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

Transcripts of Lisa Page’s testimony released; panel reaction and analysis on ‘Hannity.’

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.

GOP Senators discuss FBI anti-Trump bias during William Barr’s AG hearing; Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Josh Hawley weighs in.

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.

No, My Son Doesn’t Play Sports … Really, It’s OK!

A visit to the doctor, orthodontist, school function or anywhere, really will alert you to the fact that people don’t know how to talk to your son if he doesn’t play sports.

Our society is programmed in a way that a boy who doesn’t play sports is an anomaly. What can we possibly have to say to a boy if we can’t ask him about football, basketball or soccer?

My son not only doesn’t play sports……he doesn’t watch them either. GASP!! I know, it’s a tragedy, right?

My son has a deep, abiding empathy for others.

My son is a critical thinker.

My son is constantly questioning the world.

My son is not a box checker.

My son has a thirst for knowledge about space that won’t quit.

But the world has no questions for him except for, “so… do you play basketball?”

REALLY? This 13-year-old boy who could change the world has to constantly answer why he isn’t interested in sports. Can’t we do better than that?

I watched my son pick grass on the baseball field until age 11. I watched him run halfheartedly down a basketball court and cheer for his teammates every single time they scored. Like good Americans, we tried every single sport there was, encouraging him to get involved, and choose from the buffet our country offers.

The looks I get from other mothers when I say that I gave him the choice at age 11 whether to play sports or not…..is one of reprehension.

How dare I guide and support instead of mold him in the image that is expected for our boys.

I get it, I really do…our boys are to follow a plan set out for success, right? We believe that you get them involved in sports, they play through high school, gaining popularity and acceptance along the way. This quells our fears. Society has instilled a fear in us that if our boy doesn’t play sports, than he is uninvolved. He is clearly sitting around doing nothing.

We ignore the statistics behind head trauma.

We ignore the statistics regarding how many of those boys actually play in college.

We ignore whether our children are enjoying themselves.

We ignore what their true passion might be.

We ignore that competitive sports keep them so busy, they have little time for much else.

I am not saying that sports don’t have absolute value. They do. Especially if your son or daughter loves the sport. They push themselves, they learn about themselves, they challenge themselves and meet those challenges. All really good things.

If your son or daughter doesn’t have passion for the sport I mean real passion then what are we doing?

Why not look deeper? Why not look beyond society’s expectations?

To what degree does your child’s involvement in sports have to do with YOU?

What if we got to know our child? What if we asked them if they wanted to play sports or get involved in robotics, student government, forensics, or the like?

What if we said, who are you and what do you like?

What if we said, it’s okay to not like sports?

What if we said, whoever you are is enough?

What if we put our desires aside and opened the door for more?

The self-worth gained from a parent who says “you are enough” is valuable beyond measure. That parent opens the door to more. That parent learns more about their child and more about themselves than ever before.

We owe our boys more than funneling them into a system they don’t fit into. If your boy isn’t an athlete … guess what. It’s okay. They are going to be okay.

You are enough, and so are they.

This post comes from the TODAY Parenting Team community, where all members are welcome to post and discuss parenting solutions. and join us! Because we’re all in this together.

Notre Dame fire: major incident at historic Paris landmark | World news | The Guardian

Notre Dame cathedral in Paris has been devastated by a ferocious blaze that has destroyed the spire of the centuries-old landmark.
Firefighters were rushing to try to contain a fire that has broken out at the cathedral, which police said began accidentally and was linked to building work at the site.
Flames burst through the roof of the cathedral – one of France’s most visited places – and quickly engulfed the spire, which collapsed.
Smoke could be seen billowing from the top of the medieval cathedral, considered one of the finest examples of Gothic architecture in France and one of Paris’s most-visited monuments. A huge plume of smoke wafted across the city and ash fell over a large area.
Flames leapt into the air beside the two bell towers, said a Reuters correspondent who witnessed the fire.
The fire department said a major operation was under way. A city hall spokesman said the area was being cleared.
Emmanuel Macron cancelled a planned speech to the nation in light of the “terrible fire”, according to an official at the president’s Élysée office.
The Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said on Twitter that firefighters were still trying to contain the fire and urged residents to stay away from the security perimeter.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Smoke and flames rise during the fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. Photograph: François Guillot/AFP/Getty Images
France 2 television reported that police were treating the incident as an accident.
The cathedral, which dates back to the 12th century, attracts millions of tourists every year.
Notre Dame was in the midst of renovations , with some sections under scaffolding, and bronze statues were removed last week for works.

Mysterious radio signals from deep space detected – BBC News

Astronomers have revealed details of mysterious signals emanating from a distant galaxy, picked up by a telescope in Canada.

The precise nature and origin of the blasts of radio waves is unknown.

Among the 13 bursts of fast radio waves, known as FRBs, was a very unusual repeating signal, coming from the same source about 1.5 billion light years away.

Such an event has only been reported once before, by a different telescope.

“Knowing that there is another suggests that there could be more out there,” said Ingrid Stairs, an astrophysicist from the University of British Columbia (UBC).

“And with more repeaters and more sources available for study, we may be able to understand these cosmic puzzles – where they’re from and what causes them.”

The CHIME observatory, located in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley, consists of four 100-metre-long, semi-cylindrical antennas, which scan the entire northern sky each day.

The telescope only got up and running last year, detecting 13 of the radio bursts almost immediately, including the repeater.

More stories you might like:

The research has now been published in the journal Nature.

“We have discovered a second repeater and its properties are very similar to the first repeater,” said Shriharsh Tendulkar of McGill University, Canada.

“This tells us more about the properties of repeaters as a population.”

FRBs are short, bright flashes of radio waves, which appear to be coming from almost halfway across the Universe.

So far, scientists have detected about 60 single fast radio bursts and two that repeat. They believe there could be as many as a thousand FRBs in the sky every day.

There are a number of theories about what could be causing them.

They include a neutron star with a very strong magnetic field that is spinning very rapidly, two neutron stars merging together, and, among a minority of observers, some form of alien spaceship.

Follow Helen on Twitter.

House Dems overwhelmingly reject motion to condemn illegal immigrant voting | Fox News

House Democrats set vote for overturning national emergency declaration; reaction and analysis from ‘The Next Revolution’ panel.

Nearly every House Democrat on Friday opposed a measure condemning voting in U.S. elections by illegal immigrants, as part of a sweeping election reform bill.

The GOP-backed measure would have added language to the “H.R. 1” election proposal stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for federal office. But the GOP motion referenced how San Francisco is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections.

The motion was voted down 228-197. All but six Democrats in the House voted against it. Just one Republican opposed it.

Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, pointed out that an identical resolution was adopted by the House last September. But on Friday, 41 Democrats flipped to oppose the latest measure.

“These 41 Democrats must now answer to voters why they were against illegal immigrants voting in elections six months ago, but are suddenly in favor of it now,” Fine said.

The House on Friday later approved the Democrat-backed election bill. It would institute public financing of congressional campaigns, require presidential candidates to disclose tax returns and make Election Day a federal holiday. But the measure is dead on arrival in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has blasted the bill.

The “H.R. 1” measure has been criticized by civil libertarians and Republicans over First Amendment concerns.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a recent letter to Congress, encouraged lawmakers to vote against the proposal because of “provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.”

“They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day,” the ACLU wrote.

One concern of civil libertarians is the bill’s inclusion of the DISCLOSE ACT, which would require all organizations that spend money on elections to disclose donors.

The ACLU said it supports making organizations report spending for public communications like TV ads that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. But it worries the DISCLOSE ACT goes beyond that.

“These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech,” the ACLU said.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.