Lynch needs to go under oath Lindsey Graham says

Top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that former Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch should testify before the Senate now that the fired FBI Director James Comey called into question over how she handled the Hillary Clinton email probe. (Hint: politically.)

"I want to hear from Loretta Lynch," Graham said.

Comey claimed during the Senate committee hearing that when he was investigating Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server, Lynch directed him not to use the term "investigation" but instead call the probe a "matter."

Comey fluttered his eyes during the Senate hearing saying that Lynch's words made him feel "queasy" and nearly gave him the vapors as he took out a huge Japanese hand fan and proceeded to fan himself.

Comey also said that Lynch's directive, along with her unusual [aka sleazy] tarmac meeting in Arizona with Hillary's cheating husband Bill, led Comey to get all flustered and upset, resulting of him falling into a major dither as he asked his heart to be still, which then caused him to make his independent political announcement regarding the email probe last July. "Why, I nearly swooned," Comey said, hand fan going 100 miles an hour.

It ended with Hillary getting off the hook in spite of a clear violation of the Espionage Act. Comey said that no prosecutor would go forward in this case because Hillary didn't mean it.

Graham was asked on CBS News' "Face the Nation" whether he wants Lynch to appear before the judiciary committee on which he sits. He said, "Absolutely."

He is not alone as several GOPers are interested in what she has to say.

Rep. Peter King, (R-NY) is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and he would like to see if Comey kept notes on his conversations with Lynch or if he only did it with Trump because he knew Trump wouldn't stand for a political hack heading up the FBI.

The intelligence committee has asked for Comey's notes or memos he may have and he has bragged that he took extensive notes regarding the conversations he had with President Trump.

But Lynch? Maybe not.

Comey said Lynch's tarmac meeting with Cigar Bill was a "deciding factor" in his decision to update the public on the Clinton probe and protect the bureau's reputation.

"There were other things, significant items," he said softly, citing how "the attorney general directed me not to call it an investigation and call it a matter--which confused me" [and literally gave him gas].

Senate Minority Leader Chuck "Nostrils" Schumer (D-NY) said that he hasn't heard Lynch's side of the story and can't say "whether it rises to the level that she should come and testify."

If we were talking about, say, Ivanka Trump, Schumer would have said, in that wheezy annoying voice, "We need to get to the bottom of this matter and Ms. Trump-Kushner needs to get herself in here and speak under oath."



Tweet

Rice afraid to testify after series of lies

If Susan Rice meets you on the street and says "Good morning," she is lying.

Rice is facing growing demands for her to testify under oath, but in order to do that, a fireproof Bible will be needed because it just might go up in flames. 

The former Obama official is accused of ordering the unmasking of Trump officials under surveillance and she has finally admitted it after lying about it in a TV interview. But she said in an interview on MSNBC that she never did it for political purposes. 

"The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes," she said, adding "that is absolutely false."

Translation: it is probably true because she was emphatic when she said it.

She also said that it is sometimes "necessary" for investigative purposes. So why did she originally lie about it?

For the same reason she said the 2012 attack on the Benghazi compound was caused by a video slamming prophet Mohammad. For the same reason she said that alleged deserter and Army puss-bag, Bowe Bergdahl, served with "honor and distinction." The reason is she, like Hillary Clinton, cannot keep themselves from lying. It's how they both roll.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) a member of the Senate Judiciary and Select Committee on Intelligence said in a tweet Tuesday that Rice "needs to testify under oath."

What Cornyn is forgetting is that Rice will probably plead the Fifth Amendment or perhaps be bold enough to lie, as is her wont. Her slogan is: "Oath schmoath. Who cares?"

Cornyn included a link to a Wall Street Journal article "Susan Rice Unmasked." It suggests that she personally sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports concurrent to when reports on Russia were allegedly being circulated broadly, said a former intelligence official as reported by Fox News.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also serves on the Judiciary Committee. He told Fox News that while he doesn't know why Rice acted improperly, "when it comes to Susan Rice, you need to verify, not trust."

He's exactly right.  But he also said that he doesn't want to form an opinion just yet. "There's a way to find out," Graham said. "I intend to find out."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that Rice "ought to be under subpoena," adding that the stories coming out about her are "actually eerily similar to what Trump accused them of, which is eavesdropping on conversations for political reasons."

He also suggested she needs to be asked whether she communicated with Obama directly about the surveillance information.

So was Rice merely doing her job, or was she doing a job for Obama?

[Please follow me by clicking the link above.]



Tweet

Taliban and the Honor System

Turning over five high-ranking Taliban terrorists to the enemy for one American deserter, is like releasing Goebbles, Rommel, Goering, Himmler and Hitler back to Germany for Gomer Pyle. The only difference is, Gomer wasn't a deserter and was proud to be an American.

But president Obama makes no apologies for the swap, even though he admits that there's a possibility these terrorists may return to their jihad tricks. Of course, if this happens, Qatar will have our 6, if you believe Obama.

What makes this situation somewhat unique, is the fact that even Democrats see a problem with Obama's unilateral decision.

In spite of the bipartisan opposition to him, Obama spoke in Brussels where he  teleprompted: "I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up by Washington, that's par for the course." However, he did not mention the bipartisan sentiment nor that he never shot anything less than 100 over par on any course he has played on. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, "If [President Obama] just tried to empty that jail, people would be calling for his impeachment."

Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill) was asked if he thought the "Scumbag Five" would go on to attack Americans said he didn't know, "But there would be hell to pay if we find they go on to kill Americans." For some reason, I doubt Kirk--there have been plenty of Constitutional abuses by Obama, so many lies told to the American public, and so little honor displayed by this administration when aid never came in Benghazi--and there is no evidence to think there will be any real repercussions. 

For now, we have the terrorists on the honor system and trusting a foreign country to ensure our safety.

Good luck.

Tweet