SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Five)

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 23, 2018

SpyGate (Chapter Twenty Five)

SpyGate

This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
============

“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
============

This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
=========
Chapter Twenty Five

“Russia Hoax”

SpyGate is a book that describes the blatant corruption, the treasonous nuances and the secret machinations behind the appointment of Special Prosecutor ROBERT MUELLER, as an act of the first stages of a well orchestrated and massively organized Coup D’Etat against our Constitutional Republic, that gets unraveled at the nick of time due to the will of the American people and the Grace of God.

Indeed this exposure of the Coup D’Etat is a moment of Grace and Deliverance that proves how our Republic is protected through the mantle proffered by the prayers of the people, and by the guardianship of the few “warriors” that are fighting the good fight as waged by the Christian Right, against the masses of Totalitarian Darkness of the evil Left.

But let’s not digress, and let’s take things from the beginning, when the last occupant of the oval office chose corruption and chicanery over the demands of honest democracy and free & fair elections.

On April 10, 2016, President Barack Obama publicly stated that: “Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security.”

In hindsight, it stands to reason that this statement was a signal, a “Dog Whistle” to the Clinton campaign, the Media and to FBI Director James Edgar Comey. Here ends the debate, the legal test for Hillary Clinton was no longer to be: “has she broken the law?”

That being those existing US legal statutes that pertain to the treatment of classified information by responsible officeholders, for it was by now clearly evident to just about everyone that she had. No, Obama was shifting, had just shifted the goal posts, his word was now law, to anyone in the Washington establishment that mattered, that meant game over.

Not for the first time Barack Obama was attempting to define his Presidential Legacy by employing his most enduring personal and political quality, an audacious arrogance.

In one statement, he dispensed with all the bother of the Democratic party’s star & presidential candidate Hillary Clinton being at any risk of criminal charges or prosecution, by redefining the legal evidentiary requirements for any successful prosecution. No longer would it matter whether what Hillary Clinton did, or did not do, was legal or not. The Washington Establishment had spoken, Hillary Clinton was “Too Big To Jail.”

Hillary Clinton’s actions may well have been criminal, illegal, and even treasonous, according to statute law, but everyone who mattered in Washington, had now been instructed by POTUS personally, to accept that a new legal paradigm prevails in relation to the Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton when it comes to the question of emails, servers and National Security specifically. One where Barack Obama as President, by decree, has introduced a new legal requirement which for now at least will be assumed to override any existing statutes.

Clearly this “power play” had all been agreed well ahead of time with all the relevant players. And it was also agreed that the establishment media would not make any silly spectacle, because Obama and Co would not abide CNN reporters carrying on about overreach, obstruction of justice, or proper investigative process.

Obama had decreed, that even if Hillary had committed what the law had deemed to be a criminal act, that was in the past, and it was not that important in the broader scheme of things, especially during an election year.

And going further forward, it was in the President’s clear-cut opinion that despite Hillary’s careless disregard for proper security protocol procedure in her handling of classified information as Secretary of State and her sharing those State Secrets with Huma Abedin’s pedophile husband Anthony Weiner — not-so-crooked Hillary did not really intend any harm to the Nation.

End of Story.

Easy.

Time now to be moving on…

So, what we do know?

We now know that it was President Barack Obama who clearly and publicly evaded the law, and erased a crime as he introduced the “consideration” of Hillary Clinton’s state of mind, about her intent, when committing numerous serious breaches of the law — as the preeminent and defining determinant in deciding Hillary’s guilt or innocence.

Obama did this, despite and regardless of the fact, that consideration of intent, or state of mind was purposefully absent, as it had been specifically omitted from any legal statutes of any relevance to her actions, when violating security protocols in such a senior position.

Here, Obama was deliberately, publicly, and brazenly, setting up a legal “STRAW MAN” for political purposes.

He had decreed that the onus of proof of Hillary’s State of Mind and Intent was required, thus providing a new Burden of Proof, a legal hurdle for any Prosecutor, well knowing, probably already briefed in advance, that it would provide sufficient cover, an easy excuse for the DOJ, and FBI, when their investigation and any case against Clinton fell over because of it.

<img src="https://drpanochurchill.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/screen-shot-2018-06-23-at-11-43-45-am.png" alt="Screen Shot 2018-06-23 at 11.43.45 AM" width="1040" height="730" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-55695"

With his statement in April 2016, Obama effectively laid the ground work for how the Obama Administration operatives at the DOJ and FBI would be released from the tedious requirement that they follow the letter of the law in administering justice, now they had a roadmap to lifting the cloud that threatened to derail a Democrat Presidential campaign.

The groundwork had been done, all that was left was for the players to take up their roles, make their preparations, condition the trusted media, minimise expectations and wait for the right moment when Clinton’s exoneration would be most devastating to the GOP Presidential campaign.

And so it is a great wonder why anybody would be surprised when, on July 5th of 2016, then FBI director James Comey publicly stated: "Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security."

The director went on to seemingly detail Clinton’s guilt, acknowledging that: "Classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved, so under the circumstances it wasn’t an indictable offence."

The Director of the FBI repeated almost word for word Obama’s statement and logic, in a clear abrogation of his legal responsibilities. FBI Director Comey, simply plagiarized Obama’s Presidential Decree, thus exonerating Hillary Clinton without having the President offer her an official pardon, but rather a real "Get Out Of Jail Pass."

It is only now in hindsight that we can see that which was meant to be concealed. As it is now obvious Mr Obama was clearly communicating (Dog Whistling) to those in his administration back in early April 2016, and his message is both clear and simple: "The President has decided, Hillary Clinton is to be cleared of any indictable offences, she will be free to run as the Democrat Party’s Presidential candidate in November 2016 — make it happen."

It is interesting in the light of recent media treatment of Trump as President, to re-examine the Main Stream Media’s tendency to give Obama a free pass in these important situations, and to understand how they abrogated their responsibility to be the fourth estate of a Democracy… by checking up on government.

Where were the concerns about POTUS pressure, frame of mind, ongoing independent FBI investigations, obstruction of justice, etc. Or maybe all that had already been decided and agreed with the media ahead of time? Because Obama’s FBI, DOJ, and DNC instructions, and guidance, are so clear as a "Dog Whistle" to be signalled in public statements, that is illustrative how hapless Trump would be if he were silly enough to invite trouble upon his head, by talking to Robert Mueller one on one.

What it also tells us clearly, is that Trump has been right all along, the fix was on, the FBI’s Hillary Clinton Email Investigation was a total Sham, that the whole Obama Administration was playing the Public, and the Media were in on it.

This game had already been rigged long before Trump was endorsed as the Republican Nominee for November’s Presidential poll.

FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 7, 2016, before the House Oversight Committee to explain his agency’s recommendation to not prosecute Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential candidate, over her private email setup during her time as secretary of state.

That Clinton was allowed to run for President in 2016 will go down as the worst political abuse of our systems of Justice in American history.

Hillary Clinton was political DEAD MEAT without James Comey.

The fact that James Edgar Comey was instrumental in it can hardly be called an accident of history, we have all been here before, it is way past time for Comey’s history of being there for Hillary to be thoroughly investigated by a Grand Jury.

This is not the first time James Comey has snatched Hillary Clinton from the jaws of justice, in fact it has happened way too many times for it to be considered fortuitous.

Like a loyal puppy dog James Comey has somehow miraculously over several decades always been in position to save Hillarys’ butt whenever she gets herself in trouble with the law. No other individual, who has done what Clinton has done, would be in any position to stand as a credible candidate for President of the USA.

And so, like many others I sat confused following James Comey’s statement clearing Hillary Clinton.

It was the whole structure and nature of the statement and its presentation, it all seemed to contradict itself, most probably because it did.

Clinton had done wrong, she had in all probably compromised the Security of the USA and its Security Assets, yes under the relevant legal statutes anyone else would be indicted and go to jail.

But we were all apparently supposed to be certain Hillary didn’t mean any harm really, she had no intention to harm the country, after all you have to understand its Hillary, she’s got a big new gig coming up in November and it will all be back on her plate anyway, so in the interests of everyone we think it is best to let her off.

To those of us sensitive to legal niceties it reeked of political expediency seemed blatant and audacious, totalitarian, and fully illegal in its brute arrogance.

My feeling at the time was that maybe Comey was just a good guy in a very bad spot and to some degree he probably was, but I felt if he could not do the job, then the honorable thing to do was to resign.

But then if you, like Obama, the Media, Establishment, Comey, and everyone else who believed Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in to win — maybe you close your nose to protect yourself from the stench, and look the other way, thus saving yourself from much grief, while simultaneously earning yourself a stinking big presidential favor, while you are at it.

So, it is at just about this point that what we now know about James E Comey starts to look a lot less innocent, and perhaps sinister too, because we know this much and it's all criminal: "James Comey was a Deputy Federal Prosecutor overseeing the FBI investigation into Clinton’s involvement in the Whitewater Property Investment Scandal back in the 1990s, when relevant Clinton legal files, key evidence, any contracts and agreements between the Clintons and their co-accused friends and partners in the deal, were found to have been “Thrown Out” by staff at her old Legal practice."

Is this the beginnings of a pattern of behavior, or just a mere coincidence, something that only begins to look so suspicious in hindsight?

Only today we might call it predictable that the critical evidence disappeared, not only that, but the FBI failed to raid the offices and properties of key suspects in a high-profile investigation, where their normal practice & procedure is to raid properties first, without notice, seize all documents, copies and devices, in order to, and for the very purpose of securing the relevant evidence.

Appropriately James Comey found that Hillary Clinton had no case to answer for at the Whitewater investigation.

Let's now mark that down as STRIKE ONE.

"James Comey also oversaw the FBI investigation into the Clinton’s Pardon’s for Cash scandal, wherein Prominent New York Financiers who had previously been found guilty of Fraud, were subsequently pardoned by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office. All of these same New York City Financiers were later instrumental in raising funds for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate Run."

Again, James Comey found Clinton had no case to answer. Mark that down as STRIKE TWO.

"We also now know thanks to a number of Department of Justice staffers who have only recently come forward that James Comey as FBI Director had circulated a number of draft versions of a statement similar to his final public announcement exonerating Clinton and clearing her of any indictable offence in the Benghazi email investigation or Servergate, as early as April/May 2016. This was long before the FBI had conducted any interviews or taken any statements from the 17 key witnesses."

"We know Clinton destroyed or ordered her staff to destroy email records after they had been subpoenaed by Congress, she & her staff destroyed iPhones, Blackberries & Computers, using Bleachbit to wipe her home server clean from containing evidence."

"In the last week a Maryland Judge has order an investigation into three lawyers who reportedly helped Hillary Clinton delete her private emails. But Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, told the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney in a recent interview on September 12th that the worst that could happen to them is a public reprimand."

"All key Clinton DOJ staff and potential witnesses were given immunity from prosecution by the FBI, none of them were properly cautioned before questioning."

"If police or the FBI fail to caution suspects or witnesses before questioning, it would usually indicate any information provided is not intended to be used against the person being interviewed in a court of law."

"At no point did Comey or the FBI consider following what would be normal FBI procedure to raid Clinton properties, to seize data & devices, before evidence could be destroyed."

"Comey has suggested he took matters into his own hands following Attorney General Loretta Lynch insisting that the Clinton Investigation be referred to, not as an Investigation, but rather as a simple "Matter" of interest."

Only recently has Comey communicated that he was concerned by what appeared to be a clear attempt by the US Attorney General, his Boss, to interfere in his investigation in an apparent attempt to down play the seriousness of an official FBI investigation, by having it referred to publicly as a mere “Matter”.

House Judicial Committee Hauls Loretta Lynch in for Questioning…

Again, new rules were being applied , there were existing internal procedures Comey should have followed to report such concerns, he did not report any concerns. Under normal circumstances US Attorney General Loretta would have been asked to recuse herself from any further involvement in the Clinton Email investigation.

Selected excerpts from House Judicial Committee hearing July 2016: SECOND SESSION, JULY 12, 2016, Serial No. 114-88, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary, Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

“We must not give in to hate and let emotion replace reason. We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans. We must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our Republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime and punish the guilty."

"I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter."

"The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else and to be reprimanded when they break the law. That is not the case for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary Clinton for her use of a private email server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information."

"The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport despite the fact that his wife was the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.

"This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation’s board of directors.

Five days later, the FBI held its first and only interview with Secretary Clinton after a yearlong investigation. Three days later and on the first day back from a holiday weekend. Director Comey publicly announced that he was not recommending charges against Secretary Clinton. And a mere 24 hours later. Attorney General Lynch, you issued a press release announcing that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton.

While Director Comey may have refused to criminally indict Hillary Clinton, his public pronouncement and subsequent congressional testimony is nonetheless a public indictment of her conduct and character.

Though Director Comey declined to recommend charges, he laid out sufficient facts to warrant a referral to the Justice Department. That forces one to confront the question of whether someone who was not in Secretary Clinton’s position would have fared as well with the FBI as she did.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no classified information was contained within her private email system. This is not true. The FBI found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her emails was marked “classified.” This is not true. The FBI found that some of these emails were marked “classified.”

Secretary Clinton said all relevant emails were returned to the State Department. This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned.

But all of this evidence, according to Director Comey, amounted only to, “extreme carelessness” by Secretary Clinton and her staff And although the Director admitted that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, he went so far as to publicly declare that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This defies logic and the law. Contrary to Director Comey’s assertions, the law does not require evidence that a person intended to harm the United States in order to be criminally liable for the mis handling of classified information.

To be sure. Congress has set forth a variety of statutes on this subject with different intent requirements and penalties. Were a rank-and-file Federal employee to do what Secretary Clinton did, they would face severe punishment, including termination, revocation of security clearances, or criminal prosecution. Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing. But Secretary Clinton is not facing prosecution for her actions.”

June 27, 2016: Attorney General Lynch meets with Bill Clinton

Comey now says, he felt he needed to push things along when news broke of a secret 20-minute meeting between Ex US President Bill Clinton, the husband, of the target of an ongoing, high profile FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton and US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on the 27th of June 2016. Their private planes just happened to taxi and park next to each other on the tarmac at Phoenix airport, a mere 5 days before Comey was scheduled to begin questioning Hillary Clinton.

I and any decent prosecutor would find it very interesting to have James Comey explain exactly why he felt that way, in detail.

Again we find Loretta Lynch has a long and distinguished career built on serving the interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton that dates back to her involvement in the Clinton’s ubiquitous “White Water” property scandal of the 1990s. A career that seems to be in sync with that of FBI Director James Comey, including her subsequent appointments to several Federal District Attorney roles, first by President Bill Clinton and then by President Barack Obama and more recently with her appointment to the position of US Attorney General by President Obama at around the time the Hillary Email scandal broke.

June 27th – July 6th all done, how quickly things can happen when your man is on the switch:
"James Comey interviewed Hillary Clinton without caution on July 2nd, and on July 5th of 2016 James Comey made a public statement explaining that he would not be recommending any criminal charges against her to the Department of Justice."

24 Hours latter US Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a press release confirming no charges would be laid against Hillary Clinton.

We now know Comey lied at least once to a Congressional Judicial committee claiming he did not make any decision on the Clinton email matter until after he had interviewed Hillary Clinton.”

Taking into consideration all of the above, I found myself questioning why nobody in the Media or the GOP has been willing or able to see what is obvious, since they had all this information in their hands, and it happened in front of them. It seems to me that they are paid to pick these things up, and that is their job — but they are failing at it.

Of far more concern today, is this question: Are they even willing or able to look at what is happening, and admit it is wrong, or as some have suggested, are they all bought and paid for? Maybe, or maybe not, but there is another credible and logical explanation, one that everyone or at least 99% of the denizens of the swampy Washington DC would feel very comfortable with… and this appears clearly in a September 12th interview that was mentioned earlier, when Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, told the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney, that he sees criminal charges against Clinton as highly unlikely at this point because…:

“The government has chosen not to prosecute. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department, can investigate, indict and prosecute, but they choose not to do so,” he said. Napolitano disagreed with the decision not to prosecute, telling Varney, “I think it’s a terrible decision not to prosecute. They should prosecute Mrs Clinton because there’s ample evidence of her guilt, and they should prosecute anybody that destroyed evidence in a criminal investigation.”

When Varney asked Napolitano if he was disappointed with Sessions so far, Napolitano responded thus: “Yes, even though he’s my friend, I’m going to hear about this, yes, for this and for other reasons.”

According to Napolitano, the culture in government is holding back Sessions from pursuing an investigation against Clinton because as he said: “It’s an institutional culture in government. We don’t want to go after our predecessors because we don’t want our successors to come after us.”

Maybe that best explains what we have been seeing with investigations into the Clintons over several decades, and it would appear to be the most logical explanation, it answers the questions so many people have been asking since the Clinton Circus first rolled into Washington DC, back in 1992.

But, and it is a big "BUTT" — yet while Washington may breathe a sigh of relief at the adoption of such logic, someone needs to remind Washington that Washington is not America.

Washington & the Establishment Elite are on the other side of a vast American Political Divide, and that ain't going to be bridged any time soon…

Because if we accept that there was no Voter Fraud in Washington DC, then we must also accept that the official vote count in the November 2016 Presidential election is a confirmation of political dysfunction, as Donald Trump comfortably won the Electoral College across America 306 to Clintons 232, including 2600 Counties to Clintons meagre 500, all in all a stunning 83% of the Geographic Nation.

The American Federal Electoral College was devised to provide a proper representation of the will of a majority of the people in a majority of the states that agreed to join together in common interest to create a Federal Government which it was eventually agreed would be based in Washington.

Washington on the other hand voted a whopping 94% in favour of Hillary Clinton Presidency in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

More than anything else that has been discussed, this goes to explain the so called divide in American Politics, it explains the “Too big to Jail” attitude that appears to have captured the Washington Bureaucracy, the Government, and all of the Establishment Mass and Main Stream Media, along with Social Media and the likes of it.

I will leave this issue here for now, but I do just want you to think about something over the next few days. In view of what you have just read, would it concern you at all to know that James Comey intentionally leaked details of private meetings with newly elected President Trump to the major news media, feeding the Media frenzy surrounding the Obama’s Russia SpyGate accusations. Then that Comey has admitted he leaked to the press because Trump made him feel nauseous, and he felt he did not trust the new President — is further confirmation of his bias towards Hillary Clinton.

That Comey has admitted in his media leaks, along with his evidence to various Congressional Committees that he was involved in a concerted campaign to imply that Donald Trump had pressured him to drop an FBI inquiry into possible Collusion with Russians by Trump’s Campaign, hoping it would lead Congress to entertain the possibility that Donald Trump might be accused of “Obstructing of Justice” — is another one of the nails in his scaffolding.

James Comey has admitted it was his intention when leaking to reporters, that it might encourage or hasten the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate Donald Trump and his campaign team…

But for now we should all be advised that all is not what it seems at the FBI, because the issue here is, what possessed James Comey to step well outside what he knew to be the limits of his Authority, exceed his paygrade and take it upon himself to sum up the case against Hillary Clinton, and then pass exonerating judgement?

We now know, that for James Comey, his public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton was no rush of blood, spur of the moment thing, this was a calculated, deliberate and planned political move which it had been decided at least as early as April, would be carried out at the Direction of the then President Barak Obama.

Comey’s actions clearly betray his state of mind, he knew what he was doing and he knew very well why he was doing it, he knew his actions amounted to a most audacious obstruction of justice, but he made the call in the comfort and knowledge of expert predictions in all main stream media showing Hillary Clinton as odds on favourite to win the Presidential election, meaning he James Edgar Comey would have two American Presidents so deep in his debt.

Oh, and yes Mr McCabe, Mr Podesta, I wouldn’t want you to feel your roles had been ignored, looking forward to seeing how you both develop as players, adjust to new interpretations of your roles over the next few weeks.

This is an insightful and hard hitting book looking closely at what was behind the appointment of Special Prosecutor ROBERT MUELLER by the Secret Washington DC elites and the Governmental losers.

Yet the 2016 US Presidential Race that led to the Election of DONALD TRUMP and the first 24 months of his Administration, offer a most unique and important turning point in the history of this Republic, mostly because of how unexpected this breath of fresh air was at the time that it arrived.

Selected Excerpts, AUTHENTICATED US GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION, JULY 12, 2016, Serial No. 114-88, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary, Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

""Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.

We must not give in to hate and let emotion replace reason. We must bridge the divide that separates us and embrace one another as Americans. We must have faith that the institutions that have sustained our Republic for the last 240 years will deliver fair, impartial justice to victims of crime and punish the guilty.

I look forward to your thoughts on this important matter.

The American people also expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else and to be reprimanded when they break the law. That is not the case for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Last week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend criminal charges against Secretary
Clinton for her use of a private email server while at the State Department and the mishandling of classified information.

The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling. On Monday, June 27, Attorney General Lynch, you met privately with former President Bill Clinton aboard your plane on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport despite the fact that his wife was the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.

This encounter is even more troubling if the FBI is also investigating improper donations to the Clinton Foundation, which was founded by former President Clinton, a member of the foundation’s board of directors.

Secretary Clinton stated repeatedly that no information in her emails was marked “classified.” This is not true. The FBI found that some of these emails were marked “classified.”

Secretary Clinton said all relevant emails were returned to the State Department. This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned.

This has now become an issue for Congress, in that it appears Secretary Clinton testified falsely when appearing under oath before the Select Committee on Benghazi. Yesterday, I and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Chaffetz asked the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Secretary Clinton’s testimony before Congress.

Secretary Clinton’s extreme carelessness possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and Nation. Her extreme carelessness suggests she cannot be trusted with the Nation’s most sen sitive secrets if she is nevertheless elected President.

Frankly, the FBI’s conclusion leaves many more questions than answers, and we hope. Madam Attorney General, to get answers to those questions today.

Thank you.

Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, General Lynch.

We’ll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for the witnesses, and I’ll begin by recognizing myself.

Before being confirmed as Attorney General in May of last year, you were first nominated by President Obama to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and you were originally appointed to the U.S. Attorney post in 1999 by former President Bill Clinton.

The existence of Secretary Clinton’s private email server was first brought to light in March of last year, 1 month before your confirmation as Attorney General. A few months after your confirmation, the inspectors general of State and National Intelligence
requested the Department of Justice investigate whether classified information was stored on her private email servers. The FBI then opened an investigation into the matter.

Given that she was a political appointee of your current boss and, more importantly, the wife of your previous boss, why did you not see fit to recuse yourself from the investigation? Wouldn’t recusal or appointment of a special prosecutor have removed anyappearance of impropriety given your service during Bill Clinton’s
Presidency?

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair man.

As I’ve said on several occasions before, when the referral came into the Department of Justice, it was received and referred to experienced, dedicated career agents and prosecutors who handle matters of this type every day with independence, with efficiency, with thoroughness, and the matter was handled like any other
matter.

It was reviewed through the chain by those independent career agents and prosecutors. And, in considering the matter, there was no connection, there was no need for recusal or an independent prosecutor.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well

Attorney General Lynch. And, as I indicated before. I’m incredibly proud of the dedicated work that they did over the past year.

Mr. Goodlatte. Let me follow up on that then.

Two weeks ago, roughly a year into the FBI’s investigation and a mere week before Director Comey’s announcement, you met privately with your former boss, former President Bill Clinton, on your plane at the Phoenix airport.

Why was this meeting, particularly in light of your previous appointment by President Clinton, not grounds for recusing yourself?

Attorney General Lynch. With respect to my conversation that I had with former President Clinton in Phoenix, it was a conversation that was held on the airplane on the tarmac. The former President indicated he wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello,
and we had a social conversation.

Nothing of any relationship to the email investigation was discussed, nor were any specific cases or matters before the Department of Justice discussed.

Mr. Goodlatte. We’ll have some followup questions to that later, but let me turn your attention to Director Comey’s conclusions on a variety of points.

Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent or received information marked as “classified” on her server. Director Comey stated that was not true. Do you agree with Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. You know, Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis for his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me. He’s chosen to provide detailed statements, and I would refer you to those statements.

I, as Attorney General, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, General Lynch, I think you would agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation but with the Department of Justice, which you head.

Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue, to make a determination, yourself, whether you and those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated, I received the recommendation of the team. And that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. It was a unanimous recommendation as to how to
resolve the investigation.

Mr. Goodlatte. So do you

Attorney General Lynch. And the information that they had received concluded

Mr. Goodlatte. Do you agree with the conclusion?

Attorney General Lynch. And I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it. And, again, I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.

Mr. Goodlatte. Secretary Clinton stated that she did not email any classified material, and Director Comey stated there was classified material emailed. Do you agree with Director Comey’s conclusion about that?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would have to refer you to Director Comey’s statements for the basis for his recommendations.

Mr. Goodlatte. Director Comey stated that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information. Do you agree with Director Comey’s statement?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to Director Comey for any further explanation as to the basis for his recommendations.

The recommendation that I received from the team, including Director Comey

Mr. Goodlatte. But, General Lynch

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Was that the investigation
be resolved without charges.

Mr. Goodlatte. General Lynch, Director Comey made a recommendation, but he made a recommendation to the Department of Justice, which you head, and you would have to come to the final conclusion on whether or not to act.

I would presume that, before you acted, you would look at his conclusion to determine whether you agreed with him or not.

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated, I received a briefing from the team, which included not just the prosecutors but the agents and Director Comey, their unanimous recommendation was that the matter be resolved in the way in which we’ve announced,
and I accepted that recommendation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Let me ask you one final question that does not regard the specific facts with regard to Secretary Clinton, but Director Comey said that there was not clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the
handling of classified information.

My question for you is, is intent to violate the law a requirement
under 18 U.S.C. section 793(f)?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I think the statutes that were considered here speak for themselves. To answer further would require a discussion of the facts and the analysis of this matter, which, as I’ve indicated. I’m not in a position to pro-
vide at the time. Again, I refer you to Director Comey’s discussion
for that.

As I’ve indicated, the team reviewed this matter, and it was a unanimous team decision.

Mr. Goodlatte. And you made a decision, following their recommendation to you, that you were not going to prosecute and the matter was closed. Is that correct?

Attorney General Lynch. I made the decision some time ago that I would accept the recommendation of that team and was awaiting that recommendation. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it. And, again, I reiterate my pride and faith in them.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you. I appreciate your faith in them. The concern here is in regard to your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the laws thereunder, including 18 U.S.C. section 793(D and 18 U.S.C. section 1924. And to con-
clude that no prosecution would take place without examining and drawing conclusions regarding the questions that I’ve just asked does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.

Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General Lynch, for your testimony today.

I’d ask first that, in that happenstance meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix, was there any discussion that might have implied anything with regard to the investigations of the Clintons, be it the Clinton Foundation or the investigation of the FBI into Hillary
Clinton’s emails?

Attorney General Lynch. No, sir, there was not.

Mr. King. Zero implications.

Attorney General Lynch. There was nothing about any investigations or any specific cases or any of the other matters that you have mentioned in your question. It was purely social

Mr. King. And when did you learn about that meeting?

Attorney General Lynch. As I was getting ready to leave the plane. I had landed, and I was getting ready to disembark from the plane. I learned that the former President wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello to him.

Mr. King. Was there any staff in that meeting, or was it the two of you alone?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, my husband was with me during our conversations. I believe there were also two members of the flight crew on board the plane, to whom the former President said hello.

Mr. King. Okay. Thank you.

Are you aware that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied to the public about her emails and her email servers in public forums and, say, campaign speeches and interviews with the press? Are you aware of that?

Attorney General Lynch. I have no comment on a characterization of any candidate and their statements.

Mr. King. I would point out that most of the rest of America is aware of that, and including her political supporters, who will continually say that they will support her even though she lied publicly.

I would also point out, October 9, 2015, Barack Obama stated that Hillary Clinton did not endanger national security. The whole issue was “ginned up by Republicans.” That was October 9, 2015. On October 10, he stated that Hillary Clinton was “careless but
had not been intentionally endangering national security.”

It’s curious to me that that turns out to be the very word that the lack of prosecution hinges upon, is intent, even though the statute doesn’t require intent. And when you see a President publicly make a statement like that, are you concerned that it might influ-
ence the decision on prosecution?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, as — I’ve been asked about that statement. As I’ve clarified before, the Department of Justice had no input into it. And, certainly, my view has always been that the team working on this did their work independently and without any political influence.

Mr. King. From the information that’s been made available to you, do you believe that Hillary Clinton knowingly removed classified information?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on or a characterization

Mr. King. I understand that. And, also

Attorney General Lynch. And that was part of

Mr. King [continuing]. Do you believe that she had intent to keep unauthorized information in an unauthorized location? And you have no comment on that?

Attorney General Lynch. No. I’d would refer you to my statement on the

Mr. King. Uh-huh.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Recommendation that I
accepted.

Mr. King. And I understand that.

Now, the hinge of this thing, according to Mr. Sensenbrenner and I’ll say myself, the definition of the word “gross negligence,” in that Director Comey used the term “extreme carelessness,” and Mr Sensenbrenner asked you to define the difference between that and “gross negligence.”

Do you find it ironic that the last examination of a Clinton in this room, the previous one. Bill Clinton — excuse me, before this Judiciary Committee, not technically in this room — hinged on the meaning of the word “is.” It looks to me like this investigation is
hinging upon the meaning of “extreme carelessness” versus “gross negligence.”

Do you actually see that there’s a difference between those two words?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I always start with the statute with any review that is being done on any matter by the Department of Justice. And we look to the statute, legislative history, caselaw, and we look at the facts as they’re developed by an
investigation and apply them to that statute and to that standard. And that is what the team did in this case, and that was, I believe, the basis for their recommendation.

Mr. King. Director Comey stated in his press conference that they didn’t have evidence that the classified information or the Top Secret information had been hacked by a foreign actor. But neither did he state that they had any evidence that it had not been
hacked, and he stated also it’d be unlikely that we would know if it had been.

Now, under Snowden, we have to operate as if any information he had access to is now in the possession of foreign hostile actors. Would you believe that’s the same thing with any information that Hillary Clinton had on her private server, we have to act as if it
were in the hands of a hostile foreign actor?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on a characterization or comparison of Mr. Snowden and Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. King. Well, just answer the part about Hillary Clinton then, please. General Lynch.

Attorney General Lynch. You had asked me

Mr. King. The information that was on her server, that we have to presume now that it’s in the hands of hostile foreign actors. Do we have to handle it as if that’s the case? And, if so, didn’t that endanger our national security?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I think that you’d have to look at the facts of the matter and determine whether or not there had been access. And, as the Director indicated, I believe he’s responded to that, as to whether or not

Mr. King. And it is a very serious matter, and it’s been covered up. General Lynch.

I yield back.

Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you. Madam Attorney General, for coming today.

Madam Attorney General, you mentioned earlier that your first consideration in any case was to start with the statute. And I know there are a lot of questions already that’s addressed this issue, but I want to read you 18 U.S.C. 1924, where it says any Federal offi-
cial who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States and knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or material in an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 1
year or both.”

Now, this statute doesn’t require an intent to profit or to harm the United States or otherwise act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It simply requires intent to retain classified docu ments at an unauthorized location, something FBI Director
Comey’s own comments suggest was the case with Hillary Clinton’s
investigation.

Can you walk us through your reasoning on your nonprosecution
decision in the Clinton case based on this particular statute?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the reasoning for my recommendation, as I have stated before, I had committed to and did accept the recommendations of the team working on this matter.

And, as I indicated in my opening statement, it would not be appropriate for me, as Attorney General, to go into that level of analysis. I believe the FBI Director has chosen to make his recommendations and analysis public in order to afford more clarity
into that.

But the team did review the relevant laws, the relevant facts that the investigation revealed. They relied solely on that and not on anything else in making that recommendation, which was unanimous, to me.

Mr. Franks. Well, Madam Chair — Madam Attorney General, you know, the FBI doesn’t give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. You do.

But many Members already — I can see where this is going. Far more capable Members of this Committee have summarily failed, as I just did, to get you to answer even the most reasonable and relevant question. Consequently, I’m going to simply capitulate to
your prodigious dissimulation skills and suspend the remainder of my questions.

Instead, I just want to remind all of us that in a republic like America, which is fundamentally predicated on the rule of law and the equality of us all under the rule of law, there are few things that break faith with America and the American people and under mine their trust in their government more than witnessing the highest law enforcement officer in the land blatantly ignoring the crystal-clear meaning and equal protection and equal enforcement of the laws as they are written.

And, Madam Attorney General, I think such an abrogation of your official duties and responsibilities — it’s not just a matter of what will be written writ large in the annals of your own legacy. It’s something, rather, that goes to the very heart of the rule of law
in a republic that so many lying out in Arlington National Cemetery have died to keep. And I hope, going forward, if there are other investigations into the false testimony given to the Confess by Mrs. Clinton, that that will be at least part of your consideration.

Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Lynch, who made the decision that no charges would be brought against Secretary Clinton?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to that decision, I had determined that I would accept the recommendation of the team and made that known

Mr. Jordan. So who ultimately made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. I made that known, and then when the recommendation was given to me, I did accept that recommendation.

Mr. Jordan. So did you ultimately make that decision, or did Director Comey?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Director Comey was part of the team.

Mr. Jordan. Who ultimately made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. So the team consisted of prosecutors and agents that did include Director Comey, but there were oth-
ers —

Mr. Jordan. I want to know where the buck stops. Who made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated before, I had previously decided that I would accept their recommendation when they made it to me

Mr. Jordan. So are you saying you

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. And I did accept their recommendation.

Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Made the decision? Are you saying you made the decision?

Attorney General Lynch. I had previously indicated I would accept their recommendation, and I

Mr. Jordan. Okay. So let’s just run through that. On July 1, you said, “I’ll accept the recommendations of the FBI.” Mr. Comey didn’t announce his decision until July 5, and he said that he didn’t talk to you beforehand.

Now, I assume it’s not unusual for the Attorney General to accept the recommendations of the FBI and the career prosecutors and the team, as you’ve so often cited. What is unusual is to make a big, bold, public announcement that you’re going to do it. It’s one
thing to do it. I assume it happens all the time. It’s another thing to announce ahead of time you’re going to do it.

So here’s what I’m having trouble with and my guess is a lot of people are having trouble with. If you commit and announce that you will abide by the FBI’s decision before they even finish their investigation, then how can you also say ultimately it was your de-
cision?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, as I’ve indicated, I accepted their recommendation. I had indicated

Mr. Jordan. So are you

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Before that I would accept —

Mr. Jordan. What I want to know is, was it not your decision or was it your decision? Because it seems to me you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say. I’m the Attorney General and I decide, but yet I’m going to take their recommendations even before they
make their recommendations.

Attorney General Lynch. I had indicated that I would be accepting their recommendation because I wanted to make it clear that any conversation that I might have had with the former President would have no impact on the team or their review

Mr. Jordan. Ever do this before?

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Or the investigation.

Mr. Jordan. Did you ever do this before?

Attorney General Lynch. I have not had occasion to do that be-
fore, but I felt

Mr. Jordan. You’ve never

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. It was important in this
case.

Mr. Jordan. So you’ve never announced before an investigation is done that whatever they come up with — maybe they’re going to screw it up, who knows — you’ve never announced before that what ever they recommend I’m going to follow. It’s never happened before.

Attorney General Lynch. I thought it was important in this case to do so.

Mr. Jordan. So this is the first time you’ve ever done that, announce beforehand, I don’t care what their recommendations are I’m gonna — by golly. I’m gonna follow them.

Attorney General Lynch. I have complete faith in the judgment and the hard work of the team.

Mr. Jordan. I’m not questioning whether you have faith in them. I have — I think probably a lot of people have faith in the FBI in a lot of situations. I don’t know that they agree with them here, but I think they have faith in them a lot of times.

What I’m questioning is why announce ahead of time, when you’ve never done it before, why announce ahead of time. I’m going to follow their recommendations even though I don’t know what they are, and still claim you’re the ultimate decider?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, as I indicated, I felt it was important to express my role in the investigation, to clarify my role, because I was concerned that the conversation I had with the former President would make people think that there could be some influence there.

Mr. Jordan. So that was the trigger.

Attorney General Lynch. That, in my view, was something that needed to be clarified. I felt that people needed to understand my role in

Mr. Jordan. So you’ve never done this before, but when you have a conversation with the former President, the husband of the subject of an ongoing investigation, and you have that conversation before they’ve interviewed the subject and before they’ve reached
their recommendations and finished their investigation, that’s what triggered you to do this thing you’ve never done before, which is announce, I don’t care what they recommend. I’m gonna follow it.

Attorney General Lynch. My concern was that the conversation that I had with President Clinton would be seen by some as having an influence over that. I felt it was important to clarify

Mr. Jordan. Not just some. General Lynch. A lot of people.

Attorney General Lynch. And I felt it was important to clarify
that even before I had landed in Phoenix

Mr. Jordan. Well, here’s what I think.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. I had made that decision. And I felt

Mr. Jordan. Here’s what I see happening here.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. It was important that people hear that from me.

Mr. Jordan. Here’s what I think is — I think your actions made it worse. I really do.

I think a lot of people already think that there are two systems, as many have talked about, one for we, the people, a different one, entirely different one, for the politically connected. If you’re a former Secretary of State, you’re a former Senator, you’re a former
First Lady, you’re a nominee for President, and your husband meets with you 5 days before a decision is announced — different standard for those facts.

And you proved it. You demonstrated that it’s different by your actions, because you said you’ve never done this before. So you not only — you changed your internal practices. You changed the fact that you’ve never announced beforehand that you’re going to follow a recommendation before you even have the recommendations. Your actions contributed to this belief that the system is rigged.

And that — you made a bad situation worse by saying. I’m going to do whatever they recommend, even though I don’t know what the recommendations are. I don’t know anyone who would conduct themselves that way when they’re the ultimate decider. But you said. I’m going to wait — I’m going to do whatever they said, and I’m not even going to wait to see what they’re recommending. I’m gonna follow it.

You showed that this case was different. And the law is supposed to treat every single person the same. And your announcement, by definition, made this thing entirely different. And then, of course, what was ultimately decided made it entirely different, as well.

I yield back.

Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman.

And, Madam Attorney General, thank you so much for being here.

Attorney General Lynch. Good afternoon.

Mr. Chaffetz. Does an individual need a security clearance to review or have access to classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, that issue would be dependent upon the agency for whom they worked and the nature of the work that they did with respect to

Mr. Chaffetz. Can you give me an example where you don’t need a security clearance to view classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. No, I believe, as I was going to say, they would, but the type of clearance varies with every agency, and the agency would make that decision and determination.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, it depends on the facts of every situation. You’d have to determine how that sharing occurred. You’d have to determine the means. You’d have to determine, you know, the reason, the intent. Certainly, depending upon
how you view the statute, it could go any number of ways.

Mr. Chaffetz. So you think there is a scenario in which you could share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance.

Attorney General Lynch. No, I would not draw that conclusion. I would say that I’m not able to answer it as a hypothetical but that there are a number of factors that would go into the decision, and one could have any number of results.

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the
Committee, and can also be accessed at:

http: / / docs, house.gov / Committee / Calendar / By Event, aspx ?EventID= 105175

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to provide access to somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance to view classified material?

Attorney General Lynch. To provide access?

Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.

Attorney General Lynch. Again, you know, I’d need more facts on the hypothetical, but I would look at a number of things, and depending upon how you reviewed it, it could go any number of ways.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a nonsecure location?

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to the statute. One could, in fact, have liability, again, depending upon the nature and facts and circumstances

Mr. Chaffetz. Do you have any examples of where it’s legally acceptable to retain classified information in a nonsecure location?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a hypothetical answer for that.

Mr. Chaffetz. Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Attorney General Lynch. There are a number of statutes that cover that, both at the Federal and State level. There are a number of ways in which that could be found.

Mr. Chaffetz. There’s a difference between prosecuting something and whether it’s legal or illegal. You know, these questions are pretty simple. And we’ve got millions of people with security clearance. How are they supposed to go through the gyrations that
you’ve laid out in order to make a simple determination?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, if we had a specific fact situation or fact pattern, that could be reviewed.

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m just asking is it legal

Attorney General Lynch. When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to come up with a blanket answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m asking if it’s legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance.

Attorney General Lynch. Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, and I’d refer you to the facts of every situation. It would be unfair to give a blanket answer to every hypothetical.

Mr. Chaffetz. Why aren’t we telling all the Federal employees and contractors who have access to classified information, those in our military, why aren’t we telling them, “You can’t do this. It’s against the law”? Why can’t you say that?

Attorney General Lynch. We give them guidance. Again, every agency does. We give them examples. We give them information as to

Mr. Chaffetz. Wait, wait, wait.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. How to make those decisions. We show them. And, again, every agency

Mr. Chaffetz. Why is the law not sufficient guidance? You believe — is there a flaw in the law? Is there a suggestion on the law? I mean

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t have a comment on the state of the law. My answer is that in order

Mr. Chaffetz. Somebody asked me to consult an attorney, and you are the Attorney General. And I think you’re sending a terrible message to the world, to those people who are trying to make some simple decisions. The lack of clarity that you give to this body, the lack of clarity on this issue is pretty stunning. These seem like simple issues.

Let me ask you, the team that you talk about in the Secretary Clinton email scandal, outside of the FBI, who is on that team that you refer to that made the recommendation?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated before, they would be career prosecutors.

Mr. Chaffetz. Okay, so they’re prosecutors. Anybody else on the team that was a participant in the investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. Not to my knowledge. I’m not sure if you’re referring to anybody else. Can you give me some further context for that?

Mr. Chaffetz. I don’t know — like, if they go back and do security clearances, determine classification, whether it’s secure or nonsecure, I would think that there would be somebody outside of the FBI that would help you make those determinations.

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the Department of Justice team would be Department of Justice employees. With respect to

Mr. Chaffetz. I’m trying to ask specific to which departments within the Department — I mean, the Department of Justice is a large organization, right? FBI is part of that; prosecutors are part of it. Who above and beyond prosecutors and the FBI was involved
in this investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. As I’ve indicated before, the DOJ team was composed of the career lawyers and seasoned agents in there. I’m not sure if you’re asking about something outside of DOJ

Mr. Chaffetz. I didn’t know if there was another unit or other people that were part of it. That was my question.

My time was expired. I wish I had about 20 more minutes.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You are in charge of the Department of Justice. The buck stops with you. And I’m concerned that you keep on saying that you have deferred the authority that by law is yours to Director Comey.

Let me give an example. Mr. Comey has said that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of highly classified, very sensitive information. Now, the criminal statute uses the word “gross negligence.” And I can’t for the life of me figure out what the difference between “gross negligence” and “extremely careless”
is unless one really wants to parse some words.

Now, secondly, the misdemeanour statute does not require intent. It’s a strict liability statute, and it relates to the removal and retention of classified information. So it doesn’t matter whether Secretary Clinton had the intent to do that or not; the fact is that the FBI said that she did it.

Now, I think that what Director Comey has said is that Secretary Clinton’s actions essentially meet the definition for prosecution under the statute. Why did you defer to Director Comey when the responsibility is yours?

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.

Let me he clear that my decision was to accept the recommendation of the team of agents and investigators who worked on this. And these are the career attorneys as well as the dedicated investigators, including the FBI Director, who worked on this matter for
over a year.

They’ve reviewed the facts. They followed the facts. They looked at the law. They’ve applied the facts to that law and came up with a unanimous recommendation

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. A joint recommendation,
in effect

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I have

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. That was provided to me.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. I have a limited amount of time.

You know, the fact is that, whether it’s extremely careless or gross negligence and a strict liability of statute, I think that the language of the statute is clear.

Now, I’ve noted that the Justice Department over the last several years has prosecuted several servicemen for doing the exact samething that Secretary Clinton did and, in one case, actually reached a judgment of a court that prohibited that serviceman from ever
having a security classification again.

Now, you have a problem. Madam Attorney General, that people think that there’s a different standard between the servicemen and Secretary Clinton and the fact that the language is almost synonymous, if not synonymous, saying no prosecution of Secretary Clinton and prosecution and conviction of the servicemen.

You have a burden, I think, to convince the American public that you don’t have a double standard. You’re not meeting the burden. And how do you plan to change the argument that you make to the American public so that they can be convinced that the thing was
correct and that you made the right decision, rather than simply deferring to people in the FBI and the prosecutors?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, every case stands on its own separate facts and application of those facts to the law. So you’d have to refer to the specific facts of the other matters that you’re referring to.

With respect to the investigation into the former Secretary’s handling of classified information, her private email system, again, I can tell you and this entire Committee and the American people that all of the relevant facts were considered, investigated thoroughly, and reviewed by the entire team, which, again, is composed of career independent investigators as well as lawyers. And their recommendation, upon a full and thorough analysis, was that the matter be resolved in the way in which it was recommended to me.

As I’ve indicated, I determined to accept that recommendation and did, in fact, accept that recommendation.

Mr. Sensenbrenner. One final question. One of the service people who was prosecuted, basically he sent an email out that his fellow Marines were in danger. And he ended up getting prosecuted for warning his fellow Marines that their lives may be
in danger.

Now, here in the case of Ms. Clinton, the private email arrangement was simply to avoid public scrutiny. So, in terms of the intent of Major Jason Brezler and Secretary Clinton, one. Major Brezler, was doing it to save his colleagues; the other. Secretary Clinton, was to avoid transparency.

Now, in terms of the bottom line, that’s the hoop that you have to jump through in order to retain and regain your credibility with the American public. I hope that you’ll be able to do that.

And I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Attorney General, I think the thing that I find so disheartening, so unfortunate, about FBI Director Comey’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week was that, for a lot of Americans,
it looked like we’re seeing a double standard, unequal treatment under the law.

Under the facts of the case as laid out by Director Comey, virtually anybody else, I think most Americans think, including my self, there would have been charges brought for a crime against virtually anybody else in this country. But the politically connected Hillary Clinton, well, we won’t charge her.

I mean, look what Comey laid out. It’s already been laid out to some degree, but I think it warrants doing it again. He found that, despite the fact that Hillary claimed that she’d never sent or received classified information over a private email, she’d actually sent 110 of them, over 100 of them, and 8 of those were determined to have been Top Secret at the time that they were sent.

Now, I assume that, based upon the way you’ve answered some of my colleague’s questions prior to this, you’re not going to acknowledge what I think virtually every other American believes, even her supporters, and that’s to at least acknowledge, as Director Comey did, that she lied. Would you respond?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the Director’s statements, as I’ve indicated, he’s provided really unprecedented access into his views of the matter, and I would refer you to them.

I understand the issue that you raise, obviously, is one involving perceptions as to whether or not charges would have been brought in some other situation. And, again, I can only refer you back to the Director’s statements, where he chose to outline the fact that no other cases similar to this had, in fact, been brought.

Mr. Chabot. Let me go back to what Mr. Sensenbrenner referred to. I think it’s one of the great mysteries of this case, and that’s why extreme carelessness — apparently not in his mind, and you accepted it, so I guess apparently not in your mind — did not constitute gross negligence.

Now, I’m an attorney. I practiced 16 years before coming here. And I’ve been on this Committee for 20 years now, so even though I’m not actually practicing law right now. I’ve been doing this type of thing for a long time. And I, for the life of me, don’t know what the difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” is. He said he found one but apparently not the other.

Could you shed some light for me and perhaps anybody else in this room or that may ultimately watch this, what is the difference between the two?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, again. I’m not going to further explain the Director’s comments, as he has, I believe, explained them. But I will say, when people have asked — and I understand your question to be the meaning of “gross negligence” — one always, as you know, refer to the statute itself, relevant cases, and then, of
course, it is a very fact-specific inquiry. And since to go further would go into the facts of this case. I’m not able to go further at this time.

Mr. Chabot. All right. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch. But we always start with the statute. We start with relevant caselaw. We start with legislative history into the

Mr. Chabot. Okay. As

Attorney General Lynch. Determination of what Congress meant.

Mr. Chabot. Also, as Mr. Sensenbrenner mentioned. I’ve got limited time, as well. So since you’re not going to answer that ques tion, let me give you one final question here.

Let me go back to this double-standard thing that I mentioned before. I couldn’t help being reminded when this whole thing — especially over the last week, of something that I was involved in in this very Committee 18 years ago. And, at the time, it was Hillary
Clinton’s husband. Bill Clinton, who was in trouble.

He was accused of sexually harassing a number of women, and then he lied under oath about it, committed perjury. He’d been asked if there were other women. There was a civil lawsuit brought, and oftentimes when you have a lawsuit like that, you go
to other people: Did you sexually — were you aggressive with people who were under your jurisdiction or that you had some power over? Did you ever do that? No, he never did.

Well, then a young intern came forward that was working under him at the White House, and she had physical proof. He denied it, but there was physical proof I won’t go into exactly what that was, but there was proof about that. So he was pretty much caught up in this. He lied, committed perjury.

That’s why articles of impeachment were voted affirmatively out of this Committee and then in the full House. And then he went for trial in the Senate. I know a lot about that because they picked 13 Members to be the prosecutors of that case, the House man-
agers, and I was one of them, under Henry Hyde, who of course has gone on.

My principal focus at that trial was the topic of perjury, the elements of it, its history, what you had to prove. And in my argument with the Senate, my argument about that was that we had hundreds of people all over the currently who were in jail, behind
bars, for perjury, and the President of the United States shouldn’t be above the law.

Well, the ultimate vote was 50 to remove him, 50 to stay, so he remained President.

But I would just conclude by saying that every American, including the President of the United States, including a candidate for the highest office in our land, ought to be treated equally under the law. And I think, in this case, I think it’s a travesty, because I
don’t think Hillary Clinton has been treated like any other American would’ve been treated under the same circumstances.

And I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman

Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General Lynch, for being here today. I know that the Attorney General’s office is required to — the folks in your office are required to attend ethics training every year. Are you required to, as the Attorney General, to attend those as well?

Attorney General Lynch. I do.

Mr. Bishop. And do they cover. I’m sure, the issue of conflict of interest and doing whatever is possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

Attorney General Lynch. Yes.

Mr. Bishop. I say that in the context of the question that was just asked regarding the meeting on the tarmac. And I wondered if — and I know that you’ve indicated since then that you regret the unscheduled meeting and that, moreover, the most important thing
for you as Attorney General is the integrity of the Department of Justice, which I appreciate. And I think most Americans would agree with that statement.

Do you recall when and whom — told you that former President Clinton wanted to speak with you?

Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated, I was getting ready to leave the plane, to disembark with my husband, and I don’t recall who, but I was informed that former President Clinton wanted to say hello. So I agreed that he could say hello.

Mr. Bishop. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch. And he did come on board and speak with my husband and myself and other people.

Mr. Bishop. Right. I remember that part. But full stop, right at that moment, at that very moment I want you to think back. Did you think even for a split second that maybe perhaps that wasn’t the right thing to do; that there might be a conflict of interest or
at the very, very least, an appearance of impropriety to have that meeting with the spouse of a person under investigation and, in fact, a key witness in another investigation, a former President of the United States, just for a second, at that moment, did you think about that?

Attorney General Lynch. I will tell you, Congressman, that at that moment my thought was, as it is in many instances, that I respond to courtesy with courtesy. And I viewed it as a brief social greeting. And it turned into a longer conversation, certainly, than
I had anticipated, and

Mr. Bishop. But at any time during that meeting did you feel — did it ever occur to you — I mean, you say in retrospect you regret it, but during that timeframe did you regret it at all?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, at the time that we had the conversation, as I indicated, I viewed it as a social conversation, similar to when other individuals had asked to say hello, and we speak and move on.

Mr. Bishop. Fair enough. Fair enough. You’ve answered the question. Thank you very much for that answer.

You’ve indicated that the career prosecutors from your office assisted in the investigation, reviewed the evidence with the investigators with the FBI, correct?

Attorney General Lynch. They were the line team, as we call it.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So you had a team working. So did those career prosecutors have the opportunity to advise FBI investigators as to whether or not this was an actionable offense, whether probable cause existed?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, they would have provided legal analysis. I’m not able to go into their specific discussions, obviously.

Mr. Bishop. So I get that.

Attorney General Lynch. But they would have had discussions about the facts and about the legal analysis.

Mr. Bishop. So your — ^your team did — your teams was part of the team, that the Department of Justice was part of this FBI investigation?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice also.

Mr. Bishop. Well, okay.

Attorney General Lynch. And I apologize for the confusion. When I refer to the DOJ team, I actually mean the lawyers and the agents. So I apologize for that confusion.

Mr. Bishop. So — but these were lawyers from your office, though, that were part of this team is what I’m getting at, and they were part of — were they part of also the recommendation that was provided by Director Comey? Do they help draft that recommendation?

Attorney General Lynch. Well, my understanding is that Director Comey provided the information and recommendation that he provided. The information that I received was from the team. It included Director Comey. And they

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So what I’m saying is, I don’t want to mince words here and I don’t want to — I don’t want to be elusive in my question, I want to be as direct as possible. Your team was part of this investigative process, so your team was also part of the rec-
ommendation that was put forward by Comey — Director Comey, excuse me.

Attorney General Lynch. Well, the recommendation that came to me included Director Comey’s recommendation. It was a unanimous recommendation

Mr. Bishop. By the team.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Agents and prosecutors, yes.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So I understand it. So this really was your recommendation that you accepted from your team?

Attorney General Lynch. It was a recommendation of the career agents and prosecutors who had done

Mr. Bishop. In your office.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Who had done the work. They were, as I indicated before, from within the National Security Division

Mr. Bishop. Okay.

Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Affiliated with main Justice. And they are the ones who made the recommendation to me. And my decision was to accept their recommendation.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. Let me ask you one more thing. I know my time is fleeting here.

Did Secretary Clinton have counsel present for the interview at the FBI?

Attorney General Lynch. I’m not privy to the details of her meet ing.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. So you don’t know whether or not she was questioned under oath or whether recorded or any of those?

Attorney General Lynch. I’m not privy to the details of that.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. You indicated earlier you — my colleague made mention of the fact that there were relevant statutes in a certain case, an investigation that was going on. What are the relevant statutes involved in this Hillary — Secretary Clinton case?

Attorney General Lynch. I believe that they have been discussed in terms of mishandling classified information and

Mr. Bishop. But can you cite those chapter and verse, so that I understand that you reviewed and understand the statutes that are being used?

Attorney General Lynch. Let me

Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has been expired, but the witness will be requested to answer the question.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you. Let me get you the exact citations of statutes that would have been under consideration, be cause I don’t want to misstate here. But we have discussed them here generally, and the discussions have been of the relevant stat-
utes. They have been discussed here. But let me get you the exact citations.

Mr. Bishop. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. CooDLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Ratcliffe. General Lynch, after your meeting with Bill Clin ton, you were asked in an interview about the appearance of impropriety, and said, “No matter how I view it, I understand how peo ple view it. It has now cast a shadow over how this case may be
received.” Do you remember saying that?

Attorney General Lynch. That was a few days afterwards in an interview, yes, sir.

Mr. Ratcliffe. And we know that you made the decision at that point not to recuse yourself from this investigation. Two days after you made that statement about casting a shadow on the integrity of the Department of Justice, The New York Times reported that
“Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say that she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the Nation’s first Black woman to be Attorney General.”

Did the timing of that, right after the Bill Clinton meeting, give rise to any thought in your mind of reconsidering whether or not recusal in the light of appearance of impropriety might be appropriate?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I have no knowledge of the source of that statement, nor have I had any conversations about that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Have you given it any thought?

Attorney General Lynch. My view was that I needed to discuss the conversations I had with the former President to clarify my role in the investigation.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me move on. So I don’t want to impugn your integrity by asking you whether the prospect of future employment as Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration influenced your decision whether or not to recuse yourself or influenced your final decision regarding prosecution, but now that you have already made that decision and closed the matter, will you consider serving as an Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton administration?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, my focus is on serving as Attorney General in this Administration.

Mr. Ratcliffs. No, I don’t care about your focus. What I want to know is, will you rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. That is my focus now.

Mr. Ratcliffe. You won’t rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. It is working on the issues before the Department of Justice.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Will you rule it out?

Attorney General Lynch. That matter is not before me.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I got to tell you, that shadow that you cast on the Department of Justice just got a whole lot bigger. Because if you’re not willing to rule out future employment in a Hillary Clinton administration, what that means is the American people
have every right to wonder whether or not you looked at this through a fair and impartial lens.

Because your answer tells the American people that after the FBI Director told you that Ms. Clinton had been extremely careless with at least 110 emails marked as top secret, secret, or classified, and may have jeopardized the lives of actual Americans, and told
you that she made numerous false public statements about sending, receiving, or turning over classified materials, you might want to apply for a job with her?

Attorney General Lynch. Sir, I have no comment on that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Your answer not ruling employment with her means that as much of the free world is wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and possibly sent to prison for being extremely careless, as the FBI director said, with
hundreds of top secret, secret, and classified emails, you’re telling the American people watching today that instead of going to jail, faced with the prospect of possible future employment, you think she should go to the other end of the spectrum and be eligible to
be the person with greater access and greater control over America’s most sensitive and trusted national security information than anyone else on the planet.

I got to tell you, utter shock is an understatement with respect to what I just heard you say. So let me ask you this question. Based upon

Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, let me — as I indicated —

Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I want to ask you this question. My time is limited, and the clock is moving.

Based upon your unwillingness to rule out future employment, in light of the fact that you and your husband had a 30-minute conversation with the spouse of a pending Federal investigation, the subject or target of a pending Federal investigation, and with a
person who would be the subject or target of the Federal investigation if there is one into the Clinton Foundation, would you at least agree with me that if there is such an investigation, you’ll have to recuse yourself from that one?

Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to other matters before this Committee or any other, or before the Department of Justice, they will be reviewed like any other. I will take all of the appropriate action that I would need to take in that instance.

Mr. Ratcliffe. I will take that as a no and let me move on then, because I have got a really important

Attorney General Lynch. And, Congressman, as I’ve indicated to your colleague, just as I will not comment on the statements of candidates or the candidacy of anyone, either side, I would not comment on the candidacy of the other one.

Mr. Ratcliffe. With all due respect. I’m not going to let you run out the clock on the American people that have questions that need to be answered, so let me move on.

On July 5, 1 week after your meeting with Bill Clinton, the FBI Director made an unprecedented, extraordinary public recommendation not to indict. But his statement was just a recommendation. You said: I made the decision. And in his statement
to the press, he said that what that decision would include would be “considerations like the strength of evidence, especially regarding intent.” He said also that a responsible decision would consider the context of a person’s actions.

So my question to you is, as you made the decision, did your final decision weigh the strength of the evidence in the context of Hillary Clinton’s actions?

Attorney General Lynch. I will tell you. Congressman, that that was part of what the team that was presenting to me was focused on. And it was a — it was — certainly encompassed those issues, as well as all of the other issues that I have indicated before that would be in that. It would be contained within their entire rec-
ommendation to me.

Mr. Ratcliffe. And that was reflected in your two-sentence statement about — that starts out: Late this afternoon I met with FBI Director Jim Comey and career prosecutors.

By the way, how long did that meeting last?

Attorney General Lynch. You know, I don’t recall.

Mr. Ratclifee. Hours?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t recall, and I wouldn’t be providing that information.

Mr. Ratclifee. More than hours?

Attorney General Lynch. I don’t recall and would not be providing that information.

Mr. Ratcliefe. This was late in the afternoon. I assume it was in 1 day?

Attorney General Lynch. It’s clear from the statement when the meeting occurred.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it happened the day after, and apparently within a matter of hours, if it happened in 1 day. So you just told us that after a yearlong investigation involving 150 FBI agents working around the clock, involving more than 30,000 emails, tens of thousands of man-hours, that your thoughtful, careful weighing of strength of the evidence took you an afternoon, a cup of coffee with the FBI Director, that your decision in this case for charges relating to a person who, according to the FBI Director, said was extremely careless handling America’s most sensitive national security matters and is seeking to be a candidate in charge of America’s most sensitive national security matters, took the better part of an afternoon. It didn’t last weeks, didn’t last months, didn’t take
days. You weighed that evidence, determined her intent and gross negligence in a matter of hours.

Will you at least tell the American people whether or not you at least reviewed the 110 top secret, secret, and classified emails that we know that she sent and received on an unsecure, unauthorized server? Will you at least answer that?

Attorney General Lynch. As I have indicated

Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness is permitted to answer the question.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I’ve indicated, I received a recommendation after a briefing from the team, which included the career lawyers, as well as the FBI Director. I received a full and thorough briefing. We reviewed and discussed the matter and I accepted their recommendation.

And as I’ve indicated earlier, again, just to be clear, the reason I do not go into these internal meetings is because the teams of prosecutors and agents who work on every matter need to be able to provide their full and unfettered advice, counsel, discussion,
without the fear of political overtones, without the fear of that kind of thing.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Since you didn’t answer that question. I’ll give you a preview that I’ll ask Director Comey that when he’s in front of Homeland next week.

And let me just close then, summarize by saying, so less than after a week after you meet privately with the spouse of a target of a Federal investigation, a target with whom you haven’t ruled out applying for a job, you didn’t recuse yourself and instead spent a grand total of a few hours reaching a decision regarding tens of thousands of documents involving our national security, and you can’t seem to understand why the American people. Republicans, Democrats, and independents, are outraged at your action?

If you thought the meeting that you had on the tarmac with Bill Clinton cast a shadow over the integrity of the Department of Justice, what I’ve heard today from you made the size of that shad ow — made the size of that shadow something that I will tell you that as far as casting shadows that the American people pay attention to, Punxsutawny Phil’s got nothing on you.

I yield back.

Mr. Goodlatte. General Lynch, Mr. Ratcliffe had a number of good questions, and he cut you off on some of the answers. If you’d like to give an answer to anything that he just posed, we’d be happy to give you additional time to do that.

Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take a great deal of your time.

The only comment that I wanted to make clear for the record was just as with respect to questions about the — any Presidential candidate or candidate for any other office, just as I would not opine on policies or issues raised by one, I would not opine on policies or issues raised by the other. That is something that I want to make it clear. That is not my function as the Attorney General. I’m not attempting to do that in any way here.

So just as I would not opine with respect to the questions raised by Congressman Peters, I did not want to appear to be responding about Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. My responses here have been with respect to the matters before the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice alone.

As I’ve indicated, we have provided unprecedented access into the thinking of the investigative team in this case. We have also — I have provided access into the process by which the Department was resolving this matter, things that we rarely do, but I felt was important to do in order to make it clear to the American people that my role in this matter had been decided before I had a conversation with the former President. That conversation did not have any impact on it. And that in fact, as with every case, the
team of experienced career prosecutors and agents who reviewed this diligently, thoroughly, and at great length had gone to great lengths and came up with a thorough, concise, and exhaustive review and recommendation, which I then accepted.

And while I understand the frustration by people who disagree with that decision, as I’ve indicated before, it is similar to the frustration of people who may have a situation where they are the victim of a crime and we’re not able to bring a case, and we have had
similar discussions with individuals in that category as well.

So I understand that frustration and the desire to see action in a certain matter where feelings are strong and emotions run high. But in this case, as with every other case that the Department handles, we looked at the law, we looked at the facts, they were
applied, and a conclusion was come to that was consistent with the law and those facts. And I accepted that recommendation.

Mr. Goodlatte. Well, General Lynch, this concludes our hearing. I thank you for providing us with more than 4 1/2 hours of your time. However, scores of questions were posed to you that were not answered by you. Some you have offered to get back to us about
in writing afterwards. We will be forwarding to you additional questions related to other matters raised, as well as the investigation and nondecision to prosecute former Secretary of State Clinton, and we would expect that you would answer those questions.

You are the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and — okay — you are the chief law enforcement office of the United States, and the final decision regarding the prosecution is yours. And the fact that you were not aWe to provide us with answers regarding how that decision was reached is very concerning to Members of this Committee and to the American public.""

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

FBI Official:

"FBI Agents Threatened Physical Harm to President Trump In Missing FBI Texts & Other “Frightening” Communications. This is much larger than just texts between two FBI agents.”

The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations, and many of those messages contain threats of physical harm against the President Trump.

And now that more text messages are "missing from more FBI agents" according to the Justice Department, the revelations are bound to come out as the FBI scrambles to cover up this insane case.

That means 50,000 text messages that have threats of Political Assassination against the President.

Fifty Thousand threatening SMS texts from senior FBI agents and of the DoJ and the FBI are "sitting" on them, while playing interference for the scofflaws.

Now AG Jeff Sessions maybe getting into the act, because this is what he had to say in prepared statements this week:

“We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced and will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.”

And as another source of terribly biased Mueller investigation gets uncovered in the Inspector General's report because of their awful SMS texts — we now have discovered who the "unnamed FBI officials" are. Agent 1 & 5, referenced within the IG Report, are the FBI Senior Attorneys Sally Moyer & Kevin Clinesmith, who of course they also happened to be illicit lovers boning each other to fortify themselves in their treasonous and unethical habits within the Justice department building.

The pair of illicit lovebirds had to move from the FBI headquarters building now since it was designated as the "official Love-Shack" for all those horny, unhappy and unhinged dirty cops, from all over the land. Indeed they must be renting rooms by the minute there, because who needs any more time than a few nanoseconds of sex and premature ejaculation, when you have important matters of disrupting National Security that need to be discussed and acted upon, after a brief coitus-interruptus.

But guess, who was the person that "Not-So-Crooked" Hillary Clinton named as the co-chair for her presidential transition team?

Wait for it…

It is a veritable shocker.

FBI senior Attorney & Investigator Kevin Clinesmith's boss. Indeed the very same Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI attorney who was the lead attorney on the Trump-Russia investigation and who vowed to join the "resistance" after Trump won, and who had previously worked for Democratic Gov Jennifer Granholm, whom the not-so-crooked Hillary, named to co-chair her presidential transition team. Those were the halcyon days when crooked Hillary still thought she was going to be the first Madame President and she was so certain of her Victory in the rigged elections that she wanted a transition team for her cabinet and the White House.

Whatever the hell she was smoking — was obviously far too potent for her sanity… and she counted her poker winnings before she even bothered to see the hand of the American people…

And this is Mr Kevin Clinesmith, who by no doubt, by a complete and wholly unrelated "accident" of fate, he happened to also be the lead attorney in the "Get Trump" witch-hunt leftist charade show that is masquerading as a fancy dress ball, called "The Russia collusion investigation" and headed by none other than the irrelevant bishop of the FBI — one Robert Mueller the third.

Drum roll please…

Mr Kevin Clinesmith is everywhere… He is a veritable magician. He also swallows whole goldfish.

This guy is like the Kevin who played in the film: "A Fish Called Wanda."

Surely there is absolutely no bias against President Trump from these upstanding individuals who were hoping to be stars in Madame President's White House corruption team — until this "orange guy" upturned their apple cart.

No. They were not pissed off at all, about it.

Kevin must have been cool as a cucumber.

At least he was a useful cucumber for Ms Sally Moyer, who is one particularly ugly hoe, but who cares?

There is absolutely no need to let a good cucumber go to waste, through silly interruptions.

Coitus is coitus, whether inside the FBI bathrooms or in their rent-a-room-by-the-minute FBI hotel with the red light hanging right above their main doors.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Two years before the elections… the monitoring of Russian hackers stoped.

Amazingly, it was also two years ago that the surveillance of the Trump campaign and of anyone who was even remotely associated with Candidate and then President Elect, Donald J Trump started and intensified respectively.

We now now that this witch hunt continues. The Deep State is agitating fr a Coup D'Etat still two years now into the Presidency of Donald Trump.

Wonder why does it look as though Obama's administration targeted to disrupt the US elections, the American system of Free & Fair elections and the Trump campaign, and not the Russians?

Since the media have had almost endless coverage of supposed Russian collusion and Russian meddling in the 2016 election, shouldn't we get wall-to-wall coverage that the Obama chief cyber-official was ordered to stop investigating Russia's attack on the election months before the election?

The Obama White House's chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia's attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a "back burner" after he was ordered to stand down his efforts in the summer of 2016.

They came during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing into how the Obama administration dealt with Russian cyber and information warfare attacks in 2016, an issue that has become one of the more politically sensitive subjects in the panel's ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in the U.S. election and any links to the Trump campaign.

I heard Senator Durbin on the news talking about how dangerous Russian meddling is today and saying the current government is not doing enough to thwart the election interference.

We have been told how tough Obama was on Russia, even though the media know he told Russia's PM on a hot mike, that he would be "flexible" after the elections of his second term, and we also know how the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department, were so concerned about Russian collusion in 2016 that they had to get court orders to spy on people around the Trump campaign, but not on the Russian themselves.

Yet we also now know that the cyber-security investigation of the Russian Hacking, was ordered to be stopped many months before that.

Does that make sense?

The Intelligence Community and Justice Department were so concerned about Russian meddling, that they watched and surveilled only one candidate for Presidency. Even though Hillary had with her at all times a militant Muslim jihadist — Human Abedin and her frisky pedophile Weiner had all the State department emails on his pedo-laptop…

We also know that hapless Bernie Sanders employed Russian and BelloRussian socialists and communists as election and campaign cyber attack specialists in his campaign and the old Soviet communist Uncle-Bernie didn't get even a second look from the FBI…

Does that make any sense?

The Intelligence Community and Justice Department cared so much about Russian meddling and hacking, that they didn't even analyze the DNC's computers and servers after the email breach, but with zero analysis by our own government, they relied on a nickel & dime computer shop operator who took a looksie at the machines, and apparently blamed the Russians.

Does that make any sense to you?

I wonder if the cyber-security chief was ordered to stop two years ago because there was actually no evidence his agency could actually pin on the Russians, but the monitoring of Trump and anyone who associated with Trump continued. It sure looks as though the Obama administration was targeting Trump and not the Russians, doesn't it?

I anxiously await CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, the WaPo, ABC, PBS, and NPR calling Adam Schiff, Durbin, Schumer, Warner, and Pelosi on to explain why the cyber-security chief was ordered to stop the investigation of Russian hacking months before the election, yet the targeting of Trump and unmasking of names of people surrounding Trump and leaks continued.

I kid you not… and even bet they will have a really good answer for all the above.

Maybe they will tell you that President Trump dismembers and eats Mexican babies for breakfast, and they have Stormy Daniels attesting to it.

He eats babies alive with his coffee and hot shot lawyer Avenati will prove it, if given another BJ from Stormy Daniels on the other side of the border in Tijuana where they both belong in a sleazy hotel, run by the South of the border Narcotrafiicantes…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: Dr Churchill, Dr Churchill SpyGate, Dr Churchill SpyGate Chapter Twenty Five

Bleeding Edge