It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Facts: Loretta Lynch's "Assurances" Hillary Investigation "Won't go too Far"

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
No big revelations here. No grand conspiracy theory to put forth either. Maybe a little opining (with and without some snark). But my main purpose is just to provide the basic facts I've been able to track down regarding the alleged "assurances" from Loretta Lynch... which have struck me as contrived from the very start.

As we learned Friday, Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election --

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.

The official website of Senator Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, explains the events leading up to this probe thusly:

In April, The New York Times reported that the FBI came into possession of a batch of hacked documents, one of which was said to be authored by a “Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.” Chairman Grassley then requested a copy of the document from the Justice Department, which has failed to respond. A month later, The Washington Post reported similar facts and provided further details about individuals involved in these communications. The Post reported that the email in question, sent by then-chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations, indicated that Lynch had privately assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that the FBI’s investigation wouldn’t “go too far.”
Source

That NY Times article referenced would be this amazing puff piece on Comey: Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.

The Times found that this go-it-alone strategy was shaped by his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.

His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed — at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides — to raise questions about her independence.

That "document" would be the now infamous alleged assurances from Loretta Lynch that she wouldn't let the investigation "go too far," but this isn't immediately explained, but much farther into the article the author gets back to this "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.

What I recall hearing initially is that (allegedly) someone from the Clinton campaign expressed concern about the investigation to someone from the DNC, and the DNC person replied that they did not think Loretta Lynch would let it go too far. I specifically recall noting that this was expressed as an opinion of the DNC person. There was no claim that Loretta Lynch had made such a promise or "assurance." It was simply that person's opinion.

About a month later, the Washington Post article referenced by Grassley was published, with further information -- including names: How a dubious Russian document influenced the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe

A secret document that officials say played a key role in then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has long been viewed within the FBI as unreliable and possibly a fake, according to people familiar with its contents.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received what was described as a Russian intelligence document claiming a tacit understanding between the Clinton campaign and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.

The Russian document cited a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter.


Note the very subtle -- but oh-so-important -- distinction in the description? From "a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far" to "then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone." There is a very big difference between someone's opinion of what Lynch would do or not do, and a definite promise by Lynch to do so.

Of course, there is no hard copy of any email or document of any kind... just descriptions of it... contradictory descriptions. So who has this email? The Russians of course!!! But how's this for an amazing stroke of luck:

During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.
New York Times


The document, obtained by the FBI, was a piece of purported analysis by Russian intelligence, the people said.
Washington Post

continued in next post...




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
So according to the description by Russian intelligence:

It referred to an email supposedly written by the then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and sent to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by billionaire George Soros and dedicated to promoting democracy.

The Russian document did not contain a copy of the email, but it described some of the contents of the purported message.

In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.

That's some pretty specific -- and damning -- information. But wait... what's this?

Wasserman Schultz and Benardo said in separate interviews with The Washington Post that they do not know each other and have never communicated. Renteria, in an interview, and people familiar with Lynch’s account said the two also do not know each other and have never communicated. Lynch declined to comment for this article.

Moreover, Wasserman Schultz, Benardo and Renteria said they have never been interviewed by the FBI about the matter.


Never interviewed??? Why would that be? Perhaps because of a consensus within the department that it was just plain junk???


...the FBI has known for a long time that the Russian intelligence document is unreliable and based on multiple layers of hearsay.

“It didn’t mean anything to the investigation until after [senior FBI officials] had to defend themselves,” said one person familiar with the matter. “Then they decided it was important. But it’s junk, and they already knew that.”

Others, however, disagree:

Comey’s defenders still insist that there is reason to believe the document is legitimate and that it rightly played a major role in the director’s thinking.

“It was a very powerful factor in the decision to go forward in July with the statement that there shouldn’t be a prosecution,” said a person familiar with the matter. “The point is that the bureau picked up hacked material that hadn’t been dumped by the bad guys [the Russians] involving Lynch. And that would have pulled the rug out of any authoritative announcement.”

Of course, these are all anonymous sources. So what does Comey say? Well, he told Senator Grassley during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he can't talk about... at least not publicly. Source

I don't yet have an opinion on this phantom email. It's still a moving target. I'll reserve judgment when more facts come out -- if more facts come out! I welcome other's opinions though, and I'm happy to "what if" with anyone so inclined, and of course any additional facts are greatly appreciated.

But for now, these are the cold hard facts available and that I could find.

Senator Grassley: Judiciary Committee Probes Reported Lynch Assurances to Stifle Clinton Email Investigation
New York Times: Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.
Washington Post: How a dubious Russian document influenced the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe
Washington Post: Read the full testimony of FBI Director James Comey in which he discusses Clinton email investigation



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
Boadicea thank you so much for putting this together. I am at work and can't really dig into it yet but I will this evening. But I wanted to thank you for doing all the leg work!

S&F



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

You're welcome -- and thanks for appreciating it



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Well, since this involves the Russians (Russian intelligence document) and possible collusion (Lynch, Comey, DWS, Benardo and Renteria)...it MUST be taken seriously and investigated.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?
edit on b000000302017-06-26T14:11:56-05:0002America/ChicagoMon, 26 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500200000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?


Maybe the Russians were as certain as the Democrats that HRC would win.
Saving it for blackmail.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?


Maybe the Russians were as certain as the Democrats that HRC would win.
Saving it for blackmail.

The only reason that makes sense.
That points to the email being real.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Yep - good stuff OP.

It's hard to nail down and comment on a moving target, as you put it, but let me take a shot.

Lynch is dirty. She has aligned herself with the Clintons (who are the dirtiest of all). She met Bill on the tarmac (thankfully, it was only to discuss grandkids and whatnot). She told Comey to use 'matter' instead of 'investigation'.

It may be 'too big too jail', but that doesn't mean squat to citizens. We deserve the truth GD it!!

Phantom email... I think not. 'Moving target' doesn't mean it can't be hit, it's simply harder to hit. Keep shooting!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Some random thoughts brought to mind by this:

Loretta Lynch faces possible felony if alleged DNC emails exist: Judge Napolitano

First, shame on the Judge, who should know better than anyone that as yet there is no "there" there. Unless and until someone produces proof that Lynch did in fact take such action, this is all just talk. Even if DWS did make the claim that Lynch gave such assurances, that's still just talk. I would also think that even if Lynch made such a promise, it's still just talk without action and Lynch could claim she was just trying to shut them up or something.

Second, it occurs to me that if there were such an email, that it would have been part of the DNC and Clinton campaign email leaks. Especially if Russia really was behind those leaks. But if it's in there, no one's found it and posted it anywhere that I can find.

Third, if Loretta Lynch did make assurances that the investigation did not "go too far," why? Party loyalty and all that jazz? And under whose direction? Her own? Or was she instructed to do so by her boss, Obama???



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Well, since this involves the Russians (Russian intelligence document) and possible collusion (Lynch, Comey, DWS, Benardo and Renteria)...it MUST be taken seriously and investigated.


Well, yeah! It's all about the seriousness of the charge. Especially when it's those pesky Ruskies making the claim -- that changes everything! Evidence be damned!!!

Despite the snark, it's true... the more outrageous the claim, no matter the credibility of the source, the more attention it gets.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

What makes MOST sense, is that if the Russians had a preference to win, it would've been Bernie.
He was a long shot, and they knew it...so they would've been interested in crippling her in the Primaries with propaganda to help Bernie get the nomination.
This could've been interpreted as the Russians favoring Trump over Hillary.

When the Russians knew Hillary would beat Sanders and then Trump to become President...they kept all the good stuff they had on her to use as leverage and blackmail when she became President.

The Russians never would've logically thought Trump had a chance of beating her...although, they DID see Bernie would be worth helping through propaganda efforts.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?


Good questions. It just doesn't add up.

Likewise, if this is a real email, then why didn't it show up in the Wikileaks email dumps with other DNC and Clinton emails? Especially if Russia was really behind those dumps? What reason would they have to withhold that email?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?


Good questions. It just doesn't add up.

Likewise, if this is a real email, then why didn't it show up in the Wikileaks email dumps with other DNC and Clinton emails? Especially if Russia was really behind those dumps? What reason would they have to withhold that email?

I have serious doubts about the Russian hacking stories. I don't doubt that they hacked Hillary or the DNC, but....
I have yet to see any evidence that the Wikileaks dumps came via Russia.
I have heard a lot of Obama/Hillary minions claiming it.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT


Maybe the Russians were as certain as the Democrats that HRC would win.
Saving it for blackmail.


I wondered about that as well. And maybe I'm underestimating the power of guilt by association... but this seems more damaging to Lynch than Hillary. Unless someone can come up with something more directly implicating Hillary's knowledge and involvement, she can claim complete ignorance of any such chicanery. Heaven knows she's gotten away with much worse!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: six67seven



Lynch is dirty. She has aligned herself with the Clintons (who are the dirtiest of all). She met Bill on the tarmac (thankfully, it was only to discuss grandkids and whatnot). She told Comey to use 'matter' instead of 'investigation'.


I have no doubt that Lynch is dirty.... but I don't think she was taking her marching orders from Clinton. Rather I think she was doing the bidding of her boss, Obama. I could be wrong of course. But other than party loyalty, I cannot find any connection between Lynch and Clinton. They weren't even serving in the White House at the same time -- Lynch was appointed to her position after Clinton left the State Department.

I just can't see Lynch doing anything for Hillary unless she was instructed to do so by her boss, Obama. And, therefore, anything she did would have been done for Obama's benefit, and Hillary only benefited because it was best for Obama.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


I have serious doubts about the Russian hacking stories. I don't doubt that they hacked Hillary or the DNC, but....
I have yet to see any evidence that the Wikileaks dumps came via Russia.
I have heard a lot of Obama/Hillary minions claiming it.


I definitely agree. I only put it out there because it's just one of the many ways the stories don't add up. They can't ALL be true. The Washington Post story I linked to in the OP was twisting itself into pretzels trying to explain away all the discrepancies and inconsistencies -- it was exhausting just reading it!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Loretta Lynch & Her Relationship With The Clintons



Loretta Lynch is beholden to the Clintons.
Bill Clinton appointed Ms. Lynch to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1999, jump-starting her career with the White House.

It isn’t a well-known fact Loretta Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at a Washington law firm that served the Clintons. Loretta Lynch was with the international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March of 2002 to April of 2010.


thebernreport.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Thank you! I knew Bill had appointed her to her position in NY, but I didn't know the rest.


It isn’t a well-known fact Loretta Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at a Washington law firm that served the Clintons.


Very very interesting... especially the part about it "isn't a well-known fact." Hmmmm... my brain is spinning now. I think I need my bestest tinfoil hat for this one!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You forgot to mention she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.

You forgot to mention she told Comey to not call it an investigation.

You forgot to mention she refused to assign a special prosecutor as she should have.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join