[afraidfortherepublic]

FTA: Two obvious questions leap to mind immediately. The first is a no-brainer which somebody at Justice should be addressing for us. Lynch had, by that point, already essentially recused herself from the question of possible prosecution of Hillary Clinton, saying she would leave the decision entirely up to the FBI, so why was her staff sending a blizzard of information and press talking points to the FBI after the secret meeting was revealed?

The second question is even more puzzling and deserves a thorough scrubbing if anyone in the MSM can be bothered to ask. There are generally accepted rules for when the government can or should redact information being released to the public. These can include privacy considerations if the personal information of individuals (such as their Social Security number) are included. Also, the government can withhold sensitive information which might endanger national security. But this was a document which contained a list of talking points to be used if they had to answer questions for the press. In what version of reality would a set of press talking points qualify for redaction?

[Ann Archy]

Hey Jazz....where is the FACT that Lynch was totally involved in these e-mails and used a FAKE NAME, Elizabeth Carlysle!!!

[OttawaFreeper]

Corrupt Media Party, here they were early last month in Watergate mode over Donald Jr’s meeting in Moscow a year prior that turned out to be a nothing burger but their silence over the WJC-Lynch meeting at about that same time is deafening.

[Incorrigible]

Bump

[ReaganGeneration2]

So often, the context shows that redactions are not for Personally Identifiable Information or for national security. And the Redactions are almost never questioned. But clearly they’re a tool democrats use to stonewall and obstruct even further.

[Gay State Conservative]

Stranger? Oh,c’mon! Grandchildren and golf? I was born at night but it wasn't *last* night!

[ArtDodger]

This is SOP for the democrat machine. If some of them are in danger of being investigated for something, accuse the other side of the same thing. It works every time, when the MSM is in their corner.

[b4its2late]

The same attorney, Paige Herwig, is now the deputy general counsel for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That panel is now investigating whether Lynch played any role in trying to influence the scope or intensity of the FBI’s investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal…

We see how this works.

[okie 54]

Mayber they were doing the dirty deed, after all Bill does not cull anything

[bert]

1. The staff was charged to attack any thing that make their boss look bad. The paranoia was such that is could be described as hair trigger

2. If it is deemed unprosecutable, it is ok. Nickle and dime infractions are not to be prosecuted and are therefore OK. It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission

[WeWaWes]

These people are Dims and will never be investigated or prosecuted. Just another issue to add to the already huge pile of other items where the DC elite on the Left never gets questioned.

[Wuli]

"One of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s top lawyers at the Justice Department helped edit Obama administration press statements about the infamous meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac last summer."

"The same attorney, Paige Herwig, is now the deputy general counsel for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That panel is now investigating whether Lynch played any role in trying to influence the scope or intensity of the FBI’s investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal…"

The GOP head of the Senate Judiciary Committee should insist that Page Herwig be removed as deputy general counsel for Democrats on that committee.

[TBP]

Simple: Clinton told Lynch to lay off his wife and she’s continue as AG.

[The_Media_never_lie]

The second question is even more puzzling and deserves a thorough scrubbing if anyone in the MSM can be bothered to ask. There are generally accepted rules for when the government can or should redact information being released to the public. These can include privacy considerations if the personal information of individuals (such as their Social Security number) are included. Also, the government can withhold sensitive information which might endanger national security. But this was a document which contained a list of talking points to be used if they had to answer questions for the press. In what version of reality would a set of press talking points qualify for redaction?

---

Redacting talking points that would be politically damaging? Not a national security function. Why would our government get involved in the partisan talking points business?

Also, by who's authority was Lynch's itinerary leaked to Bill Clinton? Isn't that a privacy concern for Lynch, since leaking this information seriously damaged her career. Also, there are security/safety issues since Hillary was using a unapproved server located in a closet somewhere.

I will wager a bet that some good agents were appalled at this activity and would be willing to drop a dime.......