Lisa Page transcripts reveal details of anti-Trump 'insurance policy'
Transcripts of Lisa Page's testimony released; panel reaction and analysis on 'Hannity.'
President Trump on Wednesday seized on new revelations contained in transcripts from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s congressional testimony to hammer the Obama Justice Department as a “broken and corrupt machine.”
Those transcripts, released by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, appeared to show Page confirming that DOJ officials during the Hillary Clinton email investigation made clear to the FBI that they should not pursue Clinton for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information.
PAGE TRANSCRIPTS REVEAL DETAILS OF 'INSURANCE POLICY'
"The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!" Trump tweeted Wednesday morning.
The exchange came under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe during Page’s Hill appearance last year.
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.
"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."
Ratcliffe on Tuesday tweeted that Page essentially confirmed that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information."
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."
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."
WATCH: GOP REP, ON 'HANNITY,' SLAMS 'CORRUPT TRIUMVERATE' OF PAGE, STRZOK, COMEY
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."
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
More from Politics
