When Adam Schiff, Hollywood’s Representative in Congress is made “Queasy” by recent revelations that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch interfered in the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, you can rest assured that Democrats may find that, instead of Trump, it is they who may find themselves under scrutiny. Schiff joins Senator Diane Feinstein who would like the Judiciary Committee to examine Lynch’s attempt to subvert the FBI’s investigation in order to aid the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Democrats may seek to characterize Lynch’s directive as much ado about nothing. In order for Democrats to contend that Lynch’s directive was an innocuous, insignificant event, they would have to simultaneously belief that the following events that occurred at the time Lynch instructed Comey to call the criminal investigation a “matter” were purely coincidental.
Lynch participates in a private, wholly inappropriate meeting with the husband of a woman who was the subject of a criminal inquiry. Lynch then instructs Comey to deal with the investigation as if it were merely a “matter” a bizarre characterization that Comey felt
” …gave the impression that the attorney general [Lynch] was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way the political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate,” said Comey. The former FBI director said Lynch’s order made him feel “queasy” but admitted he complied because it “wasn’t a hill worth dying on.”
Comey testified that Lynch’s directive, Lynch’s directive, “concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning.” After their meeting, Comey felt that the Justice Department headed by Lynch was too compromised to conduct an impartial examination as to whether to recommend indictment.
In addition to the series of coeval events noted above, Hillary Clinton let it be known through her campaign that she would like to keep Lynch on as Attorney General in her Administration.
If Democrats contend that Lynch’s conduct was innocuous, how do they explain Lynch’s removing herself from making a determination as to whether to pursue the case further? Furthermore, how can they squared such a belief with Comey’s testimony that for him, Lynch’s comment was a catalyst in his decision to usurp time honored rules of procedure, namely, that policemen do not determine whether or not to charge a suspect, that is the job of a district attorney, or in the case of Clinton’s email server, Attorney General Lynch.
To even the most biased of observers, none of this passes the smell test.
If Democrats are serious about investigating interference in the last election, they can take a look at the brazen and unconcealed attempts by the Clintons to derail the FBI investigation by seeking to improperly influence the woman who was the then acting Attorney General for the Obama Administration.