On the Letter to Loretta Lynch

I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up with the Congressional investigations into the supposed Russian hack of the DNC e-mail servers, which has been proven in every investigation to have no evidence against Russia, and quite a lot against the beloved DNC Services, Inc., but a few days ago on 22 Jun 2017, the United States Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, with members from both sides of the aisle as they say, including Dianne Feinstein of California, Ted Cruz of Texas, Al Franken of Minnesota, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, sent a letter to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, levying quite a scathing accusation: that Loretta Lynch had interfered with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

According to the letter, the FBI is reported to have “obtained an email or memo written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far”, and according to anonymous officials cited in the report, the discovery of this statement being made complicated the FBI and Justice department investigations. If Ms. Lynch had announced that the case was closed, and Wikileaks leaked the document, Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.

Further investigations into Wikileaks by The Washington Post revealed that there had been an e-mail from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Leonard Bernardo, again privately assuring that Loretta Lynch would not allow the e-mail investigation to push too deeply into the matter. According to the article: “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 go too far…”

The Judiciary Committee, following its supporting evidence, lists a number of remarkable questions that they expect answer to, from Loretta Lynch on 6 July 2017; some of the questions include:

  • Did anyone from the FBI ever discuss or otherwise mention to you emails, memos, or reports such as those described in these media reports?
  • Are you aware of the existence of any email, memo, or report such as those described in the cited media reports? If so, when and how did you become aware of the document’s existence? Did you have any reason to doubt the authenticity of this document?
  • To the best of your knowledge, did any of your Justice Department staff or your other associates communicate with Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, her staff, her associates, or any other current or former DNC officials about the Clinton email investigation?

Personally, I don’t think the six questions in total go far enough. The letter then concludes with the signatures of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Judiciary Committee: Grassley and Graham for the Republicans, and Feinstein and Whitehouse for the Democrats, which is an important step in the process of our government identifying corruption within itself; however, the entirety of Washington DC likes to pretend they’re entirely allergic to Wikileaks, only ever referring to them as “Russian documents/emails” in any official capacity. The Wikileaks are right there; anyone can search for “Loretta Lynch” and find numerous situations in which the same thing has been said about Loretta for many different controversies the DNC has faced in the last two years — and I recommend you do, as there’s some very fascinating stuff to find in those search results. But don’t be too surprised; Loretta Lynch has been in hot water ever since the beginning of the year with undisclosed meeting with Bill Clinton while Hillary was under investigation, as well as the topic of her refusal to recuse from said investigation.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.