Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch

PsyOps

Pixelated
I look forward to the what usual characters on here, that have incessantly said the investigation into Trump obstruction needs to go its course, even though there has yet to be evidence of any wrongdoing, will have to say about this. :tap:

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch

Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which resembled the Clinton campaign line.

The move could allow Republicans to attempt to pivot away from the investigation into Russia's election meddling — which top GOP lawmakers have signaled belongs to the Intelligence Committee — and focus on Lynch, who has long been a target of Republicans.

:popcorn:
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If she shows up, she'll plead the Fifth.

There are tons of things the Republicans can and should bringing up including Hillary's connections to Russia . The best defense is a good offense, and I for one wonder why the republicans aren't fighting tooth and nail and tossing this stuff in the Schmucks face.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
You just know I was talking about you. The guilt alert went off eh? :lol:

:buddies:

There is nothing to feel guilty about. I think wrongdoing by our public officials should be investigated.

You do realize this thread points out your hypocrisy, not mine, right?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There is nothing to feel guilty about. I think wrongdoing by our public officials should be investigated.

You do realize this thread points out your hypocrisy, not mine, right?

Yet, while we all can recognize the crime involved with Lynch, no one can tell me the crime involved with Russia, or why there's even an investigation.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
There is nothing to feel guilty about. I think wrongdoing by our public officials should be investigated.

You do realize this thread points out your hypocrisy, not mine, right?

I'm not going to waste time asking you to explain "my hypocrisy". I will say that there is blatant evidence to what Lynch did surrounding the Clinton investigation, while there is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Trump is guilty of anything. There in lies the hypocrisy; that somehow there needs to be an investigation into something that has never had any evidence of wrongdoing; and this simply because you don't like the guy. Given you don't like Trump he must have done something wrong; we don't know what, but we believe he had to do something wrong.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I'm not going to waste time asking you to explain "my hypocrisy". I will say that there is blatant evidence to what Lynch did surrounding the Clinton investigation, while there is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Trump is guilty of anything. There in lies the hypocrisy; that somehow there needs to be an investigation into something that has never had any evidence of wrongdoing; and this simply because you don't like the guy. Given you don't like Trump he must have done something wrong; we don't know what, but we believe he had to do something wrong.

Here is the thing, if you use the same standards there is exactly the same evidence of wrongdoing.

That's your hypocrisy, you willfully ignore all of the people from trumps campaign and staff who did have contact with the Russians, and you want to justify away Trumps actions toward Comey.



Exactly what do you think Lynch did that was illegal and what is the evidence of that?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Exactly what do you think Lynch did that was illegal and what is the evidence of that?

Start with the current investigation into Russia's involvement in the election - what is the crime, and what is the evidence a crime was committed.




What we are told from Comey is that Lynch specifically told him to modify his wording (apparently he was head of the Federal Bureau of "Matters"), and that Comey claims there was interference into the e-mail investigation by Lynch. That's obstruction of justice. What is the CRIME that began the investigation into Russia/Trump?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Here is the thing, if you use the same standards there is exactly the same evidence of wrongdoing.

That's your hypocrisy, you willfully ignore all of the people from trumps campaign and staff who did have contact with the Russians, and you want to justify away Trumps actions toward Comey.



Exactly what do you think Lynch did that was illegal and what is the evidence of that?

Contact does not equal collusion. There was also LOTS of contact with the Russians by Obama, Clinton, and many others within the Obama admin; yet we hear nothing about collusion there. The whole narrative that there was collusion was fabricated by democrats. Even when Comey said Trump wasn't being investigated, democrats still claimed there was collusion.

Comey testified that Lynch coerced him into changing the language of the INVESTIGATION. The timeline of the Clinton email investigation:

- Loretta Lynch has secret meeting with Bill Clinton at an Arizona airport tarmac
- Loretta Lynch announces she will accept whatever recommendation Comey makes regarding an indictment
- Hillary Clinton meets with FBI. Meeting is not recorded and no notes taken
- Comey speaks about the invest... errr... matter, racks up every reason to indict Clinton, then recommends not to indict on fabricated grounds: there was no intent to mishandle classified

All of this within days of each other. Those are FACTS! Evidence of obstruction.

Now there is evidence emerging that Lynch made assurances to Clinton that the investigation wouldn't go too far..
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Here is the thing, if you use the same standards there is exactly the same evidence of wrongdoing.

That's your hypocrisy, you willfully ignore all of the people from trumps campaign and staff who did have contact with the Russians, and you want to justify away Trumps actions toward Comey.



Exactly what do you think Lynch did that was illegal and what is the evidence of that?

Where is the law against contact . There is none. Even I can contact Russia if I want to. It's not against the law.
As for Lynch she and Bill had contact at an airport.
Now that isn't against the law.
Even claiming it was just a coincidence is not against the law either.
Perhaps the fact that after the meeting the case was called a matter and having Comey drop it is not against the law, but then again

Maybe it is.
 

hotbikermama40

New Member
Where is the law against contact . There is none. Even I can contact Russia if I want to. It's not against the law.
As for Lynch she and Bill had contact at an airport.
Now that isn't against the law.
Even claiming it was just a coincidence is not against the law either.
Perhaps the fact that after the meeting the case was called a matter and having Comey drop it is not against the law, but then again

Maybe it is.

Winning answer
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Contact does not equal collusion. There was also LOTS of contact with the Russians by Obama, Clinton, and many others within the Obama admin; yet we hear nothing about collusion there. The whole narrative that there was collusion was fabricated by democrats. Even when Comey said Trump wasn't being investigated, democrats still claimed there was collusion.

Comey testified that Lynch coerced him into changing the language of the INVESTIGATION. The timeline of the Clinton email investigation:

- Loretta Lynch has secret meeting with Bill Clinton at an Arizona airport tarmac
- Loretta Lynch announces she will accept whatever recommendation Comey makes regarding an indictment
- Hillary Clinton meets with FBI. Meeting is not recorded and no notes taken
- Comey speaks about the invest... errr... matter, racks up every reason to indict Clinton, then recommends not to indict on fabricated grounds: there was no intent to mishandle classified

All of this within days of each other. Those are FACTS! Evidence of obstruction.

Now there is evidence emerging that Lynch made assurances to Clinton that the investigation wouldn't go too far..

where is the law against calling an investigation a matter? Doesn't the AG have authority over the FBI and therefore she can suggest anything that she wants? Where is the evidence that she coerced Comey to do anything?
I'm just using your trump defense against you, because I think they should investigate Lynch and see if the law was broken. But again, that's because I am consistent
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Where is the law against contact . There is none. Even I can contact Russia if I want to. It's not against the law.
As for Lynch she and Bill had contact at an airport.
Now that isn't against the law.
Even claiming it was just a coincidence is not against the law either.
Perhaps the fact that after the meeting the case was called a matter and having Comey drop it is not against the law, but then again

Maybe it is.
yep, I agree. And I feel the exact same way about trumps people and their contact with Russia. There might be nothing to it, but it seems suspicious and it should be investigated. Since the investigation involves key people on trump's staff or campaign I don't see any way he wouldn't be part of that investigation.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
. . . willfully ignore all of the people from trumps campaign and staff who did have contact with the Russians, and you want to justify away Trumps actions toward Comey.

You can. of course, support this statement with a list of all the Trump campaign personnel who had contact with the Russians and the objective, unequivocal evidence that supports it.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
where is the law against calling an investigation a matter? Doesn't the AG have authority over the FBI and therefore she can suggest anything that she wants? Where is the evidence that she coerced Comey to do anything?
I'm just using your trump defense against you, because I think they should investigate Lynch and see if the law was broken. But again, that's because I am consistent

Comey: "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. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're going to close this case credibly."

In other words, she coerced him to change the wording of what they were doing. This, in and of itself, threatened the credibility of the INVESTIGATION; which is obstruction. And this was only one "brick in the load" of things that Lynch did to threaten the investigation. The rest appears to be classified and he wasn't able to talk about in the public setting. I imagine that is why the senate is opening up an investigation against Lynch for obstruction.

You can use whatever you want, regarding Trump. There is no such credible evidence that Trump did anything wrong regarding the Russians. It's been pointed out to you several times, by several people, that merely talking to a Russian national is not illegal. It's huge leap to go from talking to a Russian, to actual collusion.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Comey: "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. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're going to close this case credibly."

In other words, she coerced him to change the wording of what they were doing. This, in and of itself, threatened the credibility of the INVESTIGATION; which is obstruction. And this was only one "brick in the load" of things that Lynch did to threaten the investigation. The rest appears to be classified and he wasn't able to talk about in the public setting. I imagine that is why the senate is opening up an investigation against Lynch for obstruction.

You can use whatever you want, regarding Trump. There is no such credible evidence that Trump did anything wrong regarding the Russians. It's been pointed out to you several times, by several people, that merely talking to a Russian national is not illegal. It's huge leap to go from talking to a Russian, to actual collusion.


Comey said almost the identical thing about trump and how he 'coerced' Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

so again, if we are using Comey's words as evidence then the evidence is the same. :yay:


you would certainly see the reason to investigate if the people who were meeting with the Russians and lying about it had D's after their names and worked on Hillary's campaign.
 
Top