The Government Should Be
Investigating Loretta Lynch
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 e-mails.
There are three main issues surrounding Lynch’s possible misdeeds in the Clinton e-mail probe.
One is Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting last June at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport where former President Bill Clinton boarded the attorney general’s plane and reportedly stayed there for about 30 minutes for a private chat. Lynch claimed there was “no discussion of State Department e-mails” or any other matter pending before the Justice Department. She maintained that the conversation was “a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix.”
The second concern is Lynch’s reported directive to then-FBI Director James Comey to publicly refer to the FBI’s criminal investigation into Clinton’s e-mails 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 e-mail 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 e-mail case would have been appropriate due to his concerns about Lynch.
Comey’s admission that Lynch “told me to call it matter” – a directive that “confused” and “concerned” him – serves as a significant public accusation against Lynch, possibly highlighting her intentions in the e-mail probe. Lynch allegedly issued the “matter” directive to Comey despite the Justice Department knowing the FBI probe was not only an official investigation but a criminal probe.
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. The alleged document was first reported by The New York Times, which quoted sources saying that the FBI possessed information that the alleged Lynch document had been hacked by Russian intelligence, leading Comey to fear that Moscow could leak the document to call into question the independence of the Clinton e-mail probe.
The paper described the document: “The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.
“Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.”
After the issue of the purported document was raised at that hearing, the Washington Post released a story with an entirely different narrative on the alleged document. According to the Post report, the document – reportedly central to Comey’s actions on the Clinton e-mail probe – was assessed by Comey’s own FBI to be unreliable and possibly fake.
Comey seems to have pushed back against the Post report when he stated in his testimony this month: “One significant item I can’t… I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been public accounts of it which are nonsense. But I understand the committee has been briefed on the classified facts.”
Sen. Lindsay Graham, who would have been present for classified testimony on the Russia probe, has publicly stated that he doubted the purported Lynch document was fake.
Adding further intrigue to the Lynch document issue, this week Circa cited “sources who were directly briefed on the matter” who revealed that Comey briefed Congress on a “frosty” exchange that he says he had with Lynch centering on the purported document. Circa’s John Solomon and Sara A. Carter reported: “During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.
“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.
Circa’s report contrasts with a Washington Post claim that the FBI provided Lynch with a “defensive briefing” on the alleged document in which she was reportedly cooperative.
