Obama’s loyal ladies

The Rus­sian col­lu­sion tale moves to­ward jus­tice of the po­etic kind

The Washington Times Daily - - EDITORIAL -

Once the blood­hounds are un­leashed, there’s no telling where the trail will lead. Some­times the scent of scan­dal cir­cles back to where it started. Democrats may re­gret the day they pointed a fin­ger at Don­ald Trump, in­sist­ing that he must have cheated to beat Hil­lary Clin­ton. Now two staunch Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion loy­al­ists, Loretta Lynch, the for­mer attorney gen­eral, and Su­san Rice, who was Barack Obama’s na­tional-se­cu­rity ad­viser, can hear the bay­ing of the hounds. The bay­ing is get­ting louder.

Ms. Lynch was surely sur­prised when James Comey, as the di­rec­tor of the FBI, turned the spot­light on her elec­tion-year be­hav­ior. He told the Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee that as his boss, she in­structed him to char­ac­ter­ize the FBI in­ves­ti­ga­tion into how Mrs. Clin­ton han­dled clas­si­fied ma­te­rial as a “mat­ter,” not an “in­ves­ti­ga­tion.” This would put it in ac­cord with what the Clin­ton cam­paign was calling it.

Now the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee has opened an in­ves­ti­ga­tion into Ms. Lynch’s han­dling of the Clin­ton in­quiry to de­ter­mine whether she in­ter­fered to give po­lit­i­cal ad­van­tage to Hil­lary’s cam­paign. The com­mit­tee chair­man, Sen. Charles Grass­ley of Iowa, a Repub­li­can, and the ranking Demo­cratic mem­ber, Sen. Dianne Fe­in­stein of Cal­i­for­nia, and sev­eral other sen­a­tors have asked the for­mer attorney gen­eral to doc­u­ment her com­mu­ni­ca­tions with the Clin­ton in­ves­ti­ga­tion. They want to know whether she promised, as sev­eral news or­ga­ni­za­tions re­ported, that she wouldn’t al­low the FBI in­quiry to “go too far,” jeop­ar­diz­ing Mrs. Clin­ton’s cam­paign.

That al­le­ga­tion, at­trib­uted to Rus­sian in­tel­li­gence, con­tends that Ms. Lynch gave such as­sur­ance to Deb­bie Wasser­man Schultz, who was the chair­man of the Demo­cratic Na­tional Com­mit­tee. The Se­nate com­mit­tee wants the doc­u­men­ta­tion by early next month. If ac­cu­rate, the two charges would con­sti­tute a more cred­i­ble ex­am­ple of “elec­tion col­lu­sion” than the ac­cu­sa­tion that the Trump cam­paign con­spired with Rus­sians to cook the Novem­ber elec­tion re­sults.

As if things couldn’t get stranger in town, the New York Post re­ports that the Se­nate Ju­di­ciary hounds are hot after the FBI of the Obama years for its role in au­then­ti­cat­ing the in­fa­mous — since dis­cred­ited — Rus­sian dossier that was ba­sis of the Rus­sian col­lu­sion ac­cu­sa­tion.

Obama Na­tional Se­cu­rity Ad­viser Su­san Rice is also flee­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tory chase for her role in the elec­tion year “un­mask­ing” of Trump cam­paign as­so­ciates. This news­pa­per re­ported that the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, look­ing into al­le­ga­tions of Rus­sian hack­ing, have been stymied in their re­quest for records, in­clud­ing those of Ms. Rice. Na­tional Se­cu­rity Coun­cil of­fi­cials have trans­ferred the doc­u­ments to the Obama pres­i­den­tial li­brary, which does not yet ex­ist, for safe keep­ing. The pa­pers would be off-lim­its for five years un­der the Pres­i­den­tial Records Act.

It’s rea­son­able to grant an in­ter­val to al­low pas­sions to cool, but it shouldn’t be an in­ter­val to ar­range a burial of ev­i­dence. The un­mask­ing of Trump as­so­ciates in the course of in­ves­ti­gat­ing Rus­sian in­ter­fer­ence sug­gests dirty tricks, es­pe­cially as the facts, pesky as al­ways, con­tinue to un­der­mine the Trump-Rus­sia col­lu­sion the­ory. The only in­dis­putable crime is the leak­ing of Trump team iden­ti­ties to the press in a trans­par­ent at­tempt to fa­tally wound the new president. Ms. Rice’s cred­i­bil­ity in deny­ing she played a role in the sub­terfuge is sus­pect given her lie at­tribut­ing the 2012 Beng­hazi at­tack to an ob­scure home­made video.

The loyal Obama ladies have been them­selves been un­masked at­tempt­ing to en­sure a seam­less pres­i­den­tial suc­ces­sion from Barack Obama to Hil­lary Clin­ton. They should ex­plain what they were do­ing. If they can.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.