BREAKING: Loretta Lynch Releases Statement Attacking Comey Before His TV Interview

On Sunday, before the airing of former FBI Director James Comey interview with ABC News host George Stephanopolous, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a 330-word statement attacking former Comey’s account of their discussion about the Clinton email investigation. She also disputed Comey’s contention that there was classified information that showed a conflict on her part, saying she had not had any contact with the people from the Clinton campaign.

In his book, Comey said that both former President Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch jeopardized the investigation in various ways.

From Washington Examiner:

Obama had jeopardized the Department of Justice’s credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton’s email use was “a mistake” that had not endangered national security,” Comey writes. “Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting that the case involved overclassification of material in the government.”

“President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well. To this day, I don’t know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than follow his lead.”

And he said that Lynch’s insistence that he refer to the Clinton investigation as a matter rather than an investigation made him “queasy.”

“It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word ‘investigation,’” Comey writes.

“The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy. Her “just do it” response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions. Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.”

In her statement, Lych claimed Comey never brought up any concerns he had about her wanting to call the case a “matter” rather than an “investigation.”

From Daily Wire:

I have known James Comey almost 30 years. Throughout his time as Director we spoke regularly about some of the most sensitive issues in law enforcement and national security. If he had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did.

Comey has also said in his book and reportedly repeats in the interview that there is classified information that could make it appear that Lynch had a conflict or bias in the Clinton email case.

Lynch claimed in her statement she was not in contact with the Clinton campaign.

Throughout the process I did what I always do: rise above politics and uphold the law. At no time did I ever discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone from the Clinton campaign or the DNC.

She said that she never hesitated to make the “hard decisions,” “always doing the right thing”

Over almost two decades as a federal prosecutor I have aggressively prosecuted drug dealers, violent gangs, mobsters, and money launderers, upheld the civil rights of all Americans, and fought corruption of all types –– whether by elected officials from both sides of the aisle or within organizations like FIFA. Through it all I have never hesitated to make the hard decisions, guided by the Department of Justice’s core principles or integrity, independence and above all, always doing the right thing.

The Justice Department’s handling of the Clinton email investigation under my leadership was no exception. It was led by a team of non-partisan career prosecutors whose integrity cannot be overstated and whom I trusted to assess the facts and make a recommendation – one that I ultimately accepted because I thought the evidence and law warranted it.

But here’s the problem with her version.

What’s the information that Comey has?

If in fact that she could make the hard decisions, why did she not make the decision in the Clinton case? If in fact, she had no conflict. It was improper for Comey to make it. If she was compromised, the decision should have been made by her deputy.

So her very actions don’t support her, they suggest she allowed Comey and his huge ego to improperly assume authority because she felt or was in fact conflicted.

But it’s fascinating that she’s so worried about what he might say that she feels the need to pre-emptively undercut him.

Both need to be put under oath and asked questions as to the conflict in the case and what contact she had with the Clinton campaign.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of