Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election

I'm a little confused about what I bolded from your response above. Why wouldn't the public story from the Obama Administration be the truth?? They did have the facts first, and the facts as they transpired were not presented to the public. The attack occurred on 9/11. On 9/12, Hillary had a call with the Egyptian PM providing an update of what occurred. Hillary specifically said the following:

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest."

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/Tab 79.pdf

Hillary's statement leaves nothing to the imagination. The Secretary of State does not make such absolute pronouncements without having accurate and completely verifiable information. Yet Susan Rice spent the next several weeks on Sunday shows telling the American public this was all spontaneous violence triggered by an Internet video. The rational conclusion is that the response was orchestrated to protect Obama's upcoming POTUS election.

Being the "victors" and having the "narrative" was not a license to lie to the American people. Historians will always interpret facts differently in the future, but I'm not aware that they redefine them.

I know I'm going off topic a bit, but I wanted your perspective again to make sure I understand what you're saying.

 

Oh, come on! It was the videotape. Who in the heck believes what most politicians say particularly the Clintons? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. It's already been proven to be a highly coordinated attack with significant pre-attack preparation as well as the organized use of heavy and light weaponry.

Now if the cover up involves matters of national security then I say have a better narrative ready in case the shan hits the fit. Otherwise we have a dead ambassador due to a chain of screw ups followed by a reprehensible cover up.

Furthermore, WE DON'T ABANDON OUR MEN! When you call for help you should get it. You don't stand down for political reasons and you make sure you're there to at least observe. You don't hide.

 

I know. I'm trying to be diplomatic in my wording. In reality, I'm jumping out of my skin in disgust over the whole scam. I only addressed the cover-up and didn't go into the reprehensible screw-up. While it should never be forgotten, I didn't want to completely off topic.

Again, the importance to the Lynch matter is that Obama and his inner circle show a proven track record of major cover-ups to protect their own in Presidential elections. Times change, and I don't believe Lynch will get off as easy as Clinton.

 

Lol @ end of story. Their involvement was much deeper than that. The fact you don't know that is even more reason we need a full investigation and accounting of what happened and why.
Investigate Lynch, who cares?

 

Good point...

 

I'm certainly looking forward to that.

The Russians may be dumb, but they're not stupid. Why would Russia leave its fingerprints everywhere?

 

Even at the state level that is wwhat they did and they did not succeed. We know what happened and why what more do you need to know about it?
What we do need to know is to wwhat extent. The extent the Obama the Obama administration interfered and abused its power.

 

Investigate Lynch and Eric Holder.

 

Obama campaigning openly and heavily for Hillary. Isn't that putting his thumb on the scale?

Do you have a link to MConnell scaring Obama into silence by threatening to call partisanship? That statement makes zero sense.

 

Maybe the citizens of the USA care, if they don't care they should.

 

Our agencies aren't going to discuss classified information in public. It's classified for a reason. We may have human assets in places that would be in danger, if they were to talk publicly.

There is lots of proof that Russia meddled in our election. Hacking was only a part of it. There was a massive 1000 troll army deployed by Putin to spread disinformation and propaganda. There were bots making the disinformation go viral, and people believed it due to the bandwagon effect. Then they found a way into our voter registration data and changed the spelling of people's names and changed their addresses. They got into at least 39 states' data that way. Then there was the hacking of the DNC email server and John Podesta's emails published to Wikileaks to embarrass the Democratic party. They also got into Republican computes, but didn't publish that information, leaving many to believe that it was either being saved for another day, or potential blackmail. Then we have the Russian ambassador in lots of unusual places, meeting with different people and making statements that put those people in awkward, if not illegal, positions. Remember Brennan saying the Russians use people, wittingly and unwittingly, for their own purposes. If you aren't looking for evidence or are only looking to discount the evidence presented, it may seem there is no evidence out there, but there is lots.

As far as Ukraine, there is an interesting and disturbing transcript of Paul Ryan and some other Republicans discussing it. Here's something to take a look at from it and compare what Russia did in our election:

 

I'll remind you about my facts, not my opinion:
1. Comey did not recommend prosecution because he did not have evidence of intent. He testified to this under oath in a Senate committee hearing. Intent is required to charge someone with the Espionage Act. Comey and many in the FBI are also lawyers. They did not even consider the law you have mentioned. There's a reason for that.
2. No one in the United States is pronounced guilty without a trial. Americans are innocent until proven guilty, with a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. There are people in jail for violating the Espionage Act, but intent was a factor in their case. Their cases also went to court under the UCMJ, and not civilian court, because the UCMJ uses gross negligence and civilian law does not, and has not ever. Even when there was proof of intent, like with Gen. Petraeus, some do not go to jail. Petraeus was given a plea deal for probation and a fine. Chelsea Manning went to jail and then was pardoned.

 

Calling it a "matter" didn't stop the investigation. However, it was clear, from the time Clinton was interrogated, that there was not evidence of intent. At the point Lynch told Comey to call it a "matter," using that word didn't change the recommendation of no charges. Changing what the investigation was called to the public is not obstruction of justice.

If, as you state, the Lynch issue is a means to get them off Trump/Russia, then bringing up the Lynch issue with the intent to impede the Russia investigation, is obstruction of justice.

 

No one is actively involved in investigating either Hillary Clinton's email server, nor the events in Benghazi. Those cases are closed. Because there is conversation in the populace doesn't mean there is an open legal case. When Comey recommended no prosecution last July, that was the end of the case until the Weiner emails were found. Then the case was reopened for like 3 days, and closed again when no new evidence was found. Benghazi was closed at the end of the 9,897,346,288th (yes, that's an exaggeration) Congressional investigation into it concluded with the same conclusion as the first one.

There's a reason you see no one going after HRC. There's a reason Trump promised to have a Special Prosecutor investigate and imprison HRC in the campaign and then promptly said he wasn't going to do it once elected. These two issues have been put to bed.

 

The victors control the narrative, but that doesn't mean the narrative they have is false.

I see that you are fixated on Benghazi and feel everything hasn't been made public. Benghazi was a CIA operation- we were spying there. We don't make our spying known to those we are spying on. Of course there was a cover story. We were attempting to sell arms/weapons from Libya and get them into Syria. The ambassador was aware of the situation. He was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one in the American government wanted that to happen, but it did. To send in a Seal Team would have been an act of war against Libya. Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes there is someone to blame, and sometimes there isn't.

 

What makes you think they didn't want HRC to know that Putin was messing with her election chances? He hates her.

 

Obama campaigning was only PR. Using the power of the Presidency was considered to be on a different level.

I do have a link:

 

I've intentionally avoided commenting on the operation itself. I'm specifically "fixated" on the other side of the coin -- the cover-up. The cover-up was important to current events because it shows the extent the Obama Administration will go to in protecting Democratic candidates in elections.

The lie that Obama and his circle pandered for weeks was made public. I provided a link outlining the conversation Hillary had with the Egyptian PM, and it proves the Administration intentionally lied for purely self serving political purposes. It appears you agree there was overt dishonesty, but somehow feel it was justified given the circumstances. I'm just trying to get clarity.

 

It must suck for the pro-Trump RW Fever Swamp echo chamber that Trump's Administration is so dishonest, lying, clueless, corrupt and under multiple investigations.

Because, if Trump was squeaky clean, people might actually care about this Lynch thing.

However, nobody takes this Lynch thing seriously since it is being viewed as (for exactly what is):

A PATHETIC attempt to DEFLECT from the Trump Trainwreck.

 

I guess Diane Feinstein didn't get your memo:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/23/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-probe-senate-judiciary-239905

If you read current events, you'd see there is a bi-partisan effort to get answers to the emerging Lynch scandal. You can try to deflect with the "pro-Trump RW Fever Swamp echo chamber" rhetoric, but it ain't working. Nice try though.

 

Who should get shot over leaking those top secrets you tell me the congress can't find out?

 

1. Comey did say exactly that but that was a misapplication of the law which requires no intent. Comey is not a prosecutor but investigator and this was one reason he got fired. The reason he misapplied that criterion is a mystery but it clearly leaves the impression it was an excuse not to prosecute which is clearly not his job. That is the job of the DOJ. You bought into that but legal experts say the law has no intent clause in it; which it doesn't; just parsing of words to exonerate her clearly not based in reality and clearly not his job to say no one would prosecute.

2. She's guilty clearly but you're right. She's guilty because even a lay person can read the law and see she and others violated it and other sections. But you are right she has not been charged and no jury or judge has legally pronounced her guilty. So she is innocent until indicted and then found guilty if that is what happens.

3. You're guilty of parsing words which have no legal implication. Again, the McCarran Internal Security Act removed the intent application out of the Espionage Act. You can repeat intent ad nauseam because Comey said so but intent has nothing to do with the section of the Act I cited. There are other things she did such as transmit classified material over the internet in a non-secure fashion on devices not cleared for that purpose which were of the most highly sensitive nature. Most people did not have the clearance to see that material. Clearly she knew as the Sec of State how sensitive that material was and transmitted it with clear knowledge of what she was doing. That's intent even though again intent is not part of the Act. It's not a legal excuse and Comey knew that just as he knew he had no business making recommendations about prosecution which is clearly the province of the DOJ and in this instance the Attorney General herself. IF he thought she had recused herself then he doesn't usurp that power but instead passes it to the DAG. This is another reason he was fired.

Now let me say it is my personal opinion for which I have no basis in fact, that Comey took one for the country. He knew better than to do those things but did it anyway. Instead of going OMG he didn't the question is why would a career guy with his knowledge of the law do something that egregious purposefully. You're a bright guy so you can deduce why he might do that. My guess is history will look more favorably on Comey than it does now.

 

You're so stuck on that side of the ball you don't see the law clearly. There is no intent in the Espionage Act. Comey planted that seed and you and others were off to the races with it. He did his job well distracting and deflecting. I don't think Lynch telling Comey to call it a matter is obstruction but it clearly says to him to tone the investigation down. But it's not illegal.

What is illegal IF it happened is to assure anyone the 'matter' isn't going anywhere. That is an egregious violation of the law and her position of power as well as clearly political. Apparently they have information as to that which, again IF true, is going to get her into legal jeopardy very quickly.

But as you said, she is innocent until found guilty. I don't have information to judge her even prematurely so I'll take her side until IF and WHEN something clearly implicates her.

All that has no legal implication in using that material politically. That is a political decision from on high as to whether to use that to indict, IF applicable, or use it as leverage.

 

I'm not sure I can give you any clarity.

If you understand that Benghazi was a CIA operation, then it should be clear that the truth you want to hear is never going to come out. Spy stuff stays hidden, and for important reasons. Getting weapons away from the bad guys in Libya and transferring them to the guys fighting the enemy in Syria gives are the ingredients. Then add politics, like the presence of an ambassador in a place he wasn't supposed to be, to the recipe, you get a very nasty casserole.

Americans don't want to know the things our spies are required to do to keep us safe, to kill bad guys, and to help those friendly to our causes. Hillary took the public heat for the failed mission, even though she had nothing to do with the CIA, but she was never going down for something the CIA was doing.

That's about all the clarity I have to offer.

 

No one is going to get shot. I highly doubt the leakers will ever be found. Journalists spend years cultivating their sources, put their reputation on the line to quote them, and do not ever have to reveal their sources. If the source doesn't tell, and the journalist doesn't tell, we won't know who they are. Who Deep Throat actually was didn't come out for 30 years, and only did when he decided to reveal himself.

Then there is the issue of whistleblowers. When people in our government see bad things going on and can't get them controlled through the normal processes, they leak. When that happens, it's patriotic. They are putting their job on the line, and facing the possibility of jail time to get out the word. We need to listen when they go to that much trouble, and not just get mad that a partisan's deeds are exposed to the light of day. If the issue could be handled through the normal processes, nothing would be leaked. However, when the top cop in the country committed perjury in his hearing, and was allowed into the position anyway, we don't have normal processes going on.