Virtually unnoticed by the majority of corporate media, on Wednesday — in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the FBI’s oversight of an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails — Director James Comey revealed a murky effort as outlined in an undisclosed document by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or her associates to ensure the former presidential candidate would not be charged.
No matter what was divined during that investigation, this peculiar document apparently evinced the thwarting by Lynch and associates of any effort to hold Clinton accountable.
But Comey, mildly recalcitrant in testimony due to the classified nature of ongoing investigations, refused to reveal any details about the ostensible document — or about why Lynch would have employed such extreme protectionism on the topic of Clinton.
A report from the New York Times last month first discussed the ostensible contents of this mystery document and its implications, stating it appeared Comey and his associates harbored misgivings about the oversight of their bosses at the Justice Department — and whether or not their biases would allow for a neutral probe.
Speaking on condition of anonymity with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional, and other officials, the Times found Comey’s quasi-rogue attitude toward supervisory departments and tradition of bureau secrecy caused friction between the DOJ and FBI — and extended specifically to his direct boss, Lynch.
“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. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers,” the Times reported.
Of course, the theory Russian hackers actively subverted the U.S. presidential election — enjoining willing and tacit participants in a scheme to both leak information and insert pro-Russian, anti-Clinton propaganda — has never been unassailably proven.
Nevertheless, the Times reports officials from the U.S. Intelligence Community were, at times, privy to information hacked by The Russians — and even received a cache of hacked documents for perusal.
That Lynch, or someone close to her, intended to undertake a Herculean effort to ensure Hillary Clinton would survive the crucial probe over wrongdoings and misbehavior — as putatively revealed in this undisclosed, explosive document — comprised one bit of information seen by the Russians, Comey worried. Continued the Times report,
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.
Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?
The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.
Even the very existence of this damning document has never been proven — perhaps due to its incendiary contents.
Enter to Win 50 American Silver Eagles (Ad)
At Wednesday’s hearing, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley referenced the New York Times’ article in questioning Comey, stating it “reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation ‘didn’t go too far.’”
“How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?” Grassley queried the FBI chief.
“That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response,” Comey stymied. “I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.”
Grassley, not content at the stonewall tactic, pressed further in a similar vein, asking,
What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?
Comey balked, however, refusing on the same grounds his answer would be considered classified — and maintained that position, even when Grassley noted the FBI had yet to answer the Committee’s request to view the contentious document, described occasionally as an email, replying,
I’m not confirming there was an email, sir. I can’t — the subject is classified and in an appropriate forum I’d be happy to brief you on it. But I can’t do it in an open hearing.
Lynch’s apparent loyalty to Clinton came into sharp focus on a number of occasions — including in a private meeting on an airport tarmac between herself and former President Bill Clinton — amid the ongoing investigation of Secretary Clinton, which Lynch at least semantically opposed.
Senator John Cornyn, in questioning Comey, pointed to both the unrevealed email or document and the tarmac meeting that exploded international ire for its brazen indiscretion, stating,
[I]t was the former attorney general Loretta Lynch, who up until that meeting with President Clinton, was the person responsible for making the decision whether to convene a grand jury involving the allegations against Secretary Clinton. And it was former attorney general Loretta Lynch who apparently forbade you from using the word investigation. Indeed, if the New York Times story is true, a Democratic operative expressed confidence that the former attorney general would keep that investigation from going very far.
With the FBI still looking into the campaigns and communications of Clinton, the document in question — and its likely damning contents pegging the U.S. Attorney General responsible for abating efforts to levy charges as needed against the former secretary of state — could prove combustible, if not detrimental, to assumed neutrality of high-level investigators in preeminent law enforcement agencies.
James Comey maintains the bureau “made right decisions” in its investigations, no matter the alleged ambivalence from his boss, Loretta Lynch — but, in order to earn the trust of Congress and the American public, it would behoove the FBI or any other entity in possession of the startling document to reveal its contents to the world.
Until then, flagrant and surreptitious stonewalling of the FBI’s probe, as controvertible then as at present, will paint the top law enforcement agency’s efforts against Clinton as an impotent remnant of failed presidential aspirations — but further evidence that family’s dynasty had been gifted impunity of steel from its nascent days in Arkansas.
Claire Bernish began writing as an independent, investigative journalist in 2015, with works published and republished around the world. Not one to hold back, Claire’s particular areas of interest include U.S. foreign policy, analysis of international affairs, and everything pertaining to transparency and thwarting censorship. To keep up with the latest uncensored news, follow her on Facebook or Twitter: @Subversive_Pen. This article first appeared here at TheFreeThoughtProject.com
Classified is a code word for everybody except the public or you loose your job.
No surprise in this!
I have paid attention to the Clintons for many years. When Lynch became Attorney General, I knew the fix was in.
Lynch worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Her job was to bury all of Hillary’s conflicts of interest in Arkansas.
Among other things, in establishing the Morgan Trust Bank to facilitate the White Water scam, Hillary had strong armed the financial regulators appointed by her husband. (it’s in the congressional report on White Water.)
Lynch was just continuing to protect Hillary.
Lynch should be disbarred for collusion.
This information should not be a surprise to anyone. People who are interested enough to do their homework, have known for a very long time that the US judicial system is corrupt from the top down.
Informative and important article Claire – thanks for digging in.
Considering the subterfuge by the FBI since 1975, “official” statements by the Director are almost as flakey as statements by the alias, Barack H. Obama.
Alias Obama was 2-term occupant of the POTUS slot, yet neither verifiable certificate of birth nor evidence of U.S. citizenship for the alias, Obama, has been published.
The FBI would be wise to investigate the procedure and persons for “vetting” the alias, Obama, to have been qualified for the U.S. Presidency.
Renowned, private, Chicago journalist, Sherman Skolnick, determined during the alias´s occupancy of the Illinois senator slot, that Obama was eligible for congress. However, due to foreign birth, Obama was ineligible for the POTUS slot. All articles by Mr. Skolnick about the alias, Obama, were published widely. About the time the alias, Obama, announced candidacy for US President, Mr. Skolnick had an unusual accident, resulting in his death.
As well documented in the book “CIA: Crime Incorporated of America”, Hillary Clinton, as well as her husband, have enjoyed iron clad immunity from the beginning of their careers. This was provided by the CIA, which both of them had joined while in college. They have been “deep cover” CIA agents the whole time. The same is true of Barak Obama.
And Osama Bin Laden, and Andersen from CNN, and Gloria Steinham, etc.
Sooner or later it would come out about Loretta Lynch and her pledge to protect Hllary Clinton from charges. This is also in connection with director James Comey;s wife receiving money from the ‘campaign’ for not investigating (nor prosecuting) crimes of the Clinton Foundation.
Treason isn’t a reason, not pedophilia, not murder, not theft, not larceny, not any other law is enough to so much as prosecute. They are ‘above the rule of law’ goat worshipers. They will never see the gray bar notell motel. The vigilantes used to dish out there own laws.
Over the years, the corrupt mafia that is called perceived authority, has been slowly revealing its lawlessness as a means of desensitizing Americans. Look at most of the comments right here. No one is surprised and or shocked. We are slowly being conditioned to accept and expect it. WE KNOW the system is corrupt, and blaming it makes us feel better about our own apathy and cowardice. This corruption is just like rust. Its nature is to grow, so blaming it is only a reflection of us being derelict in our duties as honest and decent people.
No matter how many true reports are written, they will never stop unless WE THE PEOPLE do our jobs and enforce the law.
They will and have become more embolden by our lack of appropriate action.
SILENCE IS CONSENT.
WE HAVE BECOME ENABLERS.
STOP BLAMING THE RUST AND START DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.
IT’S OUR OWN FAULT FOR THIS CONTINUATION.
They are not getting away with squat!
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Thank God for that other book!!!
Since FBI ,CIA & NSA have the dirt on all our elected officials there will never be any prosecutions. The best we can hope for is Wikileaks or a whistle blower produces the proof & someone is brave enough to publish it. Then they will have to resign only to be replaced by more criminals.