In a column for The New York Post, Paul Sperry says that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s story explaining her investigation of Hillary Clinton is full of holes. Most notable is the revelation that the FBI has a source who says Lynch assured a Clinton campaign official that the FBI would not “go too far” in its investigation of Clinton over her private email server. That contradicts her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If true, that means Lynch lied under oath before Congress. That means she committed a crime. That means jail time.
It should be noted that when Lynch testified before Congress, the committee found that Lynch “refused to answer or give appropriate response” 74 different times during her four hour testimony. If a member of the Trump administration had done such a thing, the media would be burning down Washington right now.
Even Democrats can see through Lynch’s charade. Diane Feinstein, co-chair of the committee and a leader in the Democratic party, supports an investigation into Lynch’s contradictions.
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.
Senate investigators have combed through a transcript of Lynch’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in July 2016. In retrospect, several of her statements strain credulity. But one in particular stands out, and could present legal problems for Lynch.
During the House Judiciary hearing, Rep. David Trott (R-Mich.) slammed Lynch for failing to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation despite meeting privately with the target’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, a week before the then-attorney general let Hillary skate. Then, referring to rumors of her possibly staying on in a hypothetical Hillary administration, he asked if Lynch had met with anyone on Hillary’s staff during the yearlong investigation, to which she replied: “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”
The committee, however, now knows of a document obtained by the FBI reportedly showing a Democratic operative’s claim that Lynch had privately assured Renteria that the Justice Department “would not push too deeply” into the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, which contained top secret information from the State Department.
And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.
There are three explanations: Either Lynch lied under oath, or she never in fact talked to Renteria, or her categorical denial was meant to later claim she was merely discussing her role post-election.