No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
During questioning of Deportment of Justice (DoJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, Congressional investigators discovered there was an appendix Mr. Horowitz said was damaging to Loretta Lynch, but that the entire appendix was redacted. Of course, this was without a doubt an effort by so-called “Deep State” element in senior-level positions within the DOJ. It was noted that Inspector Horowitz was said to be trying to help Congressional leaders get the appendix declassified. Since Mr. Horowitz had stated that the content of the Appendix was damaging to Ms. Lynch, that means he does not agree to withholding it from Congress. It also suggests and seems to indicate he believes that Congress needs to see ‘everything’ what his investigation uncovered.
As a result of what we have seen and read to date, we already know Ms. Lynch lied to Congress when she said she had never been in contact with anyone inside the Clinton campaign. However, during the investigation an email was revealed by a DoJ staffer that said Lynch promised Amanda Renteria that the DOJ would not delve too deeply into the Clinton email scandal. This occurred at the same time Hillary Clinton indicated (stated) that Loretta Lynch would stay on as the Attorney General when she was elected President. It should also be noted that this was the same time in which Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. The following month, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau would not recommend that the Department of Justice pursue charges in the email probe. Comey has testified before Congress that Lynch asked him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” to avoid a term more damaging.
So during the past week we now learned that the DOJ’s IG report released by IG Horowitz contains an entire Appendix (known as Appendix No. 2 or Appendix-II) that was totally redacted from the IG report released two weeks ago. The Appendix It was labeled or classified as “Law Enforcement Sensitive”. So with that revelation, it is now being reported that the Appendix contains damaging information on the Obama Administration’s former AG Loretta Lynch.
Although it was not reported, IG Horowitz’s report on “A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election” contained two (2) Appendices. The second Appendix as referenced, was totally redacted and left out of the report.
The DOJ’s IG report released by Inspector General Horowitz contains an entire Appendix (No. 2) that was totally redacted from the report. It was labeled “Law Enforcement Sensitive”. It’s now being reported that the Appendix contains damaging information on the Obama Administration’s former AG Loretta Lynch.
Of course, it must be taken into heavy consideration that after years of the Obama Administration, and his legacy group of FBI agents and DOJ investigators and attorneys, Americans are not surprised by the level of corruption, which continues to be uncovered, unveiled, and disclosed nearly every day. The criminal senior leadership of the DOJ, FBI and the Special Counsel they created are all corrupt and for years have been suppressing and concealing critical information that would implicate themselves in their many crimes.
Further, now to no one’s surprise, as noted, its being reported that the redacted Appendix-II in the IG report contains damaging information on Obama’s former AG Loretta Lynch. Perhaps the “highly classified” information contains state secrets rather than merely embarrassing individual ones. And perhaps the information, not unlike much raw intelligence shared with the FBI, strikes trained eyes as lacking credibility
Conservative author and political commentator Paul E. Sperry tweeted this past week;
BREAKING: IG Horowitz testifies material implicating Lynch in possible obstruction of Hillary email case is contained in classified section of his report and that he will work with Congress to declassify it. Here is the possible smoking gun:https://t.co/5hU4rY5i8U
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 18, 2018
In addition, 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” within the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether Lynch spoke with Hillary Clinton about remaining on as attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her. Well guess what — Now it has!
Likewise, in recent weeks 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 Clinton campaign’s political director that she would not let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former Secretary of State as it pertained to her private email server and the thousands of government emails including classified contained on the server and system.
According to various sources, as of this past week, former AG Lynch’s lawyer claim Ms. Lynch is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to numerous 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 was head of Ms. Clinton’s political operations during the presidential campaign. Ms. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom AG Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify before the Judiciary Committee.
Further, the Committee also wants to know if Ms. Lynch, or any of her aides were in contact with former DNC Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz regarding the Clinton email investigation. Accordingly, those questions derive from a three-page list of questions that Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein recently sent to Ms. Lynch at her New York home.
In recent weeks, Senate investigators have reviewed a transcript of Ms. Lynch’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in July 2016. In retrospect, several of her statements now strain credulity. But one in particular statement stands out, and could present serious litigation and legal problems for Ms. Lynch.
From that review and follow-on analysis, during the House Judiciary hearing, Rep. David Trott (R-Mich.) slammed Ms. Lynch for failing to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation despite meeting privately with Hillary’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, a week before the then-attorney general let Hillary skate. Then, referring to rumors of her possibly staying on in a potential Hillary administration, he asked if Ms. Lynch had met with anyone on Hillary’s staff during the yearlong investigation, to which she replied: “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign, or transition, or any staff members affiliated with them.”
Of course, as expected and one need only to ask the question and here’s the answer…
Yes, the Committee now knows of a document obtained by the FBI reportedly showing a Democratic operative’s claim that Ms. Lynch had in fact, privately assured Ms. Renteria that the Justice Department “would not push too deeply” into the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, which contained top secret information from the State Department.
And as expected the Committee will now press Ms. Lynch to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former Director Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.
So as a result, there are now three explanations:
In addition, the Committee will also drill down on her explanation of her highly suspicious meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation on the tarmac in Phoenix. Ms. Lynch claimed the former president boarded her plane, which was parked on the tarmac simply because “he wanted to say hello.”
But the meeting lasted at least 30 minutes and had to be cleared by the Secret Service, as well as FBI security details. It was also the first meeting of any kind on Lynch’s plane. And if the purpose was a greeting, why wouldn’t a phone call do? Similarly, Lynch also got injudicious when asked about reports that her FBI security detail had banned cameras, even phones, from her meeting with Bill Clinton.
As is the case, since her lawyer is on the record for saying Lynch will “fully cooperate” in the Senate investigation, she’ll have a hard time pleading the Fifth in hearings. But that doesn’t mean she won’t try to stonewall and even obstruct the investigation. We’ll see …
It should also be noted that well over a dozens of times during the Capital Hill hearings, former AG Lynch claimed, “I do not recall,” when pressed for sensitive information about her role in the Hillary investigation. In fact, according to the Committee transcript, the committee determined that she either “refused to answer or give appropriate response” no fewer than 74-times during the four-hour hearing.
We’ve reached a point where it’s time for Ms. Lynch to take responsibilities for her actions. She bet on the fact that Hillary was a sure winner in the 2016 Election. Who does that — and lies and conducts illicit actions and conduct, anticipating an outcome of an election will provide cover and the cover-up for her illegal and unethical behavior. It’s now time for Ms. Lynch to pay up for that bet.
Nevertheless, given the inherent pitfalls in a Justice Department tasked with investigating itself, and numerous instances detailed in the IG’s report that indicate that politics rather than justice guided federal employees, reflexively trusting that the disparaging intelligence accusing Lynch of bias should remain classified and does not appear credible seems a fool’s errand.
In the coming weeks ahead, we can try to believe that Congress, constitutionally tasked with oversight, sees it and if possible reveals the facts from the actual classified material, though the public, for reasons legitimate or concocted, likely will never glimpse it.
I would perhaps expect, if some senior official could include the “highly classified” material in a private email intercepted by foreign actors, then inquiring minds could finally know. But that kind of reckless behavior never happens, right?
We can perhaps be optimistic that Senator Grassley, who now has the backing of Senator Feinstein and others on the Committee who said Lynch’s actions made her feel “queasy,” will have better luck drawing the truth out of Loretta Lynch. Again, we shall see.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.