Loretta Lynch is facing obstruction of justice charges as more evidence of her cover-up has come to light.

While claiming she never talked to Hillary’s campaign, emails are coming to light that prove she lied.

And not only did she lie, but how she corrupted the FBI is unforgivable.

Senate Committee members, both Democrat and Republican, are banking on this to be the biggest lie from her sworn testimony in 2016.

When asked if she had been offered a job by the Clinton campaign she said, “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”


Because that seems to be demonstrably untrue.

The NY Post reports:

When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign.

That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining Attorney General if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.

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

Lynch’s lawyer says she is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to several questions, as well as relevant documents.

Among other things, they want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign.

Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

Tick tock.

When a Senate Committee wants to know about very specific conversations, they usually have very specific emails which they are referring to before they ask the question.

Possibly Lynch shouldn’t have been so quick to “redact” all the information on U.S. citizens when she was trying to set up the Trump campaign having ties to Russia.   If you remember, she gave that information to then-FBI Director Comey.

Breibart reported:

“There was surveillance of the Trump campaign, that the results were shared throughout the government — even possibly reaching the Obama White House, and that intelligence was leaked, illegally, to the mainstream media.

In an extraordinary exchange with FBI Director James Comey on Monday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) explored what that meant — that Obama aides could have broken the law:

GOWDY: Do you know whether Director [of National Intelligence] James Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?

COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.

GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?

COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.

GOWDY: Would Director [of the Central Intelligence Agency James] Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.

GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.

GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.Then Comey was asked to look the other way on Hillary’s classified email problem.

Then Comey was told to look the “other way” from Hillary’s classified email problem.

Comey testified about how Lynch pressured him to drop the probe:“I struggled with how to handle the email probe because of a number of things that had gone on … that made me worry that [Justice] Department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

But the committee doesn’t want to know if she just met with the Clinton campaign, they also want to know about her meetings with the Democratic National Committee, which is reported to have actively worked for Clinton against Bernie Sanders.

The New York Post continues:

“The committee also wants to know if Lynch or any of her aides were in contact with former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz regarding the Clinton email investigation, according to a three-page list of questions that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein recently sent to Lynch at her New York apartment.

Senate investigators have combed through a transcript of Lynch’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in July 2016. In retrospect, several of her statements strain credulity. But one in particular stands out, and could present legal problems for Lynch.

During the House Judiciary hearing, Rep. David Trott (R-Mich.) slammed Lynch for failing to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation despite meeting privately with the target’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, a week before the then-Attorney General let Hillary skate.

Then, referring to rumors of her possibly staying on in a hypothetical Hillary administration, he asked if Lynch had met with anyone on Hillary’s staff during the yearlong investigation, to which she replied: “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”

The committee, however, now knows of a document obtained by the FBI reportedly showing a Democratic operative’s claim that Lynch had privately assured Renteria that the Justice Department “would not push too deeply” into the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, which contained top secret information from the State Department.

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

There are three explanations: Either Lynch lied under oath, or she never in fact talked to Renteria, or her categorical denial was meant to later claim she was merely discussing her role post-election.

But things are looking really bad for Lynch when the committee starts to ask about her meetings with Bill Clinton.

The committee will also drill down on her explanation of her highly suspicious meeting with Bill Clinton during the investigation.

Lynch claimed the former president boarded her plane, which was parked on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport, simply because “he wanted to say hello.”

But the meeting lasted at least 30 minutes and had to be cleared by the Secret Service as well as FBI security details. It was also the first meeting of any kind on Lynch’s plane.

Lynch also got squirrelly when asked about reports that her FBI security detail had banned cameras, even phones, from her meeting with Clinton.

Since her lawyer is on record saying Lynch will “fully cooperate” in the Senate investigation, she’ll have a hard time pleading the Fifth in hearings. But that doesn’t mean she won’t try to stonewall.

Dozens of times during the House hearing, Lynch claimed, “I do not recall,” when pressed for sensitive information about her role in the Hillary investigation. And the committee determined that she either “refused to answer or give appropriate response” no fewer than 74 times during the four-hour hearing.”

Some political pundits have suggested that Lynch get her affairs in order because friends of the Clintons who are set to testify have a way of mysteriously dying in Ft. Marcy Park.