Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email

Jan 2019
1,940
669
southeast
I think Sen. Graham nailed it with this comment..." there are two key questions after the Page revelations: Was the Clinton investigation short-circuited to help her chances at winning the presidency? And was the Russia investigation launched as an "insurance policy" in case Trump won?
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
61,922
50,205
CA
Wasn't that the same report that said EXACTLY the opposite, except for a caveats statement that allowed that sentence to be interpreted as opposite?

Oh ya, that's right, your entire version of events is off a singular sentence in a book that said the opposite.
Nope.

First, the report validates the essential integrity of the investigation. It offers no reason to believe that, in the main, the Clinton email investigation was not a genuine effort by the FBI to learn the facts and apply the law to them in a fashion consistent with Justice Department policy and practice. This point will tend to get lost in the politics of competitive victimization, in which the Clinton forces want to blame their candidate’s ultimate electoral defeat on the bureau and the president wants to ascribe to federal law enforcement a “deep state” conspiracy to conduct a “WITCH HUNT!” against him and go easy on his opponent’s “crimes.” But it is actually the critical starting place. For all that the document finds fault with the bureau—disagreeing with key judgments, accusing the FBI director of “insubordination,” and charging individual agents and employees of “cast[ing] a cloud” over the agency—it never questions that the FBI as an institution was pursuing its proper mission: conducting a serious investigation in good faith.

Second, and relatedly, the IG broadly concludes that the investigation’s judgments were not influenced by politics. Time after time, when the inspector general evaluates how individual decisions were made, he concludes that there were legitimate reasons for the manner in which the FBI obtained evidence and interviewed witnesses—reasons that were consistent with past practice and with Justice Department policy. There are some important caveats: The IG’s office questions the decision to let Clinton be interviewed in the presence of two of her lawyers—a decision the report describes as “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy,” though it notes that there is “no persuasive evidence” their presence “influenced Clinton’s interview.” More importantly, as we discuss below, the inspector general was rightly disturbed by the highly political text-message exchanges between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. Even here, though, the investigation “did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed.” Those steps, the investigation finds, were made by a larger team and “were not unreasonable.” More broadly, although the report is unsparing toward Comey, it finds explicitly that his actions were not influenced by political preferences.

Third, the IG broadly validates the investigation’s conclusion: to decline to seek charges against Clinton or anyone else. The report spends a number of pages detailing the prosecutors’ reasons for not recommending charges. The prosecutors told the IG of a host of reasons why they couldn’t establish the necessary criminal intent to bring charges under the relevant statutes. Not one of the emails in question had the required classification markers, for example. No evidence supported the notion that Clinton or the people sending emails to her knew the contents were classified. Clinton and her correspondents sent the emails to government officers in support of official business, and there exists no history of charging people under such circumstances. None of the subjects intended to send classified information to unauthorized parties or to store such information on unauthorized networks. The senders frequently refrained from using specific classified details, facts or terms in their emails. Mishandling of classified information at the State Department was such a widespread practice that it was difficult for prosecutors to establish specific criminal intent on behalf of Clinton or the other senders. The report concludes that prosecutors applied those facts to the relevant statutes and the Justice Department’s policies on those statutes in a sober and unbiased manner: “We found that the prosecutors’ decision was based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice in cases involving these statutes. We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-takeaways-inspector-generals-report-clinton-email-investigation
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
61,922
50,205
CA
I think Sen. Graham nailed it with this comment..." there are two key questions after the Page revelations: Was the Clinton investigation short-circuited to help her chances at winning the presidency? And was the Russia investigation launched as an "insurance policy" in case Trump won?
LOL - I guess he has drunk the Trump kool=aid. He does not believe several IA agencies anymore?
 
Jan 2019
1,940
669
southeast
It does not work that way

He fired Comey over Russia

That could be potential Obstruction of Justice

Unless you disagree with Trump's ow DOJ...
What was he obstructing? The Mueller Probe is still ongoing. If he wanted that to stop he could end and if he wants to fire his AG he can do that too.
 
Likes: spyydrr
Nov 2018
4,492
1,134
Bel Air, MD
It does not work that way

He fired Comey over Russia

That could be potential Obstruction of Justice

Unless you disagree with Trump's ow DOJ...

You do know that Obama was already spying on Trump, don't you? And, explain the "potential" Obstruction of Justice?

And, we have yet to see anything regarding Trump/Russian collusion.
 
Oct 2014
28,549
4,835
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Nope.

First, the report validates the essential integrity of the investigation. It offers no reason to believe that, in the main, the Clinton email investigation was not a genuine effort by the FBI to learn the facts and apply the law to them in a fashion consistent with Justice Department policy and practice. This point will tend to get lost in the politics of competitive victimization, in which the Clinton forces want to blame their candidate’s ultimate electoral defeat on the bureau and the president wants to ascribe to federal law enforcement a “deep state” conspiracy to conduct a “WITCH HUNT!” against him and go easy on his opponent’s “crimes.” But it is actually the critical starting place. For all that the document finds fault with the bureau—disagreeing with key judgments, accusing the FBI director of “insubordination,” and charging individual agents and employees of “cast[ing] a cloud” over the agency—it never questions that the FBI as an institution was pursuing its proper mission: conducting a serious investigation in good faith.

Second, and relatedly, the IG broadly concludes that the investigation’s judgments were not influenced by politics. Time after time, when the inspector general evaluates how individual decisions were made, he concludes that there were legitimate reasons for the manner in which the FBI obtained evidence and interviewed witnesses—reasons that were consistent with past practice and with Justice Department policy. There are some important caveats: The IG’s office questions the decision to let Clinton be interviewed in the presence of two of her lawyers—a decision the report describes as “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy,” though it notes that there is “no persuasive evidence” their presence “influenced Clinton’s interview.” More importantly, as we discuss below, the inspector general was rightly disturbed by the highly political text-message exchanges between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. Even here, though, the investigation “did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed.” Those steps, the investigation finds, were made by a larger team and “were not unreasonable.” More broadly, although the report is unsparing toward Comey, it finds explicitly that his actions were not influenced by political preferences.

Third, the IG broadly validates the investigation’s conclusion: to decline to seek charges against Clinton or anyone else. The report spends a number of pages detailing the prosecutors’ reasons for not recommending charges. The prosecutors told the IG of a host of reasons why they couldn’t establish the necessary criminal intent to bring charges under the relevant statutes. Not one of the emails in question had the required classification markers, for example. No evidence supported the notion that Clinton or the people sending emails to her knew the contents were classified. Clinton and her correspondents sent the emails to government officers in support of official business, and there exists no history of charging people under such circumstances. None of the subjects intended to send classified information to unauthorized parties or to store such information on unauthorized networks. The senders frequently refrained from using specific classified details, facts or terms in their emails. Mishandling of classified information at the State Department was such a widespread practice that it was difficult for prosecutors to establish specific criminal intent on behalf of Clinton or the other senders. The report concludes that prosecutors applied those facts to the relevant statutes and the Justice Department’s policies on those statutes in a sober and unbiased manner: “We found that the prosecutors’ decision was based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice in cases involving these statutes. We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-takeaways-inspector-generals-report-clinton-email-investigation
Ok, yes, that was from that report which used a singular phrase in the conclusion to pretend the complete opposite of what the document said.

First, this is wrong. Trump had to a pardon a guy in jail for less than what Clinton did, that was publicly known already. Second, Lisa Page contradicts the claims of the blog sourced.

Next, the decision was made before any investigation, courtesy of Lynch. How many of those FBI people named still have jobs at the FBI? Why?

Classified information : DOES NOT MATTER if there are markings (the pardoned guy was told by the judge in his case "you should have known that this would have been classified"), intent does not matter (the government is smart enough to prevent 'dead drops'), because the government document was on a non-government server is itself a felony regardless of intent.

So, good luck in your faith.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
61,922
50,205
CA
What was he obstructing? The Mueller Probe is still ongoing. If he wanted that to stop he could end and if he wants to fire his AG he can do that too.
You still don't get it?

The FBI is supposed to be an independent agency. Without any interference from POTUS. For the very beginning when he was briefed (when he was POTUS elected) and told about the massive lengths Russia went to, to interfere with our elections and a separate meeting with Comey about the Dossier (Comey told him it was not verified at all, but wanted to make sure he knew about it) - he went on rampage about Russia. Because he knew his administration was being investigated by the FBI to see if there was any connection between anyone in his administration and Russia (and now we know that to be true). And the "legitimacy of his win.

Not our national security - mind you. It was about him.

He fired Comey for the initial Russian investigation, which prompted the Mueller investigation. That is the very definition of Objustrition of Justice.