Connect with us

Culture

Loretta Lynch on John Podesta: I Don’t Know ‘Where he Gets His Information’ [VIDEO]

Published

on

John Podesta had written an op-ed in the Washington Post “trashing” the FBI – as CNN’s Jake Tapper put it – for spending more time investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server than on the DNC hacks (and/or leaks).

Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not agree with Podesta’s sentiments, saying that while he’s “entitled to his opinion,” “he’s not involved in the on-going investigation, so he wouldn’t be privy to everything that would have been done.”

Lynch of course is going along with the scripted and unsubstantiated claims that Russia was behind everything, but she’s not going to say that one investigation was more important than the other. They were two separate and different cases, the importance of which can’t be measured by Podesta’s perception of the FBI’s reactions.

Here’s CNN’s Jake Tapper’s interview with outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch, taken from RCP:


Trending: Joe Biden Wants Christians on Terror List for Opposing LGBTQ Agenda

TAPPER: I have to ask you about this op-ed in the Washington Post by Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. He said he’s “surprised to read in the New York Times that when the FBI discovered the Russian attack in September of 2015 it failed to send even a single Agent to warn senior DNC officials. Instead messages were left with the DNC IT help desk.”

Is that accurate? Is that an accurate description of the outreach that the FBI did to the DNC and if so, is that sufficient?

LYNCH: So as we talked about earlier this year, the investigation into the hacks of the DNC and DCCC is an on-going investigation. It’s an active investigation. So I am not able to comment on the specifics on how people were contacted. But I can say, that the FBI has worked closely with those organizations both to discuss what we learned about the hacks and to gather information about them so that we can continue this investigation.

TAPPER: Whether or not you can get into specifics, is it true that there was this level of calling the DNC that doesn’t sound particularly competent or doesn’t sound like it has an urgency that one would think. Is that description that Podesta makes accurate?

LYNCH I can tell you that this investigation was taken seriously from the beginning. This is an incredibly serious issue. I can’t comment on Mr. Podesta’s sources or where he gets his information. Or why he has that view. But what I can say is that he’s not involved in the on-going investigation so he wouldn’t be privy to everything that would have been done or said to that. But as I said, he’s entitled to his opinion.

TAPPER: But’s he not entitled to his facts and that’s what I’m wondering about. Whether his facts are accurate. Because he says, quote down right infuriating nearly the exact same time that no one at the FBI could be bothered to drive 10 minutes to the DNC, two agents accompanied by attorneys from the Justice department were in Denver visiting a tech firm that had help maintain Hillary Clinton’s email server. He is suggesting without question that Hillary Clinton’s email server got more attention from the Justice Department and the FBI than this hack investigation by Russia. Which I think is fair to say seems fairly serious.

LYNCH: Well that’s an on-going investigation, so I will say it’s been taken very seriously.

TAPPER: Did the Clinton email investigation get more attention than the hack?

LYNCH: You can’t characterize it. And I don’t think it’s going to be helpful to try and draw equivalencies to any investigations with others to say, therefore it means that one was more or less important. Because one is resolved right now. One is finished and one is very active and very on-going. So there you see a great deal of activity still continuing.

TAPPER: I know you can’t comment on the active investigation. But let me put it this way, John Podesta is out there trashing the FBI. He is saying that the investigation into the hacks of the DNC was sub-standard. And that’s clearly what he’s saying. Do you agree with that characterization?

LYNCH: I don’t. I don’t. First of all, the investigation isn’t even over. So I think it’s impossible to characterize it in any one way or the other. I also think that – – again, I don’t know where Mr. Podesta is obtaining information.

TAPPER: He said the New York Times story. There’s a big New York Times story. I’m sure you’ve read it.

LYNCH: I know also because of his involvement with the campaign, he’s going to have a certain interest in this and a certain view of that. So again, I allow him, he’s opinion. Everyone has a great deal of respect for him. So I allow him that opinion, but I disagree with that, if that is in fact the characterization he’s trying to make. I think you got to look at every investigation separately. You got to look at every case separately. And you got to allow for the fact that the way in which someone may be contacted isn’t indicative of the fuller relationship they develop or the response they may have gotten initially from that organization as well.


There are some political dynamics at play here. Loretta Lynch is the head of the Department of Justice, which is ostensibly independent of the President’s influence. The FBI is under the DOJ’s authority. Lynch can’t come out and criticize an organization which she oversees. She’s got to have their back.

Another dynamic explains why the CIA – which is under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) – has been so quick to blame Russia. The ODNI is directly under the President, and the CIA reports to the ODNI. They’re not independent of the President.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture

The Year of Stupid: Boeing Forces Exec to Resign Over 33-Year-Old Op-Ed Opposing Women in Combat

33 years ago, Boeing exec Niel Golightly wrote an op-ed wherein he opposed women in combat. Now he’s lost his job.

Published

on

Thirty-three years ago, Boeing executive Niel Golightly wrote an op-ed when he was a 29-year-old Navy Lt. wherein he opposed women n combat roles. Today, in the year of stupid, Boeing forced him to resign.

Until this week, Golightly was the head of communications for Boeing, but now he is out for having an opinion 33 years ago that was the prevailing, common opinion of nearly everyone but the most fringe activists at the time.

The then Navy Lt. had his op-ed in a magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute. It is an outfit which describes itself as “an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.”

Who would have thought the magazine article printed in 1987 would be so troublesome after three decades?

In his op-ed, Golightly expressed the common feeling that introducing women into combat units would disrupt the dynamics necessary for a cohesive fighting unit.

“At issue is not whether women can fire M-60s, dogfight MiGs, or drive tanks. Introducing women into combat would destroy the exclusively male intangibles of war fighting and the feminine images of what men fight for—peace, home, family,” Golightly wrote, according to an excerpt published on the U.S. Naval Institute’s website.

Indeed, women were barred from combat in U.S. military forces from our founding all the way until Barack Obama broke down those barriers in 2013.

Absurdly, Golightly’s then extremely uncontroversial opinion has led to his job loss today.

“My article was a 29-year-old Cold War navy pilot’s misguided contribution to a debate that was live at the time,” Golightly said in a statement this week. “My argument was embarrassingly wrong and offensive. The article is not a reflection of who I am; but nonetheless I have decided that in the interest of the company I will step down.”

“Boeing does not agree with the views expressed in the article, and it does not reflect Niel’s views today,” the company added.

“Niel and I discussed at length the article and its implications for his role as the Company’s lead spokesman,” Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun said. “I want to emphasize our Company’s unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel.”

David Calhoun, you are a morn.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid Statue Defaced with ‘Racist Fish’ Graffiti

Now the left-wing loons are coming for Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid statue which was defaced with “racist fish.”

Published

on

Now the left-wing loons are coming for Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid statue which was defaced on Friday with the words “racist fish.”

Isn’t it wonderful that we have lunatic leftists around to let us all know that fish are racists?

The “Little Mermaid,” a bronze statue honoring folk tale writer Hans Christian Andersen’s famous story, was erected in 1913 and placed on a rock near the sea off a pier in Copenhagen.

The local police said they had no clue who defaced the 107-year-old tourist attraction.

“We consider it vandalism and have started an investigation,” the Copenhagen police said on Friday morning.

According to Reuters:

“I am having a hard time seeing what is particularly racist in the fairy tale “The Little Mermaid,” Ane Grum-Schwensen, researcher at the H.C. Andersen Center at University of Southern Denmark, told local news wire Ritzau.

How is the Little Mermaid racist?

Since when does the Black Lives Matter movement need logic, facts, or reality to intrude upon the world of lies they have built?

All they are interested in is wanton, meaningless, destruction.

BLM’s SOLE goal is to destroy what they deem white civilization.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Report: Schiff’s Staff Knew In February About Russian Bounties On American Soldiers

Published

on

By

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff saw reports back in February that Russia was purportedly paying Taliban operatives to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan but took no action.

The Federalist reported that “multiple intelligence sources” told the publication that some members of Schiff’s staff “were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan,” but that Schiff “took no action in response to the briefing.”

TDW:

A new report alleges that top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), were briefed in February about Russia offering the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, but Schiff remained inactive vis-à-vis the issue. According to The Federalist’s Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway, “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing” said it occurred when a congressional delegation made a trip to Afghanistan in February.

Davis and Hemingway note that Schiff was asked on Tuesday if he knew about the Russia story before it was printed by The New York Times report, and Schiff answered, “I can’t comment on specifics.” They point out, “As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of top congressional leadership in both chambers.”

Schiff has implied that President Trump did not have access to the full intelligence, saying, “You don’t deprive the President of the United States of information he needs to keep the troops safe because you don’t have it signed, sealed, and delivered… If the intelligence community had intel along the lines that is publicly reported … this is information I think would be negligent to keep from him.” More

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff needs to be removed from his position on the intelligence committee. The congressional trip that was not recorded into the record needs to be thoroughly investigated. Schiff is most likely the source to The New York Times and he needs to be held accountable.

Continue Reading

Culture

Rapper Blasts Black Lives Matter: ‘Not Our Movement,’ ‘Given To Us By George Soros’

Published

on

By

Rapper Blasts Black Lives Matter: ‘Not Our Movement,’ ‘Given To Us By George Soros’

Rapper Lord Jamar sparked controversy when he renounced the Black Lives Matter organization over its Marxist origins, alleging it was created by far-left philanthropist billionaire George Soros and saying it is robbing Black Americans of their own “organic movement.”

In a viral video, Lord Jamar said that he is not a “Black Lives Matter” supporter, saying the organization’s radical views that fall outside its original mission statement.

“I’m not a Black Lives Matter supporter,” Jamar said in an interview on SCUM.

“You’re not?” the interviewer asked in surprise.

“No, absolutely not,” responded Jamar. “Because it’s not our movement. This is a movement that was given to us by, you know, George Soros and his f***ing boys. Because they saw how things were going and they didn’t want to go back to the 60s to where we started having our own organic movements. That was a big f***ing problem for them. So let’s give the people a movement that we can control. We’ll provide them the leaders and all this type of s**t. That’s what black lives matter is.”

“Look at the leaders of Black Lives Matter,” he said. “These lesbian women who are trying to incorporate, you know, LG whatever the f*** the letters are, incorporate their concerns into black people’s concerns. Go to the website. Look it up.”

Continue Reading

Culture

Here We Go: Mass. County Allows Employees to Get Insurance for ‘Polyamorous’ Relationships

Somerville, Mass., will allow city employees to get taxpayer funded insurance if they are in a “polyamorous domestic partnership.”

Published

on

Last week, the city council of Somerville, Massachusetts, changed its rules to allow city employees to get taxpayer funded insurance even if they are in a “polyamorous domestic partnership.”

It appears that the June 29 ruling made Somerville the first government body to legitimize sexual couplings of three or more people.

The new rule altered the existing language in Somerville law covering marriages, eliminating the part referring to partnerships as “entities formed by two persons” to “entities formed by people,” according to the Somerville Journal.

According to the paper:

Ward 6 Councilor Lance Davis, who chairs the Legislative Matters committee that reviewed the ordinance, said this began by just wanting to draft an ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships. Somerville didn’t have one, and a constituent request moved the council to work with the city on an ordinance.

“During our initial conversations, a couple things jumped out,” said Davis. “The first draft required domestic partners to notify the city of any change of address, which struck me as not in line with what married folks have to do, and required that they reside together, which again struck me as something I’m not required to do as a married person, so we got rid of those provisions.”

Davis added that fellow councilor J. T. Scott reached out and said, “‘Why is this two?’ And I said, ‘I don’t have a good answer.’ I tripped over my words a bit, and played devil’s advocate, but I had no good reason. So, I pulled it out, went through quickly making whatever word changes necessary to make it not gendered or limited to two people.”
Davis piously added:

“I’ve consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family, we’ve historically done a very poor job of doing so,” said Davis. “It hasn’t gone well, and it’s not a business that government should be in, so that guided my thinking on this.”

In the U.S., “Coupling” and marriage was always about growing and stabilizing society.

Gay “marriage,” and “Polyamorous” groups do not do that. They do just the opposite.

This is just more evidence of the faster deterioration of the country.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

BLM Protesters Heckle Cops As Working Class Illiterate Rubes – Calls Black Officer “Black Judas”

Published

on

By

BLM Protesters Heckle Cops As Working Class Illiterate Rubes – Calls Black Officer “Black Judas”

Black Lives Matter protesters at the NY CHAZ brag about their college educations and mock the police for being uneducated, working-class, illiterate rubes. They also call a black cop “black Judas” or race traitor.

Are these brainless idiots bragging about their college degrees? Now, that’s hilarious! Welders, plumbers, electricians are the smart ones. They have jobs and will make tons more money than these french fry chefs. Plus they don’t have to worry about their jobs being sent overseas.

These activists clearly exhibit a form of ‘group narcissism’ similar to racism. They think they are better than others of a different class. As long as fools keep electing Democrats they will suffer the consequences.

Continue Reading

Culture

California Schools No Longer Allowed To Suspend Elementary, Middle School Students For Disruptive Behavior

Published

on

By

California Schools No Longer Allowed To Suspend Elementary, Middle School Students For Disruptive Behavior

California schools can no longer suspend elementary, middle school students for their disruptive behavior.

“We want the teacher to be able to teach their class and not have disruptive students, but we also want to minimize these suspensions,” said the author of Senate Bill 419, Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley. “The more a child is suspended, the more likely they are to do bad in school and just do bad overall.”

KTVU:

California’s elementary and middle schools will have to find an alternative to suspension when it comes to dealing with unruly students due to a new law that took effect Wednesday.

Beginning July 1, 2020, it will be illegal for public and charter school officials to suspend students for “willful defiance,” a broad category that includes disrupting class or willfully defying teachers.

California banned these types of suspensions for students up to third grade beginning in 2015. The law Newsom signed permanently bans these suspensions for grades four and five and temporarily restricts them for grades six through eight until 2025. More

Seeing as how many of the teachers in California are hardcore left-wing moonbats it’s nice to see that they’ll get to endure the direct results of some of their own liberal policies.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend