Lynch contradicted Comey
In June of 2017 James Comey testified, under oath, before the House Judiciary Committee. During that hearing Comey volunteered certain information regarding the former AG and her, shall I call it her independence, to preside over the Clinton investigation. Comey testified to the following: “The attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me." (As Dianne Feinstein would say "closed quote!").
Comey went on to say that "“The Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation? ... And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.' And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’ And she said, "Just call it a matter!"
Comey went on to note the infamous private meeting that Lynch had with Bill Clinton aboard her plane on the tarmac in Arizona. That gave him pause! (that's when he questioned her independence) Ya, I guess that gave us all pause - the AG meeting with the husband of the subject of a high profile investigation! The one where Bill Clinton just walked off his plane and onto hers. They had a nice conversation about grandkids. Unfortunately, for the AG, one brave, local reporter caught on to it, or we would never know about it.
It's funny how the msm and congressional democrats, who demand that any AG appointed by President Trump take some sort of pledge of independence, never questioned the impartiality of Lynch or (Obama's self described wingman) Eric Holder.
Yesterday Loretta Lynch's December testimony was released. We now find Lynch (also under oath) completely contradicting Comey's testimony!
When asked if she ever told Comey to refer to the investigation as a "matter?"
She testified "I did not"
So, again, the American people are kind of left in the lurch. One thing is clear. Either Lynch or Comey is lying and lying under oath. Is it the FBI director, who conducted two high profile investigations of Presidential candidates, exclusively by the top officials at the FBI (instead of the norm of having local field offices handle them) and then making the ultimate decision (not his to make) in one of them?
Or is it the AG who met with Bill Clinton in the midst of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation and abdicated her responsibility to make the decision in the case?
A tough call, you say?
Unfortunately, this story goes under-reported by much of the msm
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
A little scrutiny and Obama officials are contradicting one another.
To be filed under I didn't do it - he did it!
Of course they are...no surprise there...the 'matter' will be shoved under the latest entertainment news.
If at all
I don't know. Lots of liberals apparently get their "news" from late-night comedians.
While "a lot" of rightwingers don't even bother with news and just plug in their brains to FartzNooz or one of the many other rightwing pukefunnel outlets.
And does that bother you? Need a safe space to go to?
And republicans get their news from a twitterfied narcissistic toddler
It's funny how the msm and congressional democrats, who demand that any AG appointed by President Trump take some sort of pledge of independence, never questioned the impartiality of Lynch or (Obama's self described wingman) Eric Holder.
Yep, it's really funny, kinda reminds me of this...
It's only the beginning. There will be plenty more squirming & squealing
Squirming and squealing are your Shitbag's only two ways to function.
No, it's your Shitbag's MO. It's who he is!!!
Oooooo, a tantrum! Carry on carrying on, vic.
What's the matter? Don't you like it when somebody calls Obama a Shitbag in every post? Don't like the taste of your own medicine?
Drop the name calling, which is trolling, and discuss the topic
Indeed! All they got.
This story is the hamberber of all nothing burgers...
Indeed! All they got.
Gee, you being an expert on Trump lies, one would figure you could at least recognize when some of your heroes lie.
There you are again, pointing at the molehill while sitting on the mountain (of lies, Tex--just so you get it).
I'm still sorry that you think it is even possible that two separate, conflicting testimonies are both the whole truth.
As long as you hold on to that type of "thinking", we won't get anywhere.
Don't you just luvvvvvv how they think they can always have it both ways?
They're pathetic in that way. Like messed up runover hydraphobic cats...
Who knows who's lying?
.
We have two opposed versions from Comey, the epitome of the weasel who lies and points fingers at others to deflect blame from himself and Lynch, the party hack.
Comey has a lot to worry about with all his leaking & lying. We are just coming to the inner workings of the investigations - the surveillance using paid spies and wiretaps on many of the President's associates.
So please tell us when he's lying and when he's truthing, won't you? I mean, that is when you make up your minds when to use or not use him as a punching bag. You people are as transparent as air but less substantial.
That's projection. You (dems) loved him when he let Hillary off. You (dems) hated him when he announced that he was re-opening the Clinton investigation. You (dems) suddenly loved him when he got fired and became a political pundit.
We (Conservatives) rejected him from day 1 - When he let Clinton off!
I love the make believe Vic. Especially since you are using personal opinion as fact.
That's nice. Prove it. Name some. I'll check back in a week or so.
We've shown you what the Mueller investigation found on that score many times and you will not accept it. Your repeated demands to "prove" anything to you are wasted since we always know in advance you are immune to any fact.
Sure are a lot of words in that post to just dance around and NOT answer what was asked!
LOL!
Asked, answered, ignored. Find a new meme, Tex. You've worn that one down to dust.
Wouldn't BE worn down to dust if you would simply provide what you claim to have proof of.
That theory was summarily dismissed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s Report. Haven't you heard?
It's becoming clear that Obama officials knew all along there never was any real collusion or crime at play, they just used that lie to spy on a political campaign.
I deleted it because I knew your response would be the usual.
The FBI was surveilling (whatever the word is, not spying) on the Russians already.
Is that what you wanted to say when you said: "Lots of Russian associates and lots being paid through the Russians." ???
No.
Oh what happened to post 5.2? It vanished!
It's ok, I answered it anyway!
I think we may have a technical glitch here
Or maybe it's Obama's FBI at work?
Post # 5.2 has gone the way of Hillary's e-mails.
Perhaps the answers received weren't to the poster's liking?
It's possible
Oh, and this is "Obama Spied on Shitbag Day!!!!!," too. Tomorrow it'll be back to "Obama Let Russia Use Shitbag Day!!!!" You people.
Some of the surveillance abuses of American citizens, political figures and journalists are already known. Specifically the surveillance of journalist James Rosen as well as Reuter's reporters
This is just recycling old news.
Just ask Russia for them again....Putin's always ready to help you out.
Good...Then allow me......If Russian Intelligence finds either Post # 5.2 or Hillary's e-mails, please contact us.
A special note to The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS - I DIDN"T SAY HACK!!!!!! I said if you find them, because our intelligence agencies can't or won't!
Those are your peeps, vic, not ours.
Oh, so today is rightwing "Comey Is The Tits Day" (until we remind them of why Shitbag canned him).
Can you see where the two testimonies conflict at all?
Do you honestly think that there are two separate, different versions of the truth and that both of the testimonies are correct?
Well, that's the point and depending on the day or weather or just random events you like to pick and choose which one to push.
That is crap. I didn't push anything--I stated (QUITE CLEARLY FOR THOSE READING) that the two testimonies were different. How can both be correct, or is it just possible in the world you inhabit?
Do NOT attempt to tell me what I wrote and then argue that crap. It is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
I'll give you top chutzpah points for that one, Tex. And it is fun to watch you deny something you just finish posting time and time again.
Okay, here is my post you are complaining about. Be a sweetheart and point out where I pushed ANYTHING as you claim.
"Can you see where the two testimonies conflict at all?
Do you honestly think that there are two separate, different versions of the truth and that both of the testimonies are correct?"
GO!!!!!!
The frequency of these intellectually dishonest and lazy posts are increasing dramatically.
Sigh.
I suppose it is easier to debate what you wanted someone to say instead of what they actually say.
For sure !
Not just Comey, but Lynch and Co as well.
Don't even try telling us why you thought Comey was fired. We might have to remind you of the democrats calling for his removal
And then we'll remind you of how your Shitbag still attacks him whenever thoughts of him come into that worm infested brain.
And your'e Shitbag spied on American citizens!
They all do now. Starting with Bush and the patriot act.
Or did he not "spy" enough, right? Make up your "mind" vic.
[deleted]
Really? Never heard of it?
Ok:
"The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday ."
In May 2013 , the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.
Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.
In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.
Let's see how fast they ignore specifically what was asked for.
Right now Jerry Nadler is conducting the House Judiciary Committee hearing without Don McGahn. There is a name plate with McGahn's name on it in front of an empty chair, the camera's rolling with plenty of the usual condemnation of the President. Ranking member Doug Collins has just announced the Theatre is open! He was grateful that there wasn't chicken on the table.
In the meantime the REAL investigation is underway!
You are right to be scared shitless of having McGahn testify in the open for the country to see. Your Shitbag sure is. But don't worry....McGahn may not be there today but he will be before too long.
Your'e Shitbag is going to be implicated in all of this. Could that be why he's been so quiet?
Didn't McGahn take notes? What attorney takes notes? Asked the turd in chief in dismay.
All of those notes were given to Robert Mueller, courtesy of the President. All of it, which was in the Report, was given to Robert Mueller freely by the President.
But we are talking about Trump again, aren't we?
As he should. Thank goodness someone in congress is actually doing their job instead of just licking the feet of the commander in-competent. This Presidents obstruction amounts to a high crime, his total ineptitude and worthless conduct are the misdemeanors. This President needs to go, he has never lived up to the standards of citizen let alone the standards of President. He is a liar and a cheat, he is a serial adulterer, a self admitted sexual predator, he's run half a dozen businesses into the ground, the only thing he exceeds in is losing money and being a horrible business man losing over a billion dollars in his businesses over a decade where he claimed he was a business genius. Because he knows he's a fraud, he tried ineptly to obstruct justice. But just because he was bad at it, doesn't mean he didn't do it, of course he obstructed justice, at least 10 times, its spelled out for anyone willing to read it. But I get that many Trump supporters either can't read or don't want to read anything that would ruin their deeply held conviction that Trump is somehow the savior of what they see as their "white culture".
I watched Rep Collins get angry near spitting out his vitriol against congressional oversight he KNOWS he can't stop, all to protect his sad decaying party and a criminal President. It was embarrassing for him, what a despicable display of cowardice and a refusal to do his job and hold the administration accountable.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that if this report had 10 counts of obstruction laid out so carefully by a special council, and were exactly the same accounts but describing President Obama telling his council to lie, to change documents, to stop an investigation into his campaign and his staff, even if some never acted on his demands, a Republican congress would have already started impeachment hearings. I challenge any Republican to read the Mueller report in that light, imagine ever time you see the President mentioned it's talking about President Obama and then give us a real truthful analysis of whether you would believe those 10 counts were enough to start impeachment. I know it's tough for some Republican, but try to be honest and let us know why you believe the report wouldn't have been enough to impeach Obama on if it had been about him.
They're terrified from the bottom of the base right up to His Shitbagness himself, DP and with good reason.
Thank you for injecting a little comedic relief!
If you and your fellow dems feel that way, why not impeach?
This President needs to go, he has never lived up to the standards of citizen let alone the standards of President.
That's an opinion
He is a liar and a cheat, he is a serial adulterer, a self admitted sexual predator, he's run half a dozen businesses into the ground, the only thing he exceeds in is losing money and being a horrible business man losing over a billion dollars in his businesses over a decade where he claimed he was a business genius.
And yet, a Great President!
Because he knows he's a fraud, he tried ineptly to obstruct justice.
Where are the charges? Where is the impeachment? Remember what you (dems) always said about Hillary and even OJ Simpson for that matter? There was an investigation and no charges were filed!!!!
But I get that many Trump supporters either can't read or don't want to read anything that would ruin their deeply held conviction that Trump is somehow the savior of what they see as their "white culture".
Once the race card is needed, the argument has obviously failed.
but try to be honest and let us know why you believe the report wouldn't have been enough to impeach Obama on if it had been about him.
A fraudulent investigation could never have been launched against Obama.
Here's more for you to laugh at (enjoy!!!):
Intellectually lazy and dishonest, or just no guts?
The over-used and abused race card is the last resort. Just means there is nothing else worth arguing, and that the argument has now moved on to just emotional hyperbole.
That train is pulling out of the station as we speak. I kept telling you to be careful what you wish for, but nooooooooooo.
I, for one, don't want him impeached. Your narcissistic toddler is doing a fine job of destroying the GOP
I'm gonna go with Pelosi remembers what happened when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton
The over-used and abused race card is the last resort. Just means there is nothing else worth arguing, and that the argument has now moved on to just emotional hyperbole.
Thank you Tex. You said it a lot better than I did.
So, that means Shitbag's immigration goals have failed?
Some just can't help but get all emotional and sometimes lose control of themselves.
This thread has some prime examples.
Oh, yeah, immigration has EVERYTHING to do with two Obama Administration employees giving conflicting testimony!
SMMFH
Anything to deflect. Race. Immigration--anything BUT what the seeded article is actually about.
I'm glad you've finally accepted what a failure that was. But there's a bit of difference between lying about a sex act and colluding with Russians in a presidential campaign, then obstructing the investigation into that collusion and the obstructing Congress's constitutional oversight mandate. This is what I alluded to with Tex about Republicans sitting on a pile of lies and crimes and trying to make us look somewhere else.
Can you show me this collusion? I missed it and so did Robert Mueller and his anti-Trump team.
You mean comments like this, vic:
Lawyers for the Trump Organization on Tuesday appealed a federal judge's ruling in favor of House Democrats in their efforts to obtain President Donald Trump’s financial records, marking the first legal victory for Democrats as the Trump administration stonewalls their attempts at congressional oversight.
“It is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a ruling Monday. “Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee.”
President Trump and the Trump Organization filed suit against the Democratic chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, last month, seeking relief from his subpoena request for the president’s financial records.
The court also denied their request for a stay pending appeal, which lawyers for Trump and the Trump Organization formally filed Tuesday to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit.
The president and his legal team decried Democrats’ efforts to obtain Trump’s financial information as an “all-out political war,” in which “subpoenas are their weapon of choice.”
But in his order on Monday, Judge Mehta, an Obama appointee, sided with Democrats, whom he wrote have “facially valid legislative purposes” to obtain information requested in their subpoena of Mazars USA, the president’s former accounting firm.
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," Mehta wrote.
Cummings served a subpoena to Mazars USA in April seeking ten years of the president's financial records in an effort to corroborate elements of Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen's testimony before the committee. Cohen claimed that Trump had defrauded insurance companies by misrepresenting the value of his assets.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat whose committee is also seeking information from the Trump administration, reacted to news of the decision, calling it "very important."
“It shows that the courts understand the importance of oversight even if the president does not,” Schiff said.
When emotions take over, it is easy to see why you would address Vic in a post to me.
Emotion can blind sometimes.
Oh, It is and it comes in the form of a US Attorney. That means real consequences for government officials. Thus, the scramble to explain what was said.
So if the new US Attorney John Durham comes back with the conclusion “The evidence we obtained about President Obama's actions and intent in regards to the investigation into the Trump campaign presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that President Obama committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Just curious as to what your impression would be after reading that report from Durham. Would you be left to conclude that Obama committed no crimes and is completely exonerated? Or would you feel that conclusion supported your already held belief that Obama was a criminal President who should be prosecuted? Perhaps you'd even support further investigations that might be able to "conclusively determine" whether a crime was or wasn't committed? No?
That would be wrong. Durham either recommends prosecution of individuals or he shuts up. Only partisan hacks like Comey & Mueller add stuff to findings.
Would you be left to conclude that Obama committed no crimes and is completely exonerated?
Unlike liberals I would do what our own NT liberals once said they would do -accept the findings.
Or would you feel that conclusion supported your already held belief that Obama was a criminal President who should be prosecuted?
It's not an investigation of Obama. It's an investigation of possible criminal acts committed by intelligence agencies. It may lead to Obama, but I want to know how we had two or 3 investigations of a Presidential campaign and American citizens based upon nothing more than a narrative. My opinion of Obama is known here. I thought he was a radical who resented America and poisoned & weaponized every agency of government.
Perhaps you'd even support further investigations that might be able to "conclusively determine" whether a crime was or wasn't committed? No?
That sounds like the Mueller investigation. I believe an investigation needs a criminal predicate. An investigation of an individual searching for a crime, needs to be looked at and that is partly the reason for this one. Another reason is for spying on American citizens, which is a violation of civil liberties, wouldn't you agree?
The first step toward a dictatorship is to undermine the justice system. We've already passed step two--using the "justice system" to obstruct justice and have come to step three--using the "justice system" to attack political adversaries.
[deleted]
I'm sure you didn't say that when J Edgar Hoover ran the FBI or when Allen Dulles ran the CIA. As I recall the nation had little to fear in those halcyon days.
We slept like babies!
Ah, yes...when the FBI director blackmailed civil rights leaders and even presidents. YOUR Shitbag always laments he couldn't have the perfect scumbag lawyer like Roy Cohn but now he's got an even better scumbag as the AG. Of course, you're ecstatic with the rule of law being shat on like those good ol' days..
Why'd you use the past tense, vic? Not sleeping well in the present?
Because he was referring to J. Edgar Hoover, who left the FBI in 1972. Kind of hard to reference in the present someone who died over 40 years ago.
It isn't rocket science.
As Roy Cohn would say...Just get me his name and I'll take it from there.
Simple....There is no security in Obama's America
Remember what you just told us:
"The first step toward a dictatorship is to undermine the justice system. "
'As Roy Cohn would say...Just get me his name and I'll take it from there.'
McCarthy's right hand man! Way to go!
What a thug. Just like his former lover - Rump. I hope Cohn used a condom when he diddled him.
And before that he helped strap Julius & Ethel Rosenberg into the electric chair (figuratively, so there's no confusion).
Yup, he had quite a career
So you admire scum?
Nope, I wasn't one of the one's who got giddy every time Michael Avenatti was on CNN. I'm simply pointing out that even someone like Cohn did something right once in a while.
LOL..Mueller's face is my fav.
Exactly what that bastard show being saying
"Former Director Brennan, along with former [Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper, are the ones who opposed James Comey’s recommendation that the Steele Dossier be included in the intelligence report," the official said.
Former CIA Director John Brennan pushed to include the Steele dossier in a classified intelligence assessment, sources tell Fox News -- but that claim was disputed by an ex-CIA official. (AP, File)
"They opposed this because the dossier was in no way used to develop the ICA," the official continued. "The intelligence analysts didn't include it when they were doing their work because it wasn't corroborated intelligence, therefore it wasn't used and it wasn't included. Brennan and Clapper prevented it from being added into the official assessment. James Comey then decided on his own to brief Trump about the document."
Fox News has reached out to Comey's legal team twice, and provided the statement from the former CIA official, but did not receive a reply on the record.
So, who's lying on that one?
I guess the newly appointed US Attorney will get to the bottom of it. You see Mr Durham is an expert at getting to the bottom of things.
The stench of fear grows stronger each day.
Yup, the presence of a US Attorney means people can get PROSECUTED! Even our little elitists with their degrees & big government positions!
That meme doesn't even make sense.
Shitbag actually importuned McGahn to lie about his ordering McGahn to fire Mueller after McGahn had resigned from his WH Counsel job thus committing one of his several obstruction offenses when McGahn was a private citizen and not at all subject to any claim of executive privilege. One thing we have to be grateful to Shitbag for: he's a Big Time Moron.
WHA?
One thing we have to be grateful to Shitbag for: he's a Big Time Moron.
You mean WINNING!
If having a Big Time Shitbag Lying Criminal Moron is your idea of "winning," I guess.
Be back in a few. Keep it civil
Thank you all for this first glimpse of the investigation of the Russia probes