Senate Republicans Want to Hear From Lynch about “E-mailgate”. While You’re At It, How About “Foundationgate”, too?
Wouldn’t it be nice to see a public figure who actually deserves it, be called in front of a Congressional Investigative Committee, for a change?
It’s time to turn the heat up on Hillary.
Thehill.com reported yesterday that
Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham email investigation.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” which resembled the Clinton campaign line.
The move could allow Republicans to attempt to pivot away from the investigation into Russia’s election meddling — which top GOP lawmakers have signaled belongs to the Intelligence Committee — and focus on Lynch, who has long been a target of Republicans.
Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican who is a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, said it “would be very helpful” for Lynch to testify before the Judiciary panel, which oversees the Justice Department.
“Frankly, a lot of what Hillary Clinton was exposed to by Director Comey’s misconduct and the way he handled that was apparently in response to his lack of confidence in the attorney general, and I think there is a lot we could learn from that,” Cornyn said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham also wants to hear from Lynch and is pushing for the Judiciary Committee to “get more involved.”
“The accusations now that … the current and former attorney general were political — that has nothing to do with Russia as much as it has to do with how the Department of Justice is being run,” he said. “I want to find out all about that.”
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, stressed that no decisions have been made and staffers needed to first “gather evidence.”
But the spokesman said it was “likely” after Comey’s remarks before the intelligence panel that Lynch’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee “will become necessary at some point.”
President Trump has seized on the Obama administration official as the federal investigation into possible ties between his campaign and Russia heats up.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes…gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!” Trump tweeted this week.
Other Trump allies, including the Republican National Committee, have also questioned Lynch’s behavior.
“Why is no one investigating Attorney General Lynch’s Department of Justice for obstruction of justice in the Clinton email investigation. .. .There is compelling evidence to back up the claim that AG Lynch engaged in obstruction of justice,” read one RNC talking point leaked to a Washington Post reporter this week.
The talking points were in response to a Post report that after Comey’s firing last month, special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz said the Texas Republican would “absolutely” support Lynch testifying.
“Well, I kind of would like to get the whole thing behind us, but she should be interrogated [by a committee] because there’s some real questions about whether her actions were proper,” Sen. Orrin Hatch Orrin HatchSenate GOP shifts focus to LynchSen. Hatch jokes he was behind Nickelback prank on Sen. SasseUtah GOP narrows field for Chaffetz seat MORE (R-Utah) said when asked if Lynch should testify as part of a larger obstruction of justice probe.
Comey apparently raised concerns about Lynch before he was fired. He told the Judiciary Committee in early May that he had been worried the Justice Department couldn’t “credibly” decline to prosecute Clinton without “grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”
He also privately told Intelligence Committee members that he confronted Lynch on whether she had agreed to shut down the FBI’s investigation. Comey worried her controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton Bill ClintonSenate GOP shifts focus to Lynch had created a conflict of interest, according to Circa, a website tracked closely by conservative media.
Though GOP lawmakers have long been wary of Lynch, placing her back in the spotlight could backfire if it also keeps the public’s focus on Comey amid continued fallout over the FBI chief’s firing in early May.
Grassley has signaled that potential obstruction of justice during the Obama administration should be included in the committee’s work. The GOP chairman has argued that such a move is relevant because the Trump White House initially pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation to justify his firing.
“The Committee is examining the removal of Director Comey and allegations of improper influence on the FBI’s handling of the Russia and Clinton email investigations. In his recent appearances before both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Comey raised issues about whether these investigations were subjected to inappropriate political influence,” said Taylor Foy, a spokesman for the Iowa Republican.
GOP senators appeared surprised by Grassley’s decision to expand his committee’s investigation, which would also include looking at potential political interference by Trump’s Justice Department into FBI investigations.
The move comes after some Republican members of the committee were already skeptical of Grassley’s threat to subpoena Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee after the former FBI director met with the intelligence panel.
The two Senate panels are conducting separate investigations into Russia’s election meddling, which includes Comey’s firing. But Sen. Richard Burr, the Intelligence Committee chairman, said his panel would steer clear of investigating obstruction of justice, telling CNN that it has “never been part of our” probe.
Any push to pivot to Lynch and the Clinton email investigation would also likely spark pushback from Democrats, who are increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress on the committee’s push to get answers on Russia’s election interference and Comey’s firing.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, signaled that the panel should look into whether Lynch tried to downplay the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email setup.
“I think we need to know more about that. And there’s only way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that,” she told CBS in a recent interview.
But she’s also called for bringing in a swath of top Trump administration’s officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other top Democratic lawmakers have held off endorsing digging into Lynch.
Asked about Feinstein’s comments to CBS, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer sidestepped saying he wanted to hear from the former Obama official.
“Well, before I say anything further on this, I want to hear what Loretta Lynch’s side of the story is. I haven’t heard that yet,” he told reporters.
Sen. Dick Durbin added he wanted to talk to Feinstein but warned against rehashing Clinton scandals when “we have a front-and-center investigation that relates to the national security of the United States.”
“Going back in the previous administration, I guess all of us have some questions about it, but we have a current investigation that is front and center in the American people’s attention span, and that’s what we ought to focus on,” he said.
Of course, the Democrats don’t want to “Rehash Clinton Scandals”.
While there is no “There” there, regarding the Democrats’ Quixotic Quest to find some sort of Russian Collision on the part of President Trump, to justify their candidate, Hillary Clinton’s failure to win the presidency, there is plenty “there” as pertains to her involvement in “E-mailgate” and “Foundationgate”.
- E-mailgate – Foxnews.com reported on August 1st of last year that
Hillary Clinton is getting hammered for saying on “Fox News Sunday” that FBI Director James Comey confirmed her statements on her email scandal were “truthful” – with one prominent fact-checker giving the claim four “Pinocchios.”
The former secretary of state cited Comey when asked to account for her repeated claims that she never sent or received material marked classified on her personal email account. When host Chris Wallace noted that Comey said those things were not true, Clinton disagreed.
“That’s not what I heard Director Comey say … Director Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails,” she said.
The Washington Post Fact Checker picked apart that statement, ultimately giving it four “Pinocchios,” its worst rating for truthfulness.
“Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation,” the Post wrote, noting that she was relying on Comey’s statement to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”
However, the FBI director did not say the same about her statements to the American public. And during testimony before a House committee, Comey said it was “not true” that nothing Clinton sent or received was marked classified. To the contrary, he said, “there was classified material emailed.”
The Post concluded: “While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.
“And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting
- Foundationgate – Just how corrupt was the pipeline between the Clinton Foundation and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?Per discoverthenetworks.org,
By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley…CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland’s Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.” [Reuters, 3/19/15]
However, it was not just governments who sent money to the Clintons through their Foundation. Again, according to discoverthenetworks.org…
* “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows. Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
* During Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, “More than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation… collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million…. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]
With the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians or the formation of an Iranian Connection, as a result of money given to the Clinton Foundation, as was previously reported in 2015, or the later revelation involving “dual-staffer” Cheryl Mills, “FoundationGate” caught the attention of the American Public as a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of a Conflict of Interest involving possible Treason.
Time and time again, from Watergate to Travelgate to Benghazigate, and most recently with E-mailgate and the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton has proven to be a ruthless, untrustworthy, Machiavellian professional politician, who only cared about herself and her planned ascension to the Presidency of the United States of America.
As I have previously written, Clinton’s trail of corruption leads all the way back to when she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for dishonesty.
However, to use public servers to transmit Top Secret Information which endangered American Operatives and to have the hutzpah to practice “Pay-For-Play” on a Global Scale, while holding the Office of Secretary of State of the United States of America, Clinton showed herself to be downright treasonous.
So, Republican Members of Congress, it is time to turn up the heat and to fight fire with fire.
American Voters elected Trump…and those same American Voters can send you home.
Time to get up off your keisters and to defend President Trump.
And, the best defense is a good offense.
it is way past time for a THOROUGH investigation of the nefarious actions of Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
What’s “good” for the winner of the 2016 Presidential Election…is much better for the loser.
“What difference at this point does it make?”
Well…perhaps it would make all of the Liberals who have been throwing a National Temper Tantrum hollering “Russia, Russia, Russia” for seven months with no proof whatsoever to back them up to hold their breath until they turn blue…and pass out.
Like when a baby cries themselves to sleep.
Until He Comes,