I have been highly critical of Loretta Lynch. I didn’t support her nomination to be Attorney General.

I’ve argued that the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton smelled like a signal to the Clintons not to worry about the DOJ/FBI investigation of Hillary’s server.

Yet now I come to her defense because of James Comey’s attack on her.

Comey says that there is classified information that shows Lynch had a conflict. But of course, he can’t tell us what it is, because it’s classified:

Former FBI Director James Comey has some choice words for former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his new book, suggesting she was torn by his handling of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized email server and hints that there may yet be more information, which has yet to be released, calling into question her partiality.

The excerpts leaked Thursday from his memoir, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” are just the latest salvo in a back-and-forth between the two former federal law enforcement giants.

Comey writes Lynch possessed a “tortured half-out, half-in approach” to the emails inquiry. Comey describes how Lynch met with him privately just before the Nov. 8 election, and she embraced him and indicated that he had done the right thing, according to the Washington Post.

But Comey teases there may still yet be more to the story.

In his book, Comey says “unverified” information discovered by the U.S. government in 2016 from a classified source “would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation.”

According to ABC News, he refers to this as a “development still unknown to the American public to this day,” but his book does not go into further detail.

This is an outrageous hatched job by Comey, using “unverified” information that he can’t even disclose to attack a political opponent.

We’ve seen this type of tactic used against Trump as well by John Brennan:

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who is as anti-Trump as they come, suggested that he knew information about Trump that was not yet public. Information, of course, he would have learned in his role at the CIA or through his connections:

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.

This is chilling stuff. Our intelligence services scoop up an incredible amount of information about all of us. There are limits on how it is supposed to be used, but when the former Director of the CIA suggests that there is undisclosed information about a President, it’s an abuse of power and a not-so-veiled threat.

People like Comey and Brennan are in positions to gain access to a wide range of secret information about Americans. They should not abuse the trust placed in them to keep the information secret by suggesting that there is damaging information about someone but refusing to provide details so the person can defend herself.

It’s possible to believe both that Loretta Lynch seriously mishandled the Clinton email probe and that James Comey demonstrated his untrustworthiness by using the tactic of teasing that there is secret information about her.