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 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."
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.
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.” Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Beto O’Rourke
has been slammed for his male privilege in a recent newspaper column
that pointed out that no female politician could get away with
O’Rourke’s style of exploring a presidential campaign bid.
The former Texas Rep. has been rumored to run for president
in 2020 ever since his loss to Sen. Ted Cruz last year in a big-money
Senate race, prompting him to go on a road trip across the country and
stay in the public’s eye. He is also set to travel to Iowa this weekend
in what appears to be a sign that his entry into the White House race is
imminent.
But
O’Rourke is already facing criticism over the way he tried to raise his
profile across the country, which included less talk about policies and
more about publishing odd diary entries, visiting college campuses and
listening to Metallica.
“Imagine, they say, if Beto were Betsy,” Lisa Lerer, a reporter, wrote in The New York Times.
“What would the reception have been if a female candidate left her
three small children home and spent several weeks traveling the country,
posting stream-of-consciousness diary entries? Or if she chose to forgo
a Senate race that would provide a greater opportunity for victory?”
“What
would the reception have been if a female candidate left her three
small children home and spent several weeks traveling the country,
posting stream-of-consciousness diary entries? Or if she chose to forgo a
Senate race that would provide a greater opportunity for victory?” — The New York Times
The
paper noted that female Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated
with O’Rourke’s unorthodox approach and says the fact that his profile
increasing is a sign of double standard that women face.
O’Rourke
particularly irked others after he ruled out a second Senate run last
month, this time for Sen. John Cornyn's (R-Texas) seat, which given his
prominence in the state he would have a good chance to win, as it was
seen as a move serving purely his own interests.
“If a woman was
presented with a similar choice: Do that less ambitious but better for
the party thing, versus more ambitious but longer shot thing, I don’t
see people being super understanding when she takes the latter,” Jess
McIntosh, a Democratic strategist and former Hillary Clinton aide, told
the Times.
Democrats aren’t the only ones attacking the likely
2020 candidate. A group that boosts GOP candidates across the country
will air a two-minute commercial in Iowa that paints O’Rourke as the
prime example of “white male privilege” and compares to former President
Barack Obama, Politico reported.
“With
a charmed life like his, you can never really lose,” the ad by Club for
Growth states. “That’s why Beto’s running for president — because he
can.”
House
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland hit back at some of the most
visible new Democrats in Congress when asked Monday by Fox News about
the push to impeach President Trump: “We’ve got 62 new (Democratic) members. Not three.”
Hoyer
apparently was referring to Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York,
Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who regularly
have fought the Trump administration's policies since entering Congress.
Earlier Monday, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., revealed she’s opposed to impeachment
in the absence of evidence that is “compelling and overwhelming and
bipartisan.”
“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told The
Washington Post in an interview published Monday. “Impeachment is so
divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and
overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path,
because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”
Ocasio-Cortez replied in
a Washington Examiner interview: “I happen to disagree with that take.”
The congresswoman added, “But you know, she’s the speaker. … I think
we’ll see.”
Hoyer also said about Pelosi’s words: “It seems to me that she said what we’ve been saying. Maybe a little stronger.”
He
also said he thought anything the House might attempt would die in the
Senate, which requires 67 yeas to convict and remove the president:
“Nobody thinks there is going to be a conviction in the Senate.”
Tlaib said she would introduce articles of impeachment against Trump later this month. She and Omar last month signed a “pledge” to impeach Trump. Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
Rahm is right.
The Democrats are in a leftward lurch that could ruin their chances of retaking the White House.
Rahm Emanuel,
now stepping down after two terms as mayor of Chicago, knows something
about winning elections. He was a key White House operative for Bill
Clinton and chief of staff for Barack Obama.
It
was Rahm, as chairman of the Democratic campaign committee, who
engineered the party's takeover of the House in 2006 — and is known for
his hardball brand of politics, with all the subtlety of his frequent
F-bombs.
If Mayor Emanuel believes the Democrats are in danger of self-destructing, as he argues in a piece for the Atlantic, his party might want to pay attention.
I've
been arguing that the Democrats, who regained control of the House in
November mainly on the strength of more moderate candidates, are
increasingly being defined by their most extreme members.
Just
look at the last few weeks, and the stances embraced by some of its
presidential contenders and younger members: Slavery reparations. Green
New Deal. Medicare for All. Free college tuition. A 70 percent tax rate
on income over $10 million. Break up Amazon, Facebook and Google.
Is that how they win back Trump Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?
Add
to that various self-inflicted wounds, such as delaying and then
watering down a resolution to denounce Rep. Ilhan Omar after her latest
anti-Semitic comments, and you've got a party with a problem. (President
Trump went way overboard in saying the Democrats have become "an
anti-Jewish party" and telling donors that "the Democrats hate Jewish
people," given that perhaps three-quarters of Jews vote Democratic. But
he was seizing on an opening.)
At the South by Southwest
conference, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered the standard left-wing
critique of capitalism by saying that "we're reckoning with the
consequences of putting profit above everything else in society." But
she added that "to me capitalism is irredeemable," the kind of sound
bite that goes viral, given the enormous media attention she attracts.
And
on "Morning Joe" the other day, 2020 contender John Hickenlooper, the
former Colorado governor, repeatedly refused to call himself a
capitalist. When did that become a dirty Democratic word?
In the Atlantic, Emanuel says Trump could win over swing voters by constantly branding the Democrats as socialists.
"The
last thing we should do is serve him slow pitches over the plate that
allow him to define us on his terms. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what
Democrats have been doing since he went before Congress in early
February. It’s almost as if we've been duped into reading from his
ready-made script.
"Earth to Democrats: Republicans are telling
you something when they gleefully schedule votes on proposals like the
Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and a 70 percent marginal tax rate.
When they're more eager to vote on the Democratic agenda than we are, we
should take a step back and ask ourselves whether we're inadvertently
letting the political battle play out on their turf rather than our own.
If Trump's only hope for winning a second term turns on his ability to
paint us as socialists, we shouldn't play to type."
He's not pulling punches.
While
saying the party shouldn't abandon its core priorities, Rahm says
Democrats and independents are so desperate to win that they'll support a
candidate who doesn't agree with them on everything, as long as that
person is seen as able to win.
"So the ideological debates often
shroud what voters really want — a nominee capable of standing steady
and strong as Trump tries to bully his way into an Election Night
victory. The president's low approval ratings suggest that, if he wins a
second term, Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves."
What
began as a broadside from the right has now gone decidedly mainstream
as the stumbles continue. The argument even made the front page of Sunday's New York Times:
"The
sharp left turn in the Democratic Party and the rise of progressive
presidential candidates are unnerving moderate Democrats who
increasingly fear that the party could fritter away its chances of
beating President Trump in 2020 by careening over a liberal cliff."
The
challenge for Pelosi is to rein in her more lefty members who are
sharply changing the public face of the party. But she can't control the
Bernie-style presidential candidates who seem to believe that a hard
left turn is the way to win the nomination. Fox News Chastises Pirro
Jeanine Pirro, the Fox weekend host who is friendly with President Trump, has drawn a strong rebuke from the network.
She took on Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, in remarks that crossed a line.
Judge
Jeanine said Saturday night that Omar is "Sharia-compliant" and engages
in "Sharia-adherence behavior." Why? Because the freshman Democrat
wears a hijab.
She asked: "Is her adherence to this Islamic
doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which is
antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?"
In a statement, Fox News
said: "We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro's comments about Rep. Ilhan
Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the
matter with her directly."
I've been critical of Omar for making
anti-Semitic comments about money, then apologizing, then making more
remarks about pro-Israel advocates having "dual loyalty" — an old
anti-Semitic canard that is one of the worst things you can say about
Americans.
But
the congresswoman should be able to wear whatever she wants in
accordance with her religious beliefs. That shouldn't result in her
loyalty to the Constitution being questioned. And the comments were in
Pirro's scripted opening remarks, not something uttered off the cuff.
Omar
thanked Fox for the statement, tweeting: "No one's commitment to our
constitution should be questioned because of their faith or country of
birth."
Pirro, a former prosecutor, is not backing off, however.
In a statement Sunday, she said, "I did not call Rep. Omar un-American.
My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course
because one is Muslim does not mean you don't support the Constitution."
She invited Omar to appear on her show.
As the Hollywood Reporter
noted, Pirro's slam drew criticism from a staffer for "Special Report
with Bret Baier." Associate producer Hufsa Kamal tweeted: "@JudgeJeanine
can you stop spreading this false narrative that somehow Muslims hate
America or women who wear a hijab aren't American enough? You have
Muslims working at the same network you do, including myself. K thx."
Pirro hosts an opinion show, but her comments were out of bounds.
Several Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls -- including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and now Kirsten Gillibrand -- are defending their self-professed commitment to the ideals of the #MeToo movement against a series of accusations they recently mismanaged sexual-misconduct claims against their subordinates.
As
the three prominent senators each have sought to draw a sharp contrast
with President Trump, who has faced his own misconduct allegations, the
claims highlighted vulnerabilities that could become major liabilities
not only in a heated Democrat Party primary, but also in the general
election.
Back in 2017, Gillibrand and others ramped up the pressure for then-Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., to resign amid sexual misconduct allegations. He ultimately stepped down.
Gillibrand, who has been described by GQ Magazine as "the face of the MeToo movement," said at the time
that Franken's alleged conduct had "shocked and disappointed her" and
that he should "step aside" because "enough is enough." But, it emerged
on Monday that last summer, an aide in her mid-20’s who was working in
Gillibrand’s Senate office also apparently decided that enough was
enough, as she resigned in protest over the office’s handling of her
sexual-harassment complaint against a senior male adviser to Gillibrand.
“I
have offered my resignation because of how poorly the investigation and
post-investigation was handled,” the woman, who resigned less than
three weeks after reporting the purported harassment, wrote to
Gillibrand in a letter obtained by Politico. Gillibrand,
responding to the allegations on Monday, said an appropriate
investigation was launched -- and her office later said the male staffer
had been fired after other unreported, "deeply disturbing" comments
surfaced.
The woman was granted anonymity because of fears of retaliation.
Gillibrand faced immediate friendly fire
after calling for Franken's resignation -- in 2018, liberal billionaire
megadonor George Soros argued that Gillibrand turned on Franken to
"improve her chances" in the 2020 presidential race -- and some of those
hard feelings among her fellow progressives have not subsided.
For Sanders, the Vermont Independent who caucuses with Democrats, looming resentment from establishment progressives also has posed a major challenge. A January report in The New York Times outlining what
one former Sanders delegate called an "entire wave of rotten sexual
harassment that seemingly was never dealt with" during his 2016
presidential run seemed only to bolster on-the-record claims from Democrats that Sanders was too impersonal and arrogant to lead the party.
Asked by
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper earlier this year whether he was unaware of
the sexual harassment allegations, Sanders replied: "Uh, yes. I was a
little bit busy running around the country, trying to make the case." He
then appeared to smile.
The
next week, after reports surfaced that a top aide was accused of
sexually assaulting a female subordinate during Sanders' campaign, he
issued a strong apology and a vow to change.
Bernie Sanders kicking off his 2020 presidential campaign earlier
this month in Brooklyn, N.Y. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle, File)
"To the women in that campaign who were harassed or
mistreated I apologize," Sanders said in a statement. "Our standards and
safeguards were inadequate."
Allegations of sexism also briefly
surfaced contemporaneously during Sanders’ 2016 bid, as some of his
young, white male supporters -- known as "Bernie Bros" -- attacked
Hillary Clinton and her followers online, contributing to a hostile
atmosphere between the campaigns. In her book, the election
retrospective "What Happened," Clinton slammed Sanders for
using “innuendo and impugning my character” such that she
suffered “lasting damage" into the general election, although Clinton
did not accuse Sanders of orchestrating the gender-based attacks.
The
back-and-forth has continued into 2019. Late last month, after former
members of Clinton's team leaked details concerning Sanders' expensive
travel on behalf of the Clinton campaign after she secured the
Democratic nomination, Sanders 2016 campaign spokesman Michael Briggs
returned fire. "You can see why she’s one of the most disliked
politicians in America," Briggs said, referring to Clinton. "She’s not
nice. Her people are not nice." Briggs went on to call Clinton and her
team among the "biggest a--holes in American politics."
But,
although Gillibrand and Sanders have made public overtures to the
alleged victims who worked for them, California Democratic Sen. Kamala
Harris acknowledged earlier this month
that she still had not spoken to a woman who sued her former top
adviser for sexual harassment, leading to a $400,000 settlement.
A
spokeswoman for Harris insisted last December the team was “unaware” of
the harassment allegations while Harris was California’s attorney
general, but the agency that she oversaw, California's Department of
Justice, reportedly was informed about the complaint three months before she exited in early 2017.
The
lawsuit, filed by Danielle Hartley, accused Larry Wallace of demeaning
her based on her gender while she worked for him as his assistant.
Hartley said Wallace placed his computer printer under his desk and
often asked her to crawl under and refill it with paper as he sat and
watched, sometimes with other men in the room.
"In this specific
case, I have not talked to the victim," Harris told Univision. "That
case is being handled by the Attorney General's Office and I've left it
up to that office to handle the case as they've seen fit, which included
a settlement."
In an uncomfortable twist,
Harris' autobiography, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,” which
was released in January, praised Wallace's "leadership" in
orchestrating a bias training program. Wallace, the former director of
the Division of Law Enforcement in California, resigned last December.
Republicans, meanwhile, have previewed a possible line of attack against Harris on the episode as primary season approaches.
“No
one is buying Kamala Harris’s claim she didn’t know her top aide of 14
yrs was accused of sexual harassment, resulting in a $400K settlement,”
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted. Fox News' Paul Steinhauser, Louis Casiano and Lukas Mikelionis contributed to this report.
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)
