Real World Event Discussions

Lynch. Comey. Dirty Debbie. Hillary. The FBI-DNC-DOJ link. Ohr. Stzok. Page. Rosenstein. It's one giant deep state clusterfvck

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 15:08
VIEWED: 16657
PAGE 1 of 14

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 24, 2017 12:08 AM

Quote:
As more Democrats have started to question why former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was never investigated for obstruction following a suspicious meeting with former President Bill Clinton, it appears the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally decided to act.

The Washington Times reported Friday that the committee has launched a formal investigation into Lynch’s attempts to shape the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton, and whether she mishandled classified information on her private email server.

According to the Times, the investigation has bipartisan support.

“Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.”

“Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far."

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey said his suspicions about Lynch’s cozy relationship with the Clintons prompted him to unilaterally announce the close of the Clinton investigation last summer.

Because... why??

Quote:
According to Comey, Lynch leaned on him to soften his language when discussing the investigation, asking him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” mirror language used by the campaign, instead of as “an investigation.”

Comey also said the suspicious meeting between Clinton and Lynch raised questions about her objectivity that could’ve compromised the bureau’s integrity.

LANKFORD: Then you made a comment earlier a the attorney general, the previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.
We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't a hill worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter.
They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

LANKFORD: You gave impression that the campaign was somehow using the language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language?

COMEY: I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.

So who was obstructing or trying to interfere there?

Comey said that this troubled him greatly and convinced him, “I have to step away from the department if we’re too close this case cred

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 24, 2017 6:31 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:37 AM

RIVERLOVE

Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:46 AM

REAVERFAN

Saturday, June 24, 2017 4:43 PM

STILL investigating. STILL nothing...

6STRINGJOKER

Saturday, June 24, 2017 5:12 PM

lol... That's what Trump said.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 24, 2017 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
STILL investigating. STILL nothing...

Give it 11 months... then we'll see.

* Oh, and btw Lucy Hale - WOW !

RIVERLOVE

Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:22 PM

There once was a gal named Loretta
And to her boss Barack she swore no vendetta
"I'll also not charge your Sec. of State
But I will make Bill wait
On the tarmac so late
'Cause the prick thinks he's a mo' betta jet-setta!"

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Best post of the week.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 7, 2017 11:27 PM

Quote:
Loretta Lynch Plot Thickens As New Details Emerge Of Her Dealings With The Hillary Campaign

Last night we asked a very simple question about why the DNC has failed to cooperate with Russia investigators by handing over their infamous email server to either the FBI or Robert Mueller's team (see: DNC Server: Most Critical Evidence To Proving "Russian Hacking" Is Being Withheld From Mueller, Why?).

After all, if Russia did "hack the election", as we've been told 24/7 by CNN going on 8 months now, then the evidence could very well be on that server. Which prompted us to ask this very simple question:

All of which brings us back to our original question: 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?

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"? After all, 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. 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."

That said, and as we've reported before, that statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton's campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI's investigation "wouldn't go too far"...more from the Post:

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.

And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" rather than what it actually was, an investigation.

Now, as The Post points out, there are new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about the alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and promptly asked to leave.

And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she re

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME