It looks like we might be getting more information on the Loretta Lynch/Hillary Clinton campaign conspiracy after all.
Zero Hedge asked on Thursday evening, “If the DNC is in possession of actual tangible evidence that could prove once and for all that Russians hacked their servers and attempted to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton, why not share that evidence with investigators and enjoy the blissful vindication that its public release would provide?”
Tyelr Durden then wrote in a post on Friday, “We concluded by wondering whether the stonewalling from the DNC just might have something to do with this “purely coincidental’ meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and/or Loretta Lynch’s ‘assurances’ to members of the Clinton campaign that the FBI’s investigation (or, “matter” if you prefer) of Hillary Clinton “wouldn’t go too far“? Afterall, if evidence of “Russian hacking” were on that server, so to would there be evidence of Lynch’s transgressions…if they existed, of course.”
“But we’re not the only ones wondering whether there’s more to the Lynch story.,” he added. “According to an article in the New York Post, some testimony that Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her. In that testimony, Lynch said that she had ‘not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.'”
Then there was the infamous tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in 2016, and we’ve been told that the NSA will not release the tapes of that meeting claiming “national security,” even though the two said they only talked grandkids and golf.
We also have the issue of James Comey’s testimony in which he said that when he was investigating Hillary’s email crimes that Lynch told him to refer to the investigation as a “matter,” a term that was being put out by the Clinton campaign at the time.
Donald Trump has said that Lynch gave Clinton a free pass and protection concerning the matter, and it seems that a report from the Washington Post confirms that.
When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.
Lynch’s lawyer says she is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to several questions, as well as relevant documents. Among other things, they want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.
Whoa! Lynch wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far”? She was definitely covering for Crooked Hillary, there can be no doubt. That’s because, as we have pointed out before, Lynch is just as crooked as she is.
However, Trump promised the American people to have his attorney general appoint a special investigator, something that has not yet occurred. So, I must ask, is the Trump administration going to give her another free pass and protection just like the Obama DOJ?
All of this led Durden to draw final conclusion in the matter.
“After all the drama around the Clinton email investigation, which included multiple people being offered immunity and the revelation of what appeared to be numerous federal crimes committed by several people on Clinton’s staff, wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s Attorney General were the only one to take the fall?” he wrote. “Scandal free administration indeed…”