House panel readying tax bill for early next year

House panel readying tax bill for early next year—16fh.,b32

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Tuesday that his committee is preparing to be ready to offer tax-reform legislation early next year.

The exact timing of a committee vote and a House floor vote on a tax-reform bill has yet to be determined and will be based on discussions with President-elect Donald Trump‘s transition team, Brady said at an event hosted by Bloomberg BNA and KPMG.

But Trump has expressed an interest in reforming the tax code early in his first term, and Brady said House Republicans will be ready to meet that timetable.

“We’ll be ready to move this early in 2017,” the committee chairman said earlier in the day at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council annual meeting.

House Republicans released a tax-reform blueprint in June, and since then, they have been soliciting feedback from stakeholders. Brady said at the BNA event that he’s held more than 40 town hall meetings himself, and Americans have told lawmakers that “they’re sick of this broken tax code.”

Through the rest of the year, lawmakers will continue their outreach with constituents, and staff on the Ways and Means Committee will push forward with writing portions of the bill, Brady said.

The blueprint would lower the top individual rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent and the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

Brady said the bill would be revenue-neutral after taking into account the economic growth that it would generate, meaning it will not increase or lower the amount of money coming into the government.

He also said he would prefer that Congress not deal with the expiring tax provisions known as “extenders” during the lame-duck session.

“We should deal with these tax provisions within overall tax reform in 2017,” he said.

Brady expressed a desire for Trump to stop regulations the Treasury Department finalized in October that were aimed at curbing offshore tax deals. While the revised regulations are an improvement over the rules that Treasury had proposed in April, “they are still damaging to our economy,” he said.

source–the hill, naomi jagoda, kevin brady, bloomberg bna, kpmg

GOP braces for Trump’s $1T infrastructure push

GOP braces for Trump’s $1T infrastructure push–4.58gh.,b58.12.1

Republicans in Congress appear ready to embrace President-elect Donald Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure proposal — at least for now. But even the most optimistic lawmakers caution that conservative support for his plan will hinge on the details, such as how the package is paid for and whether it’s coupled with other GOP priorities.

“There’s an interest among our members, frankly, on both sides, in doing something on infrastructure,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told reporters. “But my guess is, if that gets done, it probably hitches a ride on tax reform. I don’t know that just an infrastructure bill on its own, as a stand-alone, would go anywhere.”

It’s unclear exactly what Trump’s final proposal will look like. He has called for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by offering tax credits to private investors. Buzz was growing Wednesday that Trump’s economic adviser is now looking at establishing a national infrastructure bank, an idea long favored by Democrats that has gone nowhere under the Republican-led Congress. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, included such a bank in her infrastructure plan.

Still, more than a dozen Republicans surveyed by The Hill said they were encouraged that the issue was being prioritized by the incoming administration.

“Obviously, it’s going to be a long time till he presents a specific plan to us, but I think it’s a positive step,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, told The Hill. “There’s going to be a lot of interesting suggestions. And that’s refreshing.” The Obama administration frequently pressed Congress to act on infrastructure spending.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO came together five years ago with lawmakers to propose an infrastructure bank, which would have provided low-interest loans and other financial assistance to encourage investors to back national infrastructure projects.

Republicans blocked a $447 billion infrastructure package in 2011 from President Obama because of its massive price tag, despite the support from business and labor.  But Trump’s election could change the dynamic in Congress, where the idea of an infrastructure bank and massive federal spending on transportation projects has typically given fiscal conservatives heartburn.

“It’s music to my ears,” said Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), chairman of a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee and member of Trump’s transition team. “There’s nothing better for this country and getting back to work than a robust infrastructure agenda.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has focused on deepening the Port of Charleston, said that of all issues Trump has talked about, infrastructure spending is the one most likely to pass Congress.

“So when President-elect Trump mentions infrastructure, count me in,” Graham, who had a contentious relationship with Trump during the campaign, told reporters. “And I hope he’ll look at ports, inland and coastal, highways and bridges are falling in disrepair.” Moderate Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) said there is a real opportunity for the Trump administration to bring the parties together on infrastructure.

“There will have to be some kind of sustainable revenue source. I think a lot of things are going to have to be on the table,” he said.   Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said he also supports a plan to ramp up infrastructure spending but will wait to see how the details develop around financing and priorities.  “I’ve felt all along that the best opportunity to get a bipartisan process working would be on infrastructure,” he said.  Yet enthusiasm alone won’t be enough to get a massive transportation spending bill over the finish line.

Lawmakers acknowledged that coming up with a palatable budget offset would be a herculean task.

Conservatives have made clear that increasing the federal gas tax to pay for infrastructure is a nonstarter. There’s more appetite for taxing corporate earnings that are being stored abroad, a process called “repatriation” when that money returns to the U.S. But Republicans have also floated repatriation as a way to finance tax reform.

“I like the idea of using at least a part of repatriation to pay for infrastructure,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). “I think there has been a debate in the government about to what extent to use repatriation to pave the way for tax reform. I tend to believe there’s enough revenue out there to do both.”

Trump’s proposal does not rely on repatriation, but the renewed talk about an infrastructure bank suggests his plan is far from finalized. “There are a number of vehicles that could finance infrastructure that would meet the approval of conservatives, whether it’s public-private partnerships, investment bonds, repatriation,” said Rep. Mark Meadows.

The North Carolina Republican said other components of the plan that may be important to conservatives are whether it ensures dollars are distributed fairly across the country and whether it rolls back certain regulatory hurdles to getting projects off the ground, one of the major critiques of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan.

“I think that our infrastructure is in dire need of help all over this country,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). “I think President-elect Trump’s right on that it would put a lot of people to work and do some substantive things.”

“So, it’s going to take time to figure out exactly what bill comes where and how it all adds up. But that’s what the congressional process is all about.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the majority whip, noted that Congress just passed a “substantial” five-year highway bill at the end of last year. The legislation was financed through a series of budgetary gimmicks, underscoring the challenge of finding long-term funding solutions. Cornyn said Senate Republicans would at least be interested in hearing Trump’s ideas and how to pay for it.

Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said an infrastructure spending bill would need to be offset in order to get his vote and the vote of other conservatives. “If Trump doesn’t find a way to pay for it, then I think the majority of us, if not all of us, are going to vote against it,” Labrador said at an event moderated by the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.

Lawmakers may also face pressure from outside conservative groups, which have been pressuring Trump to steer clear of any package that adds to the deficit or looks like an economic stimulus plan.

“That’s going to go through some pretty significant and rigorous vetting in the Congress,” Rep. Trent FranksTrent FranksGOP braces for Trump’s T infrastructure push Trump backers lack Ryan alternative Speaker Ryan tries new Trump strategy: Ignore him MORE (R-Ariz.), another member of the House Freedom Caucus, said of Trump’s proposal. “Reality will ultimately be the arbiter of the final version.”

source-the hill, melanie zanona, vicki needham, lou barletta, kevin brady, roger wicker, mark meadows, richard shelby, john cornyn, raul labrador, cristinia marcos

AG Loretta Lynch Pleads The Fifth

AG Loretta Lynch Pleads The Fifth—39hj.,b43

Sen Marco Rubio and Rep Mike Pompeo blasted Loretta Lynch as she is ‘pleading the fifth’ to dodge questions about $1.7 billion payments made by the United States to Iran, saying that the Attorney General had refused to answer ‘straightforward’ questions.

Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mike Pompeo wrote a letter to Attorney General Lynch Friday, accusing her of refusing to answer ‘straightforward questions’ about the payments.

The Fifth Amendment keeps people from having to be witnesses against themselves in a criminal case. Commonly, ‘pleading the fifth’ means refusing to provide information that might incriminate oneself.

Details about the deal are unclassified, but are being kept under lock and key in a secure facility on Capitol Hill, the Free Beacon first disclosed. Lawmakers and staffers who have clearance to view the documents are forced to relinquish their cellular devices and are barred from taking any notes about what they see.

“Please note that these documents contain sensitive information that is not appropriate for public release,” Kadzik wrote to the lawmakers. “Disclosure of this information beyond members of the House and Senate and staff who are able to view them could adversely affect the diplomatic relations of the United States, including with key allies, as well as the State Department’s ability to defend [legal] claims against the United States [by Iran] that are still being litigated at the Hague Tribunal.”

“The public release of any portion of these documents, or the information contained therein, is not authorized by the transmittal of these documents or by this communication,” Kadzik wrote.

Congressional sources have told the Free Beacon that this is another part of the effort to hide details about these secret negotiations with Iran from the American public.

One senior congressional source familiar with both the secret documents and the inquiry into them told the Free Beacon that the details of the negotiations are so damning that the administration’s best strategy is to ignore lawmakers’ requests for more information.

“Every Obama administration official and department involved in the Iran Deal appear to be running for cover,” the source said. “Like we feared, the [Iran deal] is turning out to be a disaster and Iran is emboldened in its aggression. Evidently Attorney General Lynch and the Department of Justice have decided ‘refusal to cooperate’ is their best strategy. But this is dangerous and ultimately won’t protect them from anything.”

The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”

“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”

The lawmakers included a copy of their previous 13 questions and are requesting that Lynch provide answers by Nov. 4.

When asked about Lynch’s efforts to avoid answering questions about the cash payment, Pompeo told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration has blocked Congress at every turn as lawmakers attempt to investigate the payments to Iran.

“Who knew that simple questions regarding Attorney General Lynch’s approval of billions of dollars in payments to Iran could be so controversial that she would refuse to answer them?” Pompeo said. “This has become the Obama administration’s coping mechanism for anything related to the Islamic Republic of Iran—hide information, obfuscate details, and deny answers to Congress and the American people.”

“They know this isn’t a sustainable strategy, however, and I trust they will start to take their professional, and moral, obligations seriously,” the lawmaker added.

source–eheadlines, kristie mcdonald, adam kredo, gen peter kadzik

Here comes the 2016 tax “surprise”

Here comes the 2016 tax “surprise”–16gh.,b32

Don’t forget you are now taxed on 85% of your Social Security Benefit

Here is what happened, quietly, on January 1, 2016:
Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividend tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%
A 3.5% Real Estate transaction tax was added.

Remember these facts: These taxes were all passed solely with Democrat votes.
Not a single Republican voted for these new taxes.
These taxes were all passed in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
If you think that it is important that everyone in the U.S. know this, pass it on!
There are many millions who don’t know about it!

 

Obama commutes sentences for 72 inmates

Obama commutes sentences for 72 inmates—60gh.,b12

President Obama on Friday commuted the sentences of 72 inmates, the latest sign he is accelerating his clemency push during his final months in office.

It was the second time in the past eight days the White House announced that a large group of people, most convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, would be released from federal prison. The two batches totaled 170 inmates.

In total, 944 people have had their sentences cut short by Obama — more than the last 11 presidents combined — with 760 receiving commutations this year alone.

“What President Obama has done for commutations is unprecedented in the modern era,” White House counsel Neil Eggleston wrote in a blog post.

“The president is committed to reinvigorating the clemency authority, demonstrating that our nation is a nation of second chances, where mistakes from the past will not deprive deserving individuals of the opportunity to rejoin society and contribute to their families and communities.”

Friday’s clemency grants include 16 people serving life sentences. More than two dozen will be released as early as next spring, but many will not be freed immediately.

Some will not get out of prison until fall 2018. Other inmates’ releases are conditional on them entering enter residential drug treatment programs.

During the final stretch of his presidency, Obama has ramped up his use of clemency power to free prisoners serving lengthy sentences handed down during the government’s war on drugs.

A bipartisan push in Congress to overhaul the nation’s sentencing laws has stalled during that time. Eggleston urged lawmakers to take up the legislation in the lame-duck session of Congress after the elections, “including reforms that address the excessive mandatory minimum sentences.”

Obama has repeatedly denounced the long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses as overly punitive, arguing they’ve had a devastating impact on communities of color.

In 2014, the administration launched a clemency initiative to identify drug offenders worthy of an early release.

Only nonviolent, low-level offenders who have served at least 10 years of their federal sentence, demonstrated good behavior and have no significant criminal history or a history of violence are eligible.

The latest batch also includes nine inmates convicted on firearm-related charges.

Those releases have fueled complaints from some Republicans that Obama is releasing dangerous criminals back into their communities.

A White House official said people who receive clemency are barred from purchasing a firearm under federal law. In selecting inmates worthy of early release, Obama makes a distinction between people who possessed a weapon while committing a drug-related offense and those convicted of armed robbery or murder.

“The president has been clear that his goal is to commute the sentences of those who have truly rehabilitated themselves and do not have a propensity for violence,” the official said.

Criminal-justice reform groups, on the other hand, have urged Obama to pick up the pace, especially because there is no guarantee the next president will continue the initiative.

While the president has set a record for clemency grants, thousands of inmates have petitioned for early release and are still awaiting a decision.

The advocacy group #cut50 announced it’s holding two days of events next week with families of people awaiting commutations, including a candlelight vigil in front of the White House.

source–the hill, jordan fabian, neil eggleston, lydia wheeler

Governor of VA Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election-

Governor of VA Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election–60hf.,b12

In a despicable act, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe used an auto-pen to sign pardons for 60,000 felons. This is his move to get around a court judgement against an executive order to give them voting rights. The reason for the pardons? Simpy put, it is to have them all vote Democrat and swing the election. Will he be successful? Only time and the courts will tell.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them, even as his office was saying the total was 13,000.

Now, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned that McAuliffe — who managed Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign — churned out five times as many letters before the registration deadline than publicly claimed. Virginia’s recent political history has seen multiple races that were decided by tiny margins. The 2014 U.S. Senate race, for example, was decided by only 17,000 votes, while the attorney general’s race came down to a mere 165 votes…

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials blocked the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by charging made-up, exorbitant fees such as $30,000 for documents staffers admitted were “easy to find,” according to internal emails obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group. A VA hospital used the technique to get watchdogs and activists to drop their requests after a lone FOIA officer there helped expose corruption by the facility’s director. The director paid the FOIA officer to stay home without access to sensitive information, leaving the facility without anyone to process the requests.

The efforts at VA to block FOIA requests are reminiscent of those at the Department of State that torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. As secretary of state, Clinton’s desire to keep her emails from being discovered by reporters prompted the use of a private server located in her New York mansion. Clinton’s decision in turn led to the State Department’s implausible response to journalists who filed FOIAs during her tenure that Clinton had no emails.

Some VA responses were even more implausible. An employee at the Caribbean VA hospital in Puerto Rico, for example, sought emails between himself and Chief of Staff Antonio Sanchez. Wayne Weldge, head of FOIA for the VA’s Sun Belt region, responded: “The estimated fees associated with processing your request are $30,933.90.”

The entire fee had to be paid in advance, according to VA, which also said it might keep the money without giving up the emails. “You must pay the estimated fees stated above before we perform any more work to process your request,” Weldge wrote. Then, in italics, he continued: “Please understand that if VHA finds records responsive to your request and, if a FOIA exemption authorizes withholding these records in whole or in part, VA may not release the records to you even though you have pre-paid the search fees.”

Weldge allowed Sanchez instead of the agency’s IT office to filter his emails and compile them for release, just as Clinton was allowed to do. An invoice for the fees revealed that Sanchez is paid $338,000 annually and claimed that responding to the request would require 162 hours of the boss’s time. Another 53 hours of processing would supposedly have to be done by an employee who makes $110,000 annually.

A “Notes” portion of the estimate sheet that showed how the fees were calculated said “Close Enough.”

In an email to Weldge, Sanchez said responding to the FOIA request would not require much work.

“I would say 30-45 days as I am out of VA this week and next week will be only on Monday. [The employee] has sent me emails in reference to official travel arrangements only as he doesn’t work for me directly so I anticipate will not be a lot. Emails will be saved in my outlook so doing a search on it will be easy to find,” the email stated. The VA FOIA office then charged the requestor for 162 hours of the chief of staff’s time, which is a month, even though the chief’s response clearly said he wouldn’t get to the task for at least two weeks.

Then, even though the requester asked for the emails in digital format, which is expressly permitted under FOIA, VA officials decided to print them and charge for photocopying, claiming they didn’t have a disc drive. The emails provide a disturbing peek inside the murky world of FOIA processing, where journalists routinely submit lawful requests to federal agencies only to be met with an illogical response or none at all, or impenetrable fee calculations. The FOIA provides no penalties for agencies or individual employees who violate the law.

Dewayne Hamlin, director of the Caribbean VA hospital, tried to fire its FOIA/Privacy Officer Rosayma Lopez, openly charging her with refusing an order to fabricate evidence to be used to fire another employee, Joseph Colon, after Colon alerted top brass that Hamlin had been arrested and caught with regulated pills for which he had no prescription. After Lopez’s firing was blocked by ethics authorities, Hamlin paid her to stay home for a year. He then offered her $305,000 to resign — the largest such settlement ever at VA — with no discernible justification other than using taxpayer money to remove a threat to his job.

The VA’s national general counsel defended Hamlin’s action, but Lopez has not accepted the offer, saying she only wants to serve veterans honorably.

Ethics authorities then ordered Lopez return to work, but VA officials moved her to a trailer without basic tools required to do her job. FOIAs were routed to Weldge’s office at VA’s regional office in Florida, where Hamlin had previously worked. The Florida office sought to deflect FOIAs by hiding behind unusually aggressive interpretations of the law’s exemptions and massive fees for simple requests. (RELATED: Feds Put Credit Card Felon In Charge of Major VA Purchasing Program)

The office charged $100 when a requester wanted to know the hospital’s phone numbers. In another example, when an employee sought information on a boss’ selection, he was charged $568, with no explanation. When an employee wanted to get a ranking sheet that would show the numerical score for each applicant for a position, the office admitted only a few sheets of paper were involved, yet claimed it would require eight hours of a highly-level employee. The requester dropped the request.

source–luke rosiak, daily caller, antonio sanchez, wayne weldge, dewayne hamlin, rosayma lopez, joseph colon,

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is Being SUED

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is Being SUED-39hj.,b43

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is SUED to come clean on secret airport meeting with Bill Clinton days before she was to decide on charging his wife over server scandal

  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch is facing a federal lawsuit to give details of a secret meeting she had with Bill Clinton on a plane on June 27
  • The American Center for Law and Justice is demanding more information about the meeting and is suing the Obama administration
  • The rendezvous took place on the tarmac of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International airport, Arizona
  • Lynch heads the Department of Justice, which just days later closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server
  • The ACLJ , which has previously mounted lawsuits against the Obama administration, slammed it for its ‘arrogance and inappropriate actions’
  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch is facing a federal lawsuit to give details of a meeting she had with Bill Clinton days before she was to decide on his wife’s fate.
  • The meeting in June was barely a week before the Justice Department which she heads dropped its probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
  • The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed the lawsuit against the Department of Justice in Washington on Wednesday demanding more information about the meeting, which led to Lynch stepping aside from the server investigation.
  • As head of the Department of Justice, Lynch was supposed to be deciding whether to proceed with charging Hillary Clinton over her unauthorized server arrangements while she was secretary of state.
  • But she met with the Democrat’s husband on June 27 on the tarmac of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International airport, Arizona. Bill Clinton delayed his flight’s departure in order to grab face time with Lynch.

Don’t take off!’ the former president shouted after a Secret Service agent told him Lynch was about to land, according to Ed Klein in his book Guilty as Sin, who writes that Clinton wanted to ‘bushwhack’ Lynch in order to discredit the server investigation.

Lynch was subsequently spotted leaving her jet and local media, who knew Clinton was at the airport, put two and two together. Despite Lynch’s insistence that the half-hour meeting was a social call, a political firestorm ensued in which the DOJ’s independence was questioned.

‘Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix,’ she told CNN affiliate KNXV/ABC15 shortly afterwards.

But the ACLJ is demanding more information about the meeting and is suing the Obama administration, which it slammed for its ‘arrogance and inappropriate actions’.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, says the Obama administration ‘has gone out of its way to hide information from the American public’

‘This Administration has gone out of its way to hide information from the American public – information that is extremely troubling,’ said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ in a statement.

‘The stakes are high. The American people deserve a Justice Department with integrity.’

It is the conservative group’s fourth major federal lawsuit against the Obama administration.

Back in the summer Lynch said she ‘would not do it again’ because the tete-a-tete ‘cast this shadow’ over the investigation – and four days after the meeting she finally said she would accept whatever recommendations the FBI made about the case.

The effective recusal came only after pressure mounted when the meeting was disclosed.

The following week, on July 5, FBI director James Comey said the agency recommended no charges against Clinton for her actions – despite her and her team’s ‘extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information’.

That was until last Friday when Comey sent an explosive letter to Congress saying the agency had discovered new emails that might be relevant to the investigation.

Comey’s letter to Congress has left Hillary Clinton facing a political hullabaloo in the final days of the presidential race and dented her position in the polls

The ACLJ said it had already filed freedom of information requests to the Obama Justice Department and the FBI asking for details on the meeting. It said the FBI had acknowledged the request and agreed to expedite its processing, but the Justice Department had remained silent.

Lynch’s department said July 7 that it was formally closing its Clinton probe – largely a formality after Comey said the FBI was not pressing charges.

But now the ACLJ is demanding all messages that Lynch or her coworkers may have reviewed mentioning the rendezvous, names of everyone at the DOJ who has discussed the meeting, and any discussions about the press in relation to it, among other details.

Comey’s letter to Congress has left Clinton facing a political hullabaloo in the final days of the presidential race and dented her position in the polls.

source–e headline, krisite mcdonald, freya berry, the dailymail.com, jay sekulow,