Since the general election in November, accusations of collusion and obstruction have been hurled at Donald Trump and his associates.
Amid the Trump-Russia hysteria, actual malfeasance has been under-reported or brushed off by the mainstream media.
Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama’s Attorney General, is knee-deep in the Russia scandal, and it could reach the tipping point where the left-wing media can no longer spin it.
Former FBI Director James Comey fanned the flames of Hillary Clinton’s email server misconduct, and the heat is about to get turned up another notch, as there could be evidence Lynch was part of a cover-up.
In the course of the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, serious questions have been raised about the possibility that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch may have engaged in wrongdoing with regard to the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
There are three main issues surrounding Lynch’s possible misdeeds in the Clinton email probe.
One is Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting last June at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in which former President Bill Clinton, the husband of the FBI’s main subject in a criminal probe — Hillary’s email case — boarded the attorney general’s plane and reportedly stayed there for about thirty minutes for a private chat.
The second concern is Lynch’s reported directive for then-FBI Director James Comey to publicly refer to the FBI’s criminal investigation into Clinton’s email as a “matter” instead of an investigation or a criminal probe. The language matched the specific rhetoric used at the time by Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which referred to the criminal investigation as a “matter.”
The third issue relates to testimony and questions surrounding reports claiming that Comey was in possession of a document purportedly indicating that Lynch would ensure the Clinton email probe didn’t go too far.
Largely unreported by the news media, these questions surrounding Lynch are so serious that, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee this month, Comey conceded that the appointment of a special counsel in the Clinton email case would have been appropriate due to his concerns about Lynch.
In a tweet on Thursday, President Trump brought up the issue of possible “obstruction” with Lynch’s tarmac episode.
Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, commented on the seriousness of the alleged Lynch “matter” directive, speaking this past Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you,” she told CNN about the issue. “I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”
The issue of a possible document implicating Lynch is shrouded in conflicting news media reports and testimony implying that the matter has been presented in closed session before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While he was still FBI director, Comey was asked at a Senate hearing on FBI oversight in May about the about the purported Lynch document, and he refused to publicly address the matter, explaining it was an issue for a classified setting and not a public hearing.
The document, according to the Post, cited an email said to have been written by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who at the time was chair of the Democratic National Committee. The alleged correspondence cited in the purported document was sent by Schultz to Leonard Benardo, who works at billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Circa’s John Solomon and Sara A. Carter reported:
Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
Comey “took that interaction and the fact she had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public” with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged.
Lynch’s impropriety on the tarmac, coupled with Comey’s concerns over the “matter” verbiage, is impossible to ignore.
However, the atomic bomb could be the document that proves Lynch actively impeded the Clinton investigation.
If the document exists and proves to be authentic–and Comey did not deny its existence–that is actual obstruction of justice, not the make-believe kind levied against Trump.
The case for Trump having committed obstruction of justice relies on Comey actually stopping the FBI probe into Michael Flynn at Trump’s behest, but he didn’t do it. Plus, the underlying crime of collusion doesn’t have a hint of veracity.
The case for obstruction against Lynch requires far less tortuous logic. If the alleged document exists, Democrats will have a lot to answer for.