Investigation Into Loretta Lynch Takes Troubling Turn When Senate Discovers What She’s Hiding

ELDER PATRIOT - When former F.B.I. Director James Comey testified before an open session of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3rd, he admitted concern two concerns he had about his boss’ (Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch) handling of the Clinton email felonies:

  • She met with the husband of the investigation’s target, Bill Clinton, privately.  This, by itself, demanded that Lynch recuse herself.  Democrats had demanded and gotten the recusal of President Trump’s A.G. Jeff Sessions for a similar but official meeting that he had with a Russian ambassador.

  • She directed Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” rather than what it was – a criminal investigation.  This sent a clear message to Comey to limit his findings because the investigation was destined to go nowhere.  Comey complied and is now the subject of his own investigation.
  • But, it’s what Comey told the committee’s members in closed session that has them exploring whether a criminal conspiracy was in place between Loretta Lynch, the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the DCCC.  Here is what the committee discovered in closed session:

    • The existence of an email in which former D.N.C. chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told an official at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations that Lynch had assured the Clinton campaign that the investigation into the presidential candidate “would not go too far.”  This was reported in The New York Times.
    • Lynch had direct email communication with former Clinton Campaign Political Director Amanda Renteria.  ABC News reported this following the committee’s closed-door session with Comey.

    Lynch has not been forthcoming having refused to answer questions at least 74 times during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on July 12th, 2016, including a question posed by Rep. David Trott (R-MI) as to whether she met with anyone on Clinton’s staff during the yearlong investigation.

    In light of these recent developments Lynch’s reply, “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them,” adds perjury to the obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy charges she is facing.

    In their attempt to determine Lynch’s culpability the committee has sent Obama’s A.G. a letter asking:

    During your time in the Justice Department, did you ever have communications with [former DNC chairwoman] Rep. [Debbie] Wasserman Schultz, her staff, her associates, or any other current or former DNC officials about the Clinton email investigation?”

    Judge Andrew Napolitano was asked for his legal opinion of these recent revelations:

    Napolitano pulled no punches:

    “There is enough evidence here just on the basis of the little snippets given to the Senate Intelligence Committee by former F.B.I. director Jim Comey that Mrs. Lynch was either conflicted or working at odds with the Justice Department and in behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the DNC when she told him [Comey] to use different terminology for the investigation…The terminology may be indicative of a mindset on the part of Attorney General Lynch that she was going to do whatever she could to prevent Mrs. Clinton from getting indicted.

    “It’s a felony.  Depending upon exactly what they charge her with it could be 5-10 years.”

    Comey has been made the “fall-guy” in all of this and he is certainly not without stench but remember he had previously told Congress that he had “struggled” how he handled the email probe because “a number of things that had gone on … that made me worry that [Justice] Department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

    It’s now becoming clear that “the number of things that had gone on” constituted a criminal conspiracy to protect a corrupt candidate for president that originated at the very top levels of the Obama administration.

    How much we are eventually told and who, if anyone, is held to account, may inform us to just how deep this swamp really is.