Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election

WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said Friday they are seeking information about former attorney general Loretta Lynch's alleged efforts to stifle the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while Clinton was secretary of State.

The bipartisan inquiry comes as the panel is looking into the circumstances surrounding President Trump's firing of former FBI director James Comey. Comey was in charge of the FBI's investigation of the Clinton email probe and of a separate probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

This is the beginning of a long awaited investigation into Loretta Lynch. Why did she direct Comey to call his investigation a "Matter?" Did she direct the FBI to end their investigation? Was that obstruction of justice. Exactly what took place between Bill Clinton and Lynch on the Tarmac? Perhaps some answers will be forthcoming.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...h-tried-stifle-clinton-email-probe/103140596/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/23/senate-announced-probe-loretta-lynch-behavior-2016/

 

Everyone kept telling the libs to be careful what they wished for, but their hatred of Trump led them to make decisions on emotions rather than thinking things through.

 

I saw this coming months ago.

 

There are many questions that have not adequately been answered. Why did Lynch ask Comey to call his investigation a Matter? This sure sounds like she was telling Comey to lay off. By doing so, was she obstructing justice? The FBI investigates. They don't look into "matters."
James Comey opened the door to this investigation that may now also lead to further investigation of the Clinton campaign.

 

I'm truly shocked the GOP has the balls to do this. I thought they only had one or two tiny nuts among the whole bunch. The Comey closed session hearing must have had some pretty damning evidence, for them to do this.

Hopefully this is the start of a new trend. I would bet my life on the fact that there had to be SOMETHING dirty about the Clinton Foundation, if we were to put a special investigator on it.

 

This road leads to the Clintons. Not sure what they'll find at the end of that road.

 

'

The effort as you know is bipartisan. It would not be an exaggeration to say that all of the various congressional intel committees have been consumed with investigating Russian election meddling. These investigations as many democrat senators and congressmen have said is far from over. The intel committees need to be absolutely certain that they understand all of what transpired, who knew about it, when did they know, and what did they do about it.

Most if not all of the Russian meddling of course took place in 2016 before the elections under Obama's watch. Questions needing answers will not be limited to any one person. Obama will need to answer why, as Jeh Johnson testified last week, he knew the Russians were interfering. Why didn't he say anything or try to stop it?

The DNC servers were hacked but why didn't they want the DHS to help them patch the vulnerabilities? Was there something on the DNC servers they didn't want even there own administration to see?

John Podesta will be testifying again next week. I don't know if that is about his hacked emails or the $36 million he made from Russians.

When Comey spilled the beans on Lynch it opened the door to this new round of investigations.

We really need to know why Lynch directed Comey to call it a "matter" rather than an investigation. This time she will be testifying under oath.

Should be interesting but don't expect to hear much from MSM. They are already trying to sweep it under the rug by not reporting even though this looks to be the real there, there.

 

If they use a black light? I'll just leave that there...

 

About time, but she'll just lie again, anyway...

 

Probably but this time she will be testifying under oath.

I know she will probably plead the fifth but she could still be looking at a perjury charge. If another witness is given immunity and their stories don't jive, well who knows?

 

After reading about the Russian meddling in the WaPo yesterday and that Lynch was one of the 4 that got the "eyes only" intelligence, I can see why she wanted to downplay the investigation into Clinton. Having Putin's direct order to use active measures with the intent to hurt Clinton's campaign may have shaped the narrative. They knew there was no intent, and the Espionage Act required intent, so Clinton wasn't likely to face charges. Calling the investigation an investigation would add to what Russia was already doing. Why help Russia when she could have the situation called a "matter" and eased some of the tension surrounding the partisanship reactions? I can easily see having the situation called a "matter" instead of an investigation as a pushback against Russian meddling. Of course, I also have no doubt that some will see it as Lynch being corrupt.

Have you read the transcript of Paul Ryan discussing what was happening in Ukraine? So much of what Putin was doing there mirrors what he tried to do here. Putin figures our governmental systems and then uses them to pit us against each other.

 

Obama knew about the meddling but did nothing, why? Could it be that he thought Hillary was certain to win? As a hedge, could it be that he instructed his AG to watch the situation and if things started getting hot, pull the plug. I think she would have done this as a loyal AG serving at the pleasure of the President.

As you note, it should come down to her intent unless she gets tripped up in a lie which could easily happen depending on how many democrats end up being investigated/ testifying.

I don't wish anyone to go to jail for this. There is no way any of this would be good for the country. Ending the investigations would be best but the far left and MSM will largely determine that.

 

Nah.

She will probably testify and implicate Bigfoot.

 

Another congressional show of faux outrage and political showmanship masquerading as an investigation.

 

Yes, Obama thought Hillary would win. So did most of the country. However, he also couldn't be seen putting his thumb on the scale for her. He also had McConnell telling him that if he did anything, McConnell would scream partisanship at the top of his lungs, even if the reason Obama were to do it was to stop Putin. Do you not see the problem there?

I don't have a problem if Congress wants to investigate Lynch, as long as that doesn't interfere with the priority of getting Putin out of our election systems. If she did wrong, then she needs to be held accountable. After reading that WaPo article though, I can see why she may have done what she did about the "matter."

 

CNN interviewed Jill Stein this morning. She was shown in a dinner photo along with Flynn and Putin. CNN was insinuating that Stein was acting as Trump's puppet and a spoiler in WI, PA, and MI where she took votes from HRC. She said, she felt democrats were chasing another false narrative.

She acknowledged as Trump did that there was some Russian meddling. She said, she felt what was most important now was not to try to shift blame to her but to find ways to prevent any further election funny business from, Russia, China and US companies that have anything to do with electronic election machines, tallying, servers, etc.

She said she though until we have a better electronic system we should go back to paper ballots. I don't know if that is an over simplification but it does seem to be a viable stop gap solution.

The Lynch investigation may be looked at by democrats as revenge for investigating Trump. I see it as chapter 2 in an on going investigation democrats insisted on taking to extremes.

 

I saw that interview. There is a point in that her votes mirror the margin Trump won in those three states, so I understand asking the question. Putin may have been using Stein to shift votes away from Clinton, without Stein being aware of it. She also might be right that Democrats are using her as an excuse.

I agree with her that we need to go back to paper ballots. We're vulnerable to meddling and hacking if we don't. The ability to elect our leadership and be confident that the vote isn't tampered is critical to our democracy.

 

We agree on this one as well ... I suggest "chad"less paper ballots ...

 

Well, just what is the world coming to when we agree so much?

Poor Florida and their chads! I agree, we need paper ballots that are easily read and counted, with no ambiguity to them at all.

 

I'd like to believe Lynch's motives were honorable. As a country, we need to believe our elected officials are working in our best interests. However, the facts surrounds Lynch's behavior are troubling and don't fit your narrative.

When Lynch directed Comey not to call it an investigation, but instead call it a "matter", he was confused and concerned. Apparently, she didn't provide any mitigating explanation to Comey that her request was for the greater good of the country. Logically, as a matter of courtesy, that should have been provided. Add Lynch's secretive behavior of inappropriately meeting with Bill Clinton, things don't add up for anyone who thinks clearly.

Obama and his circle have a history of trying to change reality to protect their political interests. For example, the real story of Benghazi was to rewrite events and call the attack “spontaneous” violence in response to an anti-Muslim video on the internet. He and his circle pandered this story for weeks after it was 100% known it was an orchestrated terrorist attack. It was a few short months before the election, and he had protect his narrative that he had wiped out terrorism.

Lynch's attempted coverup of the Clinton e-mail investigation follows the same model -- redefine reality to protect an upcoming election. I don't know how this can honestly be looked at different.

 

Why do you think we give a **** what happens to Lynch?

 

She's attached at the hip to Obama's legacy. Why wouldn't you??

 

If a leftist's goal is only to cause ciaos in order to disrupt the country no matter who it harms, it is very believable. We see the same with other fanatical groups too.

 

I know you'd prefer the Russian interference be swept under the rug, but that creates more choas than finding out what happened and why

 

If she did something wrong why would I protect her?