Several recent developments will be interesting to follow in the mainstream media. It’s their turn to squirm now. An article in the New York Post says that a special counsel may “probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice.”
Whether or not an investigator is appointed, Congress itself intends to investigate former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her potential obstruction of justice and politicization of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server.
Under sworn questioning, [former FBI Director James] Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice. …
The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel …
Comey testified under oath that Lynch had ordered him to mislead the public by calling the investigation into Clinton a matter (conforming to Clinton’s campaign talking points) instead of a criminal investigation–a request to which he submitted.
Additionally, Lynch would not recuse herself formally from the investigation, after it became apparent to the entire world that she had compromised the integrity of the investigation by secretly meeting with the target’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, under very suspicious circumstances.
Even more damning, the article reminds us that the New York Times reported that
Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
So Lynch apparently had reassured the Clintons that the fix was in and the matter was only for show, to give the public the illusion that the Obama administration was actually interested in following the law.
The New York Post article goes on to point out that it would be of great interest to know who else may have been party to these conversations, specifically those that Comey had with Lynch, and whether or not any documentation exists that can be subpoenaed. (We all know how avidly Comey memorialized conversations, especially those he thought may come in handy at some point in the future as a CYA.)
Originally the mainstream media reported that the FBI had the Wasserman Schultz email itself–a smoking gun that confirmed that the fix was in.
Later, that revelation morphed into a new meme that instead this email was referenced only in a false document planted by the Russians to disrupt the election. In other words, we’re to believe that the Russians faked this email and then wrote about it in a document obtained by the FBI, after the Russians planted it for them to find. Such a narrative would, of course, redound to the benefit of the Democrats. Let’s blame the Russians!
It’s been reported by Circa that Comey surprised Lynch with the email during a conversation with her:
Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.
Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
The New York Post article informs us that Comey’s notes can be subpoenaed along with
the Wasserman Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isn’t fake. (Comey testified such reports are “nonsense.”) So might the NSA recording of Lynch’s chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane [be subpoenaed].
Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comey’s allegations under oath.
A citizen has tried to obtain the recording from within Lynch’s government plane, to no avail. Hopefully, Congress will have better luck.
The question of whether the smoking-gun email was invented by the Russians and then planted, or whether it’s real, is easily determined by subpoenaing the email accounts of the sender and receiver(s). Senator Lindsey Graham doubts that the email is fake or planted by Russians, pointing out that Comey told Congress about the email, but not that it was fake.
“He talked to members of the Senate and House intel committee that he was sitting on emails that the Russians had between the Democratic Party and the Department of Justice that were highly explosive,” Graham said. “He never once told a member of the House or the Senate that he thought the email was fake.“
If the writers of these emails don’t cooperate and cough up their messages, then the information can likely be obtained from the internet service providers or the NSA.
In related news, former DHS director Jeh Johnson testified today that the DNC refused to allow the DHS or the FBI to access their equipment after it was allegedly hacked by Russians before the election.
“Sometime in 2016, I became aware of a hack into systems of the Democratic National Committee,” Johnson said. “… I pressed my staff to know whether DHS was sufficiently proactive, and on the scene helping the DNC identify the intruders and patch vulnerabilities. The answer, to the best of my recollection, was not reassuring: the FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time.”
The FBI reportedly faced a similar rejection.
Emails from then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ultimately were leaked ahead of the party’s national convention in Philadelphia. Those emails seemed to show party officials conspiring to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign. The incident led to Schultz’s resignation.
Oddly enough, there has been no claim that those particular emails of Wasserman Schultz’s were fake or planted by the Russians.
Because the DNC refused to allow the DHS or the FBI to examine their equipment, a fact also testified to by Comey, those departments could not credibly state that “the Russians” hacked the DNC, as has been widely reported:
The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrike [hired by the Democrats, who stood to benefit politically by such a false meme].
The DNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment by CNN. [Then President-elect now President] Donald Trump … hit Democrats, tweeting,
“So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on?”
The dubious nature of the DNC contractor was reported in the UK media:
It was an explosive conclusion which cast a pall over the entire election: that the Kremlin was behind a hack of the Democratic National Committee which resulted in its embarrassing secrets being published.
First made in June 2016, it has overshadowed the election, transition and now presidency of Donald Trump.
And the FBI, CIA, NSA and 12 other intelligence agencies published an unprecedented joint report saying [that] Vladimir Putin ordered a hacking campaign to tip the election against Hillary Clinton.
But now the first expert company to make a link between the DNC hacks and the Kremlin is facing a damaging series of questions over its credibility, DailyMail.com can disclose.
Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has had to retract portions of a report supporting its allegations of Russian cyberattacks – and is also refusing to address Congress about its findings on Moscow’s election hacking. …
CrowdStrike, based in Irvine, California, is also the only group that the DNC allowed to directly examine its servers.
Not even the FBI has been granted access to the servers.
U.S. agencies have instead relied on CrowdStrike’s work. There is no other known forensic evidence which has been publicly disclosed to link the Kremlin to the attacks, including in a series of intelligence community statements and reports.
But now questions are emerging about the reliability of the company’s findings.
Apparently questions were raised only in the UK. How much buzz is there in the U.S. media with regard to the potentially bogus provenance of the allegation that the Russians hacked the DNC?
In yet other news, the NSC has told Judicial Watch that documents they requested under the Freedom of Information Act have been inexplicably sent to the presidential library of Barack Obama. As reported at Breitbart:
The National Security Council cannot hand over records relating to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s surveillance of Americans, because they have been moved to the Obama presidential library and may be sealed for as may as five years, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced Monday.
The NSC informed Judicial Watch in a letter dated May 23 that materials related to Rice’s requests to know the identities of Americans swept up in surveillance of foreign targets, including any Trump campaign or transition officials, have been moved to the library.
Talk about potential obstruction of justice! As the writer points out:
Congress should act to stop this travesty of justice. Obama shouldn’t own any of those files. Those files are evidence as well as historic record, and in either case, they belong solely to the American people who paid for them.
Not only Congress but also President Trump should act ASAP. Those files should be immediately subpoenaed and returned to the control of the government. President Trump can get them and he can release them.
Congress can also issue subpoenas and it seems that they have done so already with regard to unmasking records, so it becomes important to learn at what point these documents were transferred to the Obama Library.
Potential obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress?
Curiously, the library does not yet exist, so where exactly are these records today? Will they, like so many others, end up disappeared or Bleach-bitted?