James Comey Avoids Testifying On Dem Doc Reportedly Showing AG Lynch Protecting Hillary

[Source: Breitbart.com]
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0

It has certainly been an interesting time as of late—May 10th’s Senate Judiciary Committee session had many goodies behind the FBI mix-up. Bureau Director James B. Comey declined to answer crucial inquiries regarding a controversial document that a Democrat asset authored. This mystery person alluded to Attorney General Loretta Lynch offering to cover for Hillary Clinton amid her e-mails being scanned.

The New York Times wrote that the bureau possessed intel availing Russians hacked the infamous, Lynch document—this had Comey paranoid of Moscow possibly circulating the document. Said information would apparently instigate suspicion of the US government’s Clinton-e-mail investigation.

During the session, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) examined Comey regarding the aforementioned information. Check out the correlating points below:

[James Comey | Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP]

Senate Judiciary Chairman Grassley: Okay, moving on to another subject, ‘The New York Times’ recently reported that the FBI had found a troubling email among the ones the Russians hacked from Democrat operatives. The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation ‘didn’t go too far.’ How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?

James Comey: That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response. I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.

Grassley: What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?

Comey: I have to give you the same answer. I can’t talk about that in an unclassified setting.

Grassley: Okay, then you can expect me to follow up on that. I asked the FBI to provide this email to the committee before today’s hearing. Why haven’t you done so, and will you provide it by the end of this week?

Comey: Again, to react to that, I have to give a classified answer—and I can’t give it sitting here.

Grassley: So that means you can give me the email?

Comey: I’m not confirming there was an email, sir. I can’t—the subject is classified, and in an appropriate forum, I’d be happy to brief you on it. But I can’t do it in an open hearing.”

[Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley | Photo: Scott Applewhite/AP]

Back in April, 2017, The New York Times wrote about the document in question. The Times explained it as “a document written by a Democratic operative [who] seemed (at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides) to raise questions about [Lynch’s] independence.”

Here’s the rest of their assessment:

“During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, FBI agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far—according to several, former officials familiar with the document.

Read one way, it was standard, Washington, political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.”

The Times went on to add that worry circulating around Russia’s disclosure of the hacked information dictated Comey’s thought process—as well as opting for being the known, point person rather than letting Lynch’s Justice Department assess the Clinton-e-mail issue.


Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0