by Mac Slavo
Did Attorney General Loretta Lynch lie about or obfuscate her role in clearing Hillary in the investigations concerning the handling of classified emails on her private server?
Is there a quid pro quo among the two women, in which Lynch could have been promised a role in the next Clinton Administration in exchange for her help in calling off potential criminal charges that might derail Hillary’s campaign.
Lynch claims there is no such relationship. But she also refused to answer at least 74 of Congress’ questions about her private meeting with former President Bill Clinton and her relationship with the Clintons and/or their staff.
Recall, that the announcement that Hillary was off the hook, as it were, came immediately after the Attorney General and former president met.
As The Daily Caller reported at the time:
Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.
The Republican-led Congress, which has of course been very aggressive in spotlighting Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds, attempted to clarify the involvement of Attorney General Lynch.
Rep. David Trott (R-MI) claims that he had his staff count the number of times that Attorney General Loretta Lynch either ducked questions or didn’t give an appropriate response during her testimony before Congress.
“I knew you weren’t going to answer our questions today, and I apologize for wasting so much time here, because it’s really not been very productive. And I asked my staff to count the number of times today you would say ‘I can’t answer that question’ or refuse to give an appropriate response. It’s happened 74 times so far.”
“Really, it’s either one of two things: Either you’re trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety, in which case you should have recused yourself, or you’re trying to protect Hillary Clinton”
As example to this, Loretta Lynch refused an entire line of questions from Rep. Jason Chaffetz about whether or not it was hypothetically legal or illegal to retain classified information.
Despite the straightforward nature of this questioning, Attorney General Lynch refused to even acknowledge whether or not it is illegal to lie under oath.
Wow. This is stonewalling of epic proportions.
Loretta Lynch Refuses to Say Whether It’s Illegal to Lie Under Oath
Of course, we know that no one in Washington would intentionally engage in corruption, and that relationships in government are nothing more than interactions between representatives of the people… yeah, right.