If Russian Hacking Of The 2016 Presidential Election Is The Threat To America That Democrats Suggest, Why Does The DNC Fail To Cooperate With Investigators?

If Russian Hacking Of The 2016 Presidential Election Is The Threat To America That Democrats Suggest, Why Does The DNC Fail To Cooperate With Investigators?

 

(see: DNC Server: Most Critical Evidence To Proving “Russian Hacking” Is Being Withheld From Mueller, Why?).  If Russia did “hack the election”, then the evidence could very well be on that server.

If the DNC is in possession of actual evidence that could prove that Russians hacked their servers!  Did Russia attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton. If so then why not share that evidence with investigators?

Maybe this failure to cooperate has something to do with the “purely coincidental’ meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and Loretta Lynch’s ‘assurances’ to members of the Clinton campaign that the FBI’s investigation (or, “matter” if you prefer) of Hillary Clinton “wouldn’t go too far“?  Afterall, if evidence of “Russian hacking” were on that server, so to would there be evidence of Lynch’s transgressions…if they existed, of course.

We’re not the only ones wondering whether there’s more to the Lynch story.  According to an article in the New York Postsome testimony that Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her.  In that testimony, Lynch said that she had “not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”

That said, and as we’ve reported before, that statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton’s campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI’s investigation “wouldn’t go too far…more from the Post:

When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice,recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.

 

Lynch’s lawyer says she is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to several questions, as well as relevant documents. Among other things, they want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” rather than what it actually was, an investigation.

Now, as The Post points out, there are new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about the alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and promptly asked to leave.

And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.

And then there is that meeting with Bill Clinton on that Phoenix tarmac that just happened to get noticed by a local reporter who just happened to be on scene.

 

After all the drama around the Clinton email investigation, which included multiple people being offered immunity and the revelation of what appeared to be numerous federal crimes committed by several people on Clinton’s staff, wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s Attorney General were the only one to take the fall?  Scandal free administration indeed…