Attorney General Loretta Lynch testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 12, before the House Judiciary Committee. | AP Photo Lynch refuses to answer questions on Clinton email probe Her reticence on the issue clearly irritated GOP lawmakers.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch stonewalled a House committee’s questions about the probe into Hillary Clinton’s email server Tuesday, steadfastly refusing to discuss the facts and legal standards involved even though FBI Director James Comey did so at length last week.

Under pointed questioning from Republicans, Lynch insisted it would be improper for her to make public comments about the evidence gathered during the almost year-long inquiry.


“While I understand that this investigation has generated significant public interest, as Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the underlying facts of the investigation or the legal basis for the team’s recommendation,” Lynch said at the outset of the House Judiciary Committee hearing. “I can tell you that I am extremely proud of the tremendous work of the dedicated prosecutors and agents on this matter.”

Lynch refused even to say how long her meeting with Comey and other members of the investigative team on the Clinton email inquiry lasted.

“I don’t recall and would not be providing that information,” the attorney general said.

Lynch’s reticence on the issue clearly irritated GOP lawmakers, who were intent on using the session to explore what they said were inaccurate statements Clinton — the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee — made about her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Republicans also criticized Lynch for deferring to Comey rather than making an independent decision about whether criminal charges against Clinton were warranted.

“You are in charge of the Department of Justice and the buck stops with you,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) “Why did you defer to Director Comey when the decision was yours?”

Lynch stressed that she decided to agree to what her “team” of subordinates and career officials recommended and that their recommendation not to pursue charges was unanimous.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) injected an unexpected and jarring topic into the hearing by raising President Bill Clinton's false testimony under oath two decades ago in the civil sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. Chabot appeared to be arguing that Secretary Clinton was getting away scotfree with the kind of false testimony that resulted in her husband's impeachment years ago.

"He was accused of sexually harassing a number of women. He lied under oath about it,"Chabot said. "A young intern came forward...There was physical proof. I won't go into exactly what that was. That's why articles of impeachment were voted."

Democrats denounced Chabot's comments as over the line.

"I think we've reached a low point on this committee," said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who criticized his colleague for digging up "salacious" and dated events.

And the attorney general repeatedly insisted that Hillary Clinton did not benefit from a double standard during the investigation into her email setup, not withstanding Republicans' repeated claims that others without her political ties or resume would have been prosecuted.

“There’s no separate method of enforcement for anyone here,” Lynch said. “I understand the emotion that generates. I understand the frustration that it generates…..She received no treatment different from any other.”

Lynch’s appearance came one day after House Republicans sought to fuel the controversy over Clinton’s email set-up by sending a pair of letters urging further investigation. One letter asked the U.S. Attorney in Washington to consider perjury charges against Clinton. Another asked Comey to provide detailed records of the criminal probe, including details of Clinton’s three-and-a-half-hour interview with the bureau earlier this month.

“It appears Secretary Clinton testified falsely when appearing under oath before the select Committee on Benghazi,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said. “Secretary Clinton’s extreme carelessness possible jeopardized the safety and security of our national” secrets, he added.

Under questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Lynch said it was her informal meeting with former President Clinton on her plane on an airport tarmac in Phoenix last month that led her to declare publicly that she had decided to defer to the FBI’s recommendation on Clinton’s case.

“I was concerned that the conversation I had with the former president might make people think there was some influence there,” Lynch said.

Jordan said Lynch’s public announcement of plans to defer to her subordinates was a mistake.

“Why announce ahead of time when you’ve never done it before…and still claim you’re the ultimate decider?...I think your action made it worse,” Jordan said.

Lynch’s unwillingness to provide her views on the facts or how the law applied to Clinton’s situation provoked considerable frustration from Republicans and, a couple hours into the session, a stern rebuke from the committee’s chairman.

“Your refusal to answer questions about a person who seeks the most important office in this land is an abdication of your responsibility,” Goodlatte said as he prodded Lynch to be more responsive.

Lynch wasn’t appreciably more forthcoming after that, prompting one GOP lawmaker to declare he was giving up.

“I’m going to simply capitulate to your prodigious dissimilation skills,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). “ I’m going to suspend the remainder of my questions.”

It was unclear whether Lynch’s refusal to engage the email issue amounted to an implicit criticism of Comey for the extensive public comments he made about the Clinton email probe, both during a press statement last Tuesday and in testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Thursday.

At one point, the attorney general suggested she simply didn’t have the same detailed knowledge of the probe as did Comey, who said repeatedly in recent months that he was closely monitoring the inquiry.

“The director and I had very different roles in this investigation and, therefore, very different amounts of information about this investigation,” Lynch said.

At other moments, however, Lynch indicated her decision not to comment was driven by an ethical or policy concerns.

“It would not be appropriate in my role to discuss the specific facts and the law,” the attorney general said. “We typically actually do not provide the level of detail that Director Comey did.”

Some former prosecutors and Justice Department officials have criticized Comey for his detailed discussion of the FBI’s findings in a case that will not be prosecuted.

As employees of the Justice Department, both Lynch and Comey are subject to the same basic policies and regulations, including rules limiting public comment on investigations. Those regulations generally prohibit comment on evidence in a case, but there are exceptions for crimes of an “extraordinary nature.”

Comey said last week he consulted no one "outside the FBI family" before making his unusual public announcement that the FBI had concluded no charges were warranted.

After an early afternoon break for a House floor vote, Lynch said she wanted to clarify that she was reluctant to discuss her knowledge about the case because doing so could chill open discussion within the department.

“The information a team provides to me in this or any other case has to be given in a zone of confidentiality,” the attorney general said.

However, moments later, Lynch said disclosure of information about the investigation had been “frustrating” and she suggested it wouldn’t be fair to subjects of an investigation to characterize their behavior.

“Typically, we do not characterize the actions of individuals,” she said.

While Lynch offered no direct criticism of Clinton or her conduct, Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina did manage to get the attorney general to say it’s her practice to use official email for work matters and only to use secure channels for classified communications.

“I believe it’s important to do that,” Lynch said. “It provides for a way of doing business in a secure system.”

The focus of lawmakers’ rhetoric Tuesday reflected a stark partisan divide. While Republicans bore down on Lynch over the Clinton email matter, Democrats accused their GOP colleagues of ignoring or downplaying more pressing issues such as gun violence and tensions between minority communities and police.

“Rome is burning. There is blood on the streets of many American cities and we are beating this email horse to death,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) said.

“We’re in the middle of an election season,” the panel’s ranking Democrat Rep. John Conyers of Michigan declared, lamenting that the committee was missing “an opportunity to have engaged with you on more worthy subjects.”

“Apparently, Secretary Clinton’s email takes precedence over gun violence and civil rights,” Conyers said. “Let us be clear; the criminal investigation is closed there’re was no intentional wrongdoing….If any of my colleagues are not yet convinced, it is because they don’t want to be convinced.”

Some Republican lawmakers defended the hearing, saying it was evident to them that political influence had affected the decision not to prosecute Clinton over the presence of classified information on her private server.

“It is a very serious matter and it’s been covered up, General Lynch,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

Another unexpected turn in the hearing came when Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) faulted Lynch for prosecuting former Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.) over allegations he took official actions in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and loans for a local businessman.

“You launched everything this department had against him to destroy him and prosecute him. Can you tell me the federal nexus you had in that case and compare that to the federal nexus against Secretary Clinton in national security of this county, which you refused to bring to a grand jury or for indictment to see if, in fact, one is justified?” Forbes asked.

Lynch, who was sworn in as attorney general after McDonnell was charged and convicted, declined to comment on the comparison to the former governor. His corruption convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court last month.

Lynch was so tight lipped that one Republican lawmaker said near the end of the hearing he was longing for the unthinkable: the return of Attorney General Eric Holder, who was on the receiving end of intense ire from GOP lawmakers and was eventually held in contempt of Congress in a House floor vote.

“I miss Eric Holder. At least, when he came here he gave us answers we didn’t like …” Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) told Lynch. “The optics of this are bad and you, today, have made it worse.”