consequences?   What kind of fricken values do conservative have, anyway?  None that we can see.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
5.1.18  lib50  replied to  bugsy @5.1.15    5 years ago
double jeopardy,

oops, that is incorrect.  Different crimes. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    5 years ago

The prosecutors told the FBI it was not a winnable case.  Big deal.

I truly feel sorry for people who are in thrall to right wing media. The ignorance becomes boundless.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    5 years ago
The prosecutors told the FBI it was not a winnable case.

James Baker the FBI's chief legal counsel disagreed. He had to be persuaded that there was nothing to prosecute:

Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.”

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
7  Galen Marvin Ross    5 years ago

FOX Noise and, a Republican Representatives word that this is the testimony Page gave......yep, that's believable, NOT.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7    5 years ago

jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2    5 years ago

is that a selfie ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.2.1    5 years ago

That is what comment #7 is all about

 
 
 
cms5
Freshman Quiet
7.2.3  cms5  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.2    5 years ago

you forgot to ad the 'la..la...la...la..la' to it.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8  igknorantzrulz    5 years ago

manaforte sentenced to 7.5 years,

yea, nothing to see here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8    5 years ago

And what about Tony Podesta?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.2  lady in black  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8    5 years ago

But, but, but, that's okay because he's a republican and a trump kiss ass

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @8.2    5 years ago

So where does Mueller go from here?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.2.2  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.1    5 years ago

Why does he have to go anywhere, we still don't know what he has.  Patience is a virtue.  Now tell how many years Ken Starr investigated, how many years of Benghazi investigations.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @8.2.2    5 years ago
'Why does he have to go anywhere, we still don't know what he has.  Patience is a virtue.  Now tell how many years Ken Starr investigated, how many years of Benghazi investigations. '

Where they found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - going back 20 years or more - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

While the Rump administration . . . . . 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @8.2.2    5 years ago
Why does he have to go anywhere

Let's see. there was no criminal predicate for the investigation which is over two years old, preceded by an FBI counter intelligence investigation which began in July of 2016 with fraudulent FISA warrants, leaking, unmasking and spying on American citizens. We have convictions of individuals who briefly had something to do with the Trump campaign on "crimes" mostly involving perjury involving FBI interviews, yet nothing to do with Russia. And you say Mueller need not go anywhere in particular?

Now tell how many years Ken Starr investigated, how many years of Benghazi investigations.  

Is this retaliation?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.2.5  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.4    5 years ago

Of course it's not, my point is these investigations take time and republicans didn't bitch, moan, complain, and cry fake news when those investigations were going on now did they, but they think Mueller should be done by now, and it's only because it's trump

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @8.2.5    5 years ago
my point is these investigations take time

They don't just take time, they can stifle an administration and it seems that may be all that this one is about at this point.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.2.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.4    5 years ago
We have convictions of individuals who briefly had something to do with the Trump campaign on "crimes" mostly involving perjury involving FBI interviews, yet nothing to do with Russia.

that is a Lie

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.2.8  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.6    5 years ago

Baloney

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.2.7    5 years ago

Really?  Let's see who is lying!  Which of those connected to the Trump campaign was convicted of conspiracy with Russia?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @8.2.8    5 years ago
Baloney

Baloney is not an argument. Maybe you could make one

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
8.2.11  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.6    5 years ago

Right out of the GOP playbook.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @8.2.11    5 years ago

At least the Whitewater investigation was based on a CRIME. An investigation in which Hillary first learned the importance of evidence disappearing!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.12    5 years ago

There was no CRIME committed by the Clintons then, now, or ever.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.13    5 years ago

No?  Don't you remember the evidence that magically appeared after the statute of limitations ran out?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.2.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.9    5 years ago
Which of those connected to the Trump campaign was convicted of conspiracy with Russia?

you may wish to wait for ALL of the evidence to come out, or to you, KNOWING ALL OF THE FACTS

would be silly, when it comes to making 

AN INFORMED DECISION

. "

We have convictions of individuals who briefly had something to do with the Trump campaign on "crimes" mostly involving perjury involving FBI interviews, yet nothing to do with Russia  "

.

"  nothing to do with Russia  "

How the Hell can you say that with a straight face ? or are you wearing a Hillary mask, as Trump would n could attest to, if there was a test Trump could pass

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.13    5 years ago
There was no CRIME committed by the Clintons then, now, or ever.

Then that makes it extraordinary that Bill Clinton was assessed a fine of $25k and had his Arkansas law license suspended for 5 years and was barred from arguing cases in front of SCOTUS, which he never bothered to fight.

I mean, I know LOTS of totally innocent people who pay huge fines for absolutely no reason and aren't allowed to practice their occupation in their home state.

/S

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.2.15    5 years ago

I'll take that as an "I don't have an answer".

I rest my case, your'e honor

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.14    5 years ago
'No?  Don't you remember the evidence that magically appeared after the statute of limitations ran out?'

No, do you?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.18    5 years ago

Um-hum:

"Conveniently for Hillary, a box of billing records mysteriously disappeared. For nearly two years, Starr and his investigators tried to get their hands on the  records  with searches and subpoenas.

In early January of 1996, the statutory clock ran out precluding civil lawsuits against professionals offering fraudulent advice to cover tracks. That same day, the Resolution Trust Corporation, charged with bailing out the savings and loan industry, shut down. One of its final acts of business was to announce a decision, “not to bring a civil lawsuit against the President or First Lady for the losses that the Whitewater land venture caused Madison.”

Four days later a box containing Hillary’s treasured billing records related to Madison and Castle Grande was “discovered” in a white house storage room."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.18    5 years ago

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm...

Enjoy!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.20    5 years ago

Those papers did more White House travelling than Monica Lewinsky

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.21    5 years ago

I don't think we'll be hearing much more about this from a certain poster.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.22    5 years ago

I'm not going anywhere.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.20    5 years ago
...

Page Not Found

We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.

From your link

Enjoy!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.22    5 years ago

The truth stings for a bit, but it's not fatal.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
8.2.26  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.24    5 years ago
...
Page Not Found

We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,but we don’t want to lose you.

From your link

Enjoy!

Try this one....

Seems like they just changed the URL pointing to it....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.24    5 years ago
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm...

Yeah, you might actually have to do a little work on your own, as the story was before the NYT digitalized their content.

I can't spoon-feed you EVERYTHING, you know.

From the NYT:

Elusive Papers of Law Firm Are Found at White House
By STEPHEN LABATONJAN. 6, 1996
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
Federal and Congressional investigators have issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House has said it did not have them. The originals disappeared from the Rose Law Firm, in which Mrs. Clinton was a partner, shortly before Mr. Clinton took office.
The newly discovered documents are copies of billing records from the Rose firm, where Mrs. Clinton helped represent Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan run by James B. McDougal, the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater land venture. The originals are still missing. Investigators have been seeking the documents to determine the role Mrs. Clinton played in the firm's representation of the savings and loan.
The Clintons' personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, said tonight that the documents show that the work Mrs. Clinton performed was limited both in time and scope, as she has repeatedly said.
But Representative Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who heads the House Banking Committee, said he believed the billing records contradict Mrs. Clinton's account of her involvement with Madison, and show that her legal work for the savings and loan was "extensive and detailed."
Continue reading the main story

ADVERTISEMENT

Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Republican of New York, tonight called the discovery of the copies of the records "the second miraculous discovery within the past 24 hours."
Mr. D'Amato, who is chairman of the Senate Whitewater committee, was referring to the disclosure on Thursday of a two-year-old memorandum written by a former Presidential aide. The memorandum said that Mrs. Clinton had played a far greater role in the dismissal of employees of the White House travel office than the Administration has acknowledged.
By their sheer volume -- 115 pages -- and the variety of contacts and conferences they document, the Rose billing records raise new questions about Mrs. Clinton's account of her work that are likely to give new impetus to investigations in Congress and by Federal prosecutors.
For example, the records, which refer to Mrs. Clinton at various points as H.R.C., Hillary Clinton or H. Clinton, show she billed Madison for more than a dozen discussions with an Arkansas businessman, Seth Ward. Mr. Ward played a leading role in one of Madison's largest losses, a $4 million land deal that regulators later criticized the Rose firm for helping structure. Mr. Ward is the father-in-law of the former associate attorney general, Webster L. Hubbell, who was also a partner in the Rose firm.
The release of the records is the latest of several instances in which the Clinton White House has declared a document search to be exhaustive, only to later stumble on important material. For example, White House officials initially said that Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel, left no indication of why he committed suicide on July 20, 1993. But later, an aide found the remnants of a note describing Mr. Foster's disenchantment with Washington.
Mr. Kendall said the Rose billing records were discovered in the White House on Thursday night by Carolyn Huber, a White House aide and former office manager of the Rose firm. He also said Mrs. Clinton was not aware until today that the records had been in the White House.
Henry F. Schuelke, a lawyer for Mrs. Huber, said tonight that she found the records in a storage area in the third-floor private residence at the White House where unsolicited gifts to the President and First Lady are stored before being sorted and catalogued.
Mr. Schuelke said Mrs. Huber did not know who placed the records in the storage area or how long the material might have been there. "It could have been there for months," he said. "She has no idea how long it was there."
He said she discovered the material after she had brought the documents, along with some of the unsolicited gifts, to her own office in the White House East Wing.
When she examined the documents, Mr. Shuelke said, she realized the materials might be relevant to the various inquiries. Mr. Schuelke said she then called him and alerted Mr. Kendall.
Mr. Kendall declined to say why Mrs. Huber had been going through the files or how the Rose documents could have come into the possession of the White House in the first place. He also declined to answer questions about why they were not discovered sooner.
The White House has said it searched Mrs. Huber's files in 1994 in response to subpoenas.
Last Sunday the statute of limitations expired for a variety of civil lawsuits that may be brought against professionals who fraudulently advised corrupt savings associations. On the same day, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency that had supervised the bailout of the savings and loan industry, closed down.
In one of its final acts, the trust corporation issued a report announcing its decision not to bring a civil lawsuit against the President or First Lady for the losses that the Whitewater land venture caused Madison. The savings and loan had provided some of the financing for the failed land venture. The Clintons have cited the report as evidence of complete exoneration in the matter.
But the investigators who wrote the report have said their examination had been hampered by their inability to find the Rose firm billing records.
Congressional and Federal investigators had been searching in vain for the billing records in an effort to reconstruct Mrs. Clinton's role in representing Madison in 1985 and 1986, as the savings and loan was coming under greater financial strain and fearing an upcoming Federal examination.

Government examiners found that the savings and loan, which failed in 1989 at a cost to taxpayers of more than $60 million, was riddled with corruption.
The documents Mrs. Huber found consist of copies of billing invoices to Madison, along with copies of computer printouts that break down which Rose lawyers handled particular matters. The documents are annotated with the red ink handwriting of Mr. Foster, who was also a former Rose partner. It is unclear when Mr. Foster made his annotations. But the computer-generated documents appear to have been printed on Feb. 12, 1992. During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Foster was involved in assisting the Clintons in responding to questions about Mrs. Clinton's role in representing Madison.
Investigators have also been trying to determine whether Mrs. Clinton sought to block Justice Department lawyers from examining files in Mr. Foster's office in the days after his death. White House aides searched the office and brought files to the Clintons' private residence before allowing investigators to look at them.
Mrs. Huber has testified before Congress that she put files from Mr. Foster's office in a closet in the private residence two days after his death.
Mr. Kendall said he knew of no evidence that the copies of the billing records Mrs. Huber found had been in Mr. Foster's office.
During the Presidential campaign and since Mr. Clinton has taken office, Mrs. Clinton has said her involvement with Madison was minimal.
"It was not an area that I practiced in, it was not an area that I really know anything, to speak of, about," she said in an April 23, 1994, news conference, in response to a question about whether she had worked on Madison matters before state regulators appointed by her husband.
Mr. Kendall said tonight that the records would "confirm what we have said all along about the nature and amount of the work done by the Rose Law Firm and Mrs. Clinton for Madison."
The records show that Mrs. Clinton billed for a wide range of legal services on behalf of Madison, including numerous conferences with Madison executives and lawyers in her own law firm. The records also show that Mrs. Clinton reviewed numerous documents at a time when the Rose firm was seeking approval before state regulators for Madison to get a broker-dealer license and to sell preferred stock.
They show that on April 29, 1985, the day before the Rose firm submitted a request for the state securities commissioner to approve a financing plan for Madison, Mrs. Clinton had two telephone conferences totaling one hour. One was with the state securities commissioner who had been appointed three months earlier by then-Governor Clinton. The other was with an associate at the Rose firm, Richard Massey, whom she was supervising. The records do not show the length of the individual calls.
Another billing entry, dated Feb. 17, 1986, shows that Mrs. Clinton worked on a "response to auditors' request," an indication that she and her firm worked with the same auditors that they later sued over their work on Madison.
The records also show that Mr. Massey provided legal advice about a rule that limited Madison's ability to invest in speculative real estate. Examiners later found that Madison executives used Mr. Ward to structure a deal in order to improperly circumvent that rule.
The records show more than a dozen contacts that Mrs. Clinton had with Mr. Ward. They are not clear about what was discussed, but the fact that Mrs. Clinton billed them to Madison shows that they were not connected to whatever other dealings the Rose firm may have had with Mr. Ward, a client of the firm.
One entry indicates that Mrs. Clinton worked on an option agreement that Mr. Ward entered into with Madison in May 1986, in which Madison agreed to pay him $400,000 for a parcel of land.
Mr. McDougal, Madison's founder, has said in an interview in 1992 that he hired Mrs. Clinton's firm at the Governor's request.
By his account, the Governor stopped by the Madison office in Little Rock while jogging one late summer's day in 1984.
"He said they were having a hard time financially," Mr. McDougal recalled. "Bill said, 'Could we give Hillary some legal work?' We got that settled."
The meeting described by Mr. McDougal came at a delicate moment for Madison. Federal examiners had just put the savings and loan under heightened scrutiny because of its deteriorating financial condition. Madison, records show, was already paying another leading Little Rock law firm for legal advice. Nonetheless, the savings and loan began paying the Rose firm $2,000 a month.
Both Clintons have denied Mr. McDougal's account.

ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.22    5 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.27    5 years ago

I read nowhere's link.

You were correct, ONCE.

I'll mark it on my calendar.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.28    5 years ago
So you were correct, ONCE! LOL

And you were incorrect, AGAIN!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.30    5 years ago

I was incorrect once.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.2.33  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.17    5 years ago
"I don't have an answer".

Manaforte gave hundreds of pages of electorial tracking to a Russian oligarch, who is tied to Putin , as all oligarchs of Russia are.

,

but the HEAD OF TRUMPS CAMPAIGN giving all of this VITAL INFORMATION to someone from RUSSIA, somehow Proves to you,

there is no proof of Russian collusion

sorry Vic, that maks absolutely no sense 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.35  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.2.33    5 years ago

Wow! That trivia constitutes collusion?

I have some good news for ya....the New York DA just issued a fresh indictment against Manafort. There you are!



Now no pardon

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.29    5 years ago
I read nowhere's link.

Good, good. Now we are making some progress here.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.2.38  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.13    5 years ago
There was no CRIME committed by the Clintons then, now, or ever.  

 I'm sorry if you believe that but then again it doesn't surprise me.

I have numerous friends that would normally vote Democrat that took a pass on Hillaryious Hillary just because they were not blinded by partisan politics and seen her for the corrupt entitled Bitch she is. #MYTURN

I wonder If Kamila Harris can prostitute herself into a presidential run...….I doubt it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.39  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.36    5 years ago

You got what you wanted.

You're on ignore now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @8.2.38    5 years ago

Corrupt entitled bitch?  

Again we're not talking about the 'president' Rump

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.39    5 years ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.44  Texan1211  replied to  dennis smith @8.2.43    5 years ago
Too much information for some to read and comprehend, so you will no doubt get deflection from responses.

Usually they cry "PROVE IT" and then ignore it when we do!

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.2.45  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.1    5 years ago

My best guess is, Roger Stone and, the Trump kids since the kids run his business right now. Although he may take Roger Stone himself and, let the SDNY and, the NY state attorney's office handle the kids and, the Trump Organization.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9  igknorantzrulz    5 years ago

WHY THE FUCK IS ANY OF THIS BEING DISCUSSED !

Trump is POTUS

People very close and that at one time surrounded him, are dropping, and going to JAIL

WTF is THIS being even DISGUSTED

is what i am with Trump Defenders, as they are most

OFFENSIVE

TO N E THINKING   PEOPLES

.

put a sock in the crock of SHIT ALREADY

.

you people defending Trump should be ashamed you feel not worthy of shame

either completely ignorant, or completely ignorant pretending not to be ignorant completely.

There is NOTHING honest to gain by defending this LIAR in CHIEF, who somehow? surrounded himself with CRIMINALS and LIARS about all things RUSSIAN

.

STop with the StUPID Already

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
9.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9    5 years ago
WHY THE FUCK IS ANY OF THIS BEING DISCUSSED ! Trump is POTUS

You answered your own question. Panicked conservatives are desperately trying to fling as much poo as they can to obfuscate the fact that we have a criminal mob boss destroying America from within the oval office.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
9.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    5 years ago

no

it could only be priority #1 , and by just a really vague coincidence, be sprung and discussed while Manaforte is sentenced, a total of 7.5 years for "nothing" yet again.

oh what an unjustified state, we refuse to unite in

and how they attempt to distract, like Manafortes lawyers, and their audience of one

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1    5 years ago
we have a criminal

Maybe, but no charges yet.

mob boss

Not nearly discrete enough to be a mob boss.  

destroying America from within the oval office.

What, exactly, has been destroyed?  Do tell.  Regale us all with how your life is so tragically worse since the inauguration of Donald Trump.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
9.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Jack_TX @9.1.2    5 years ago
What, exactly, has been destroyed? 

According to most libs, 2 reasons....

1. He liiiiiieessss...and...

2. He's not Hillary

That's it..

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9    5 years ago
put a sock in the crock of SHIT ALREADY

No kidding.

All they have I guess.

trump sucks so Obama had to be guilty of something...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    5 years ago

That is a link to a Bing News search on Lisa Page.

Virtually every one of the listed news sites featuring this story is conservative or a right wing blog. There is nothing with this spin in the "regular" media.

What this tells us is that what Page revealed was not outside of ordinary procedure at all. If it was it damn sure would have been revealed prior to nine months after she gave the testimony.

Right wingers , please stop banging your heads against the wall. It is painful to watch.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
11  lady in black    5 years ago

Moments after the term was handed down, the Manhattan District Attorney's office announced a fresh indictment of Manafort on state charges including mortgage fraud. The case puts the ailing 69-year-old lobbyist who served as Trump's campaign chairman for three months during the tumultuous 2016 election in further legal jeopardy.  

LOVE IT

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
11.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  lady in black @11    5 years ago

he fux over their country, 

and Trump and defenders cheer

for he, and his convictions ?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Participates
12  Larry Hampton    5 years ago

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton,,,Obama, Obama, Obama!

Ppppppphhhhhhtttttttttt

jrSmiley_23_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
12.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Larry Hampton @12    5 years ago

Agweeed! jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13  bugsy    5 years ago

You know....when early pictures of Lisa Page came out, I thought...ugh...typical of many liberal women. Ugly on the inside and out. Now, since recent video and pictures have come out, I realize she has a bit of attractiveness to her, a rarity of the world of liberalism.

Now, before you libs go batshit crazy over my comment, think about what you incessantly post about Sarah Sanders, Sarah Palin,   shit...pretty much EVERY conservative woman.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
14  Dulay    5 years ago

Well gee, I wonder why Rep. Ratcliffe and his GOP cohorts didn't call in David Laufman to testify about his part in deciding not to charge Clinton. 

BTW, here is the first response from Page about the question of gross negligence:

We did not blow over gross negligence. We, in fact, --- and in fact, the Director – because on it's 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.
And 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, and also that it had either never been done of had only been done once like 99 years ago. And so they did not feel that they could sustain a charge.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Thanks to all for keeping it civil. Most of all a thank you to Lisa Page for her honesty at long last.

 
 

Who is online



Vic Eldred
Just Jim NC TttH
Greg Jones
Drinker of the Wry
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


59 visitors