The biggest shoe might be getting ready to drop.
The inspector general’s report on the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state has already documented just how riddled the bureau was with bias against Donald Trump when he was the Republican candidate for president.
Now, one conservative commentator is suggesting the report holds proof that the corruption went all the way to the top of the Justice Department.
In a Twitter post last week, Paul Sperry, who has written extensively about the FBI in columns published by the New York Post, hinted that Inspector General Michael Horowitz could have solid grounds to show “obstruction” in the Clinton email case – by none other than former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Sperry wrote that Horowitz testified on Capitol Hill about parts of his report that remain classified, and Sperry had a guess as to some of what it contained.
BREAKING: IG Horowitz testifies material implicating Lynch in possible obstruction of Hillary email case is contained in classified section of his report and that he will work with Congress to declassify it. Here is the possible smoking gun:https://t.co/5hU4rY5i8U
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 18, 2018
“BREAKING: IG Horowitz testifies material implicating Lynch in possible obstruction of Hillary email case is contained in classified section of his report and that he will work with Congress to declassify it,” Sperry wrote. “Here is the smoking gun …”
Sperry linked to one of his own columns in the Post from July 2017 that described a document indicating that Lynch had assured Clinton’s presidential campaign that she would make sure the FBI did not “go too far” in its investigation of the email case.
From even public information about the case, it’s pretty clear that Lynch kept a tight rein on it.
Former FBI Director James Comey has publicly testified that Lynch wanted him to refer to the Clinton probe as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” (Comey pretended he was “confused” and “concerned” by the semantic choice. Can a man who made it to the top of the FBI be that obtuse? The answer is “no.”)
But if the IG report really does contain proof that Lynch put a limit on the FBI’s investigation to benefit the woman most of the political world expected to be elected president of the United States in November 2016, it puts things in a different light.
Lynch’s now infamous meeting with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona on June 27, 2016, has never been adequately explained. The then-attorney general’s story that the two had crossed paths by accident never passed the laugh test.
On Sunday, The Washington Times reported that Clinton himself told investigators he only went to see Lynch on her Justice Department airplane because he did not want to be rude when he found out the two were parked at the same facility.
That doesn’t seem likely, to put it mildly.
What seems very possible, though, is that Lynch was keenly interested in keeping her job as the attorney general. And that Bill Clinton was interested in sounding her out about how much control she was exercising over the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton might have been in a position to guarantee Lynch would stay on as attorney general if Hillary won the election — or remind Lynch of a guarantee already made.
Does the still-classified section of the IG report hold proof that Lynch was willing to keep the FBI from going “too far” in investigating Hillary?
Democrats and the liberal media have been claiming – ludicrously – that Horowitz’s damning report actually cleared the FBI. It actually exposed the agency as filled with bias, staffed by agents who thought nothing of using the bureau’s awesome powers to try to rig a presidential election.
That was bad enough. But the biggest shoe might still be waiting to drop.