No Siree, No Conflict of Interest Here!
[guest post by Dana]
Democrats. Given they believe themselves to be above the law, why would they be the least bit concerned about any conflict of interest or appearance of professional impropriety? I mean, who would hold them accountable? The administration? The media? Their party? Republicans?? Oh, please.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton on a private plane parked on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport Tuesday.
A source tipped off local Phoenix affiliate ABC15 to the meeting. Clinton was reportedly notified that Lynch would be landing in Phoenix soon and waited in order to meet her. The entire meeting lasted about 30 minutes.
When ABC15 asked Lynch about the meeting Tuesday afternoon during a press conference later in the day, she confirmed that it had happened. “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 the reporter.
Lynch went on to say that she and Bill Clinton did not discuss anything having to do with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, sending and receiving classified email, or telling Big Fat Lies to the American people. (Okay, maybe she didn’t word it quite that way…)
However, considering that Hillary Clinton is both the Democratic presidential nominee and subject of an ongoing official “security inquiry” FBI investigation, the conflict of interest is stunning, and the appearance of impropriety couldn’t scream No Worries, We’ve Got The Future President’s Back any louder.
Oh. And there’s this: The private meeting between Clinton and Lynch took place just hours before the release of yesterday’s damning Benghazi Report.
–Dana
I was going to say, picture the outcry if it were George and Laura Bush in the same positions, and it was Laura meeting secretly with whoever the Republican AG was that was investigating George, but then it was so funny picturing them as amoral grifters, that the comparison went right out the window.
Dana (995455) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:01 pmshe’s a liar so you can’t believe what she says
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:05 pmEffectively, this isn’t far from the concept of an ex parte communication.
From Wikipedia:
ropelight (596f46) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:10 pmSo funny — we had the same post idea. Here is mine:
[guest post by JVW]
By way of Powerline comes a report from ABC News 15 in Phoenix that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately for an estimated 30 minutes with disgraced former attorney William J. Clinton aboard Ms. Lynch’s private plane at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport on Monday evening. The Attorney General had just arrived into Phoenix to yammer on about community policing at some planned forum. Mr. Clinton was apparently “visiting the Phoenix area” [link more-or-less SFW] and on his way out of town. He delayed his departure (wonder if that caused travel delays for any ordinary schlubs at Sky Harbor) so that he could deplane from his private jet in order to go visit her aboard her private jet.
Attorney General Lynch insists that the two merely kibitzed about grandchildren and golf — for a full half-hour — and did not discuss the ongoing FBI investigation into the multifaceted nefarious activities of one Mrs. William J. Clinton, Her Clintonic Majesty, the Once and Future Inevitable Next President of the United States, Hillary! Rodham Clinton (mailto: hrc22@clintonemail.com), nor the report on Benghazi that was due to be released hours later. Even if we are to take the Attorney General at her word that the conversation was appropriately banal, what in the world would make her think that it is even remotely appropriate for her to take that meeting? This seems to go beyond mere tone-deafness and is emblematic of why there is now such a large gulf between the politically-connected elite and those of us that they demand to command.
We’ve long known that the fix is in between the Obama Justice Department and the Clinton
CampaignMachine with respect to her crimes both large and small, so as depressing as this development is, it really isn’t at all surprising. Loretta Lynch no longer cares enough to even observe a modicum of propriety regarding the upcoming exoneration she plans to deliver in service of the agenda.– JVW
JVW (eabb2a) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:12 pmWell I’m sure they didn’t talk about this Friday afternoon, July 1, 2016 being the perfect time to drop a bombshell on the country since most people won’t be paying attention with the July 4th holiday weekend coming up.
What better time would there be for the DOJ to decide to let Hillary off Scott free?
Torcer (654698) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:24 pm@Torcer
What better way to celebrate American Independence? /s
Jim (98dd1a) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:47 pm“
Leavin’Weavin’ On A Jet Plane”They’re weavin’ on a jet plane
Colonel Haiku (c7ccf8) — 6/29/2016 @ 2:56 pmdon’t know when truth’ll be told again
Oh snap… this really blows
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Loretta Lynch has cankles almost as big as those on the original Ms. Stanky Cankles?
champ (56cd04) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:01 pmJust sayin….
She also looks about pounds heavier than when she was confirmed. Are you champ Livingston?
ropelight (596f46) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:31 pmThink: Another eight years of this!
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:41 pmWith apologies to the Colonel for invading his territory:
Oh the fix is in, it’s ready to go
I’m standing here outside the door
I hate to bother you to say goodbye
But my plane is leaving for points unknown
And we can’t discuss this on the phone
Just telling you we’re grateful, you know why
So thank you from Hillary!
JVW (eabb2a) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:44 pmCheryl Mills and Bruce Lindsey
David Kendall sends his warm regards
Cause we’re breaking all the laws again!
Being spared by all our Beltway friends
“Consult” for our foundation, here’s my card
“The meeting was recorded. But about 18 minutes of the tape was accidently erased.” Hillary Milhous Clinton
Lorem Ipsum (08ad03) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:52 pmnothing to see here,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437312/hillary-clinton-emails-secret-meetings-clinton-foundation-donors
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 3:57 pmthey have a lot to talk about,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285269-exclusive-pro-hillary-group-takes-200k-in-banned-donations
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 4:12 pmWell played, JVW!
Colonel Haiku (c7ccf8) — 6/29/2016 @ 4:24 pmIf that’s so bad, then maybe there should be a
Tillman (a95660) — 6/29/2016 @ 4:46 pmregulationlaw against that!If that’s so bad, then maybe there should be a
regulationlaw against that!Ah yes, the cry of the Clintonista: There’s no law saying we can’t do that! It never dawns upon you people that sometimes things can be perfectly legal but just leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. A lot of us here like liked Ted Cruz and supported him, but we called him out when we thought his campaign did something that was technically legal but in bad taste. Dana’s post points out that the Clintons and the Obama Justice Department are so brazen that they don’t even mind sending out the signal that the fix is in. More than actual laws, what we need are people who don’t just lie down for this kind of pervasive sleaze.
JVW (eabb2a) — 6/29/2016 @ 5:09 pmno, it’s not nearly the same thing accepting campaign contributions from govt contractors for instance is a violation of the law, like the monies that flowed into the obama campaign back in 2008, when they disabled the verification software,
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 5:13 pmlikewise meeting with a principal of an organization under investigation,
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 5:15 pmno new evidence, my foot,
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/06/29/transparency-benghazi-committee-allowed-access-to-key-witness-day-after-release-of-report/
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 5:51 pmJVW, I agree that it doesn’t appear good. But there is no evidence of impropriety – only an empty accusation. Where’s the beef?
Tillman (a95660) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:05 pmWhat I wonder is whether Billy made a pass at her. Odds?
nk (dbc370) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:05 pm#16 Tillman,
The Clintons don’t actually care whether something’s legal or not. You do realize that, right, champ?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:12 pmSo let’s say like I’m a typical Democrat and I hear that our Patron Saint Bill Clinton really, really wanted to talk to the Attorney General of the USA about grand kids in a secret meeting on an airport tarmac in a private jet.
Well, like DUH…. what the hell is wrong with that? Do Republicans hate grand children too!?!?
Democrats are the party that cares and we are defeating terrorists by spreading love!!!
Pts (ce7fc3) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:28 pmJVW @ 4,
I’m so glad you posted your post in the comments! I know how frustrating it is to take the time involved in writing a post, only to discover another poster beat you to the punch. Argh!!
(Funny how Hillary Clinton inspires such sarcasm and disdain in us, no?)
Dana (995455) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:40 pmJVW, I agree that it doesn’t appear good. But there is no evidence of impropriety – only an empty accusation. Where’s the beef?
Tillman (a95660) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:05 pm
Tillman, this isn’t hard.
Dana (995455) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:40 pmUnusually good liars, indeed.
navyvet (c33501) — 6/29/2016 @ 7:58 pmImagine the howls of protest had we discovered that Ken Lay and/or Jeffrey Skilling of Enron had a half-hour private chat with John Ashcroft in a secure location in January 2004. Then again, the Justice Department ended up indicting Lay and Skilling.
JVW (eabb2a) — 6/29/2016 @ 8:00 pmThis might be somewhat less laughable if they had ever socialized before. Before Lynch became AG and the FBI was investigating Hitlery!
But no. Only now does this nobody Lynch rate meeting Billy Jeff.
Now, all of a sudden, they have this irresistible urge to get together to discuss the grandkids.
Steve57 (ecac13) — 6/29/2016 @ 8:57 pmot, you thought stargate was fake:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/01/dagger-king-tut-tomb-iron-meteorite-egypt-mummy?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews
you see how they are shutting down foia requests re orlando,
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:01 pmI am suspicious about many things here: How did these two happen to be in Phoenix at exactly the same time? What was so important that they had to meet inside her plane, never going into a VIP lounge inside (where they might be seen)? This is why she took the meeting–she thought she could get away with it.
Too bad for her. She now appears the biggest fool since Polonious. This meeting stinks worse than her comments on how bathroom discrimination is the new Jim Crow. She has ruined what I understand was a good reputation.
I don’t even think it’s blackmail. I think she is just a radical partisan, like Obama.
Patricia (5fc097) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:07 pmShe’s the biggest fool since Polonius? Or we are?
She’s a simple tool. She’s only doing as directed, so Tiger Beat can show us what he thinks of us.
http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Misc/obama-finger.jpg
so she’s not the first Democratic party animal to prostitute herself.
Steve57 (ecac13) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:18 pmAccording to Loretta Lynch, we may never know what her real motivation was for meeting with Bill Clinton. (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:23 pmwell no, stupid opinions are just that, deliberate breaches of protocols with subjects of investigations are something else,
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:24 pmcrimethink must be rubbed out, before it manifests itself,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-fbi-letter-law-enforcement-20160629-story.html
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:30 pmwait what?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684723/Angela-Merkel-open-door-policy-caused-Migrant-crisis-George-Soros-EU
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:36 pmThe Wapo has now picked up the story. A commenter left this comment. Interesting.
Dana (995455) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:40 pmI do recall something about the accounting firm, much more tenuous ties were used to summon fitz as special prosecutor,
narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 9:47 pmLoretta Lynch is an honorable public servant. The kind that will serve honorably during the Hillary Administration. We have nothing to worry about. Since Hillary is allegedly better than Trump, we shouldn’t want the truth about Benghazi to come to light, because that might jeopardize her prospects as our next Commander in Chief.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/29/2016 @ 10:28 pmSo, let’s stop whining about Benghazi, and do our part to help Hillary become the next President.
The English language already has a “gender-neutral pronoun”. Called the “neuter”. “It”.
nk (dbc370) — 6/29/2016 @ 10:46 pmOk. Wrong thread.
nk (dbc370) — 6/29/2016 @ 10:46 pmThe chief prosecutor does not meet with the target’s spouse. PERIOD.
As to her reputation being destroyed, these people are shameless. Holder got the AG despite debasing himself to pardon Marc RIch.
Really the only way this can go sideways for Hillary is if the FBI revolts. Frankly suspect they’re as compromised as everyone else. They may sulk, but Comey and crew aren’t going to resign en masse.
Bugg (54d892) — 6/30/2016 @ 5:56 amWe can hope Lynch’s chat started with “Listen Bill, you gotta get your whole family out of the country. Somewhere with no extradition treaty. Even your grandchild. That crazy b…your wife hid millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations from North Korea in that kid’s name. You understand? The whole thing is coming down. Even Huma turned on her.”
I mean, that’s what I hope. “Clintons surprise visit to Vietnam.”
Xmas (3c8969) — 6/30/2016 @ 6:09 amNews Flash!! There is a naked man running around Times Square. Has anybody heard from happyfeet?
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 6/30/2016 @ 6:56 amShe’s not the judge, and there is no opposing side to the case. That’s the wrong potential ethics problem here. Any potential defendant is allowed to contact the prosecutor, although this is usually done through an attorney.
The seeming problem here could be that:
(1) She’s not the prosecuter *, but is at a level where normally a person would not get involved ina prosecutorial decision, and
(2) There is a suspicion of political influence.
* She has said, I believe, that she would make the decision whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:14 ami’m here i’m here
happyfeet (a037ad) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:18 amSo this has now become a *story* with Dems in the position of having to defend Lynch:
And then there’s this:
Further, as Rush pointed out this morning, it was Bill Clinton who appointed Lynch to the Eastern District in New York, a plum assignment. Is it possible he gently reminded her of this and how he helped her career?
Dana (995455) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:32 amMoreover, it strikes me that if Lynch is as upstanding and ethical as her supporters claim, then it would logically stand to reason that she would now, by default, recuse herself from any investigation having to do with any Clinton.
Dana (995455) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:34 amNow I’ll get into what Bill Clinton was really up to. It’s extremely subtle. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have a clue.
You might call what Bill Clinton did brilliant, except it isn’t so brilliant, because Bill Clinton didn’t figure it all out by himself. He is the beneficiary of the distilled wisdom of generations of Hot Springs, Arkansas, conmen, and the experience of hundreds or thousands of corrupt politicians and lawyers of the Twentieth Century, some of it received, indirectly at least, from the master, Owen Vincent (Owney the Killer) Madden, 1892-1965 who devised many ideas for the Outfit. Bill Clinton’s vast knowledge of how to get away with breaking the law, of course, enables him to generate new ideas as well.
Look, it could be just simply to see if she would refuse to meet him! If she would refuse to meet him, it would be a sign than an indictment is imminent or that the investigation is getting extremely serious. He was already reasonably sure it wouldn’t happen, because Hillary’s still scheduled to interviewed by the FBI, but now he could really make himself almost 100% sure.
It is sort of like the way New York State Assembly Speaker would contribute $100 to the campaign committee of Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. If the donation was refused, it was a bad sign; if it was accepted, it meant he was in no trouble.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:52 amAttorney General Loretta Lynch says the meeting was unexpected (at least to her – how can she say more) She says that Bill Clinton’s plane just happened to be at the airport, and Bill Clinton walked over to talk to her. I think it probably wasn’t unexpected to Bill Clinton, and the situation was such so that a refusal to meet would have informational value.
She didn’t refuse to meet him. Ergo, Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton is a target of any investigation at this point. He probably also, by seeing if there were some things she refused to discuss, checked to see if she was aware of any other issues that he or his lawyers were not currently too worried about. For instance, she wasn’t touchy on the subject of Janet Reno.
Bill Clinton could probably pull this “test” off only once, and that’s why it probably happened just now. This was the best time for Bill Clinton to stage this meeting. By doing this just now, Bill Clinton could determine if anything would happen before the election.
The reason is that Obama, and maybe even Bush, may have laid down previous policy guidelines saying that an indictment should not be made if it is likely to influence an election. This guideline is not interpreted as meaning no indictment of a someone in office running for re-election can ever be made – but just that it shouldn’t happen, after say, Labor Day in an election year.
Now he knows he can safely postpone the FBI interview with Hillary until you get into that “no-indictment for politicians” zone because there’s no risk of anything happening before.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 9:59 am19. narciso, (732bc0) — 6/29/2016 @ 5:15 pm
Whether or not he fit into that category was what Bill Clinton was trying to find out!
If he had tried to schedule an appointment in any kind of a regular way, it could have been turned down. This was probably much harder to turn down. He probably knew all about her schedule and that it wouldn’t delay her. Maybe she had to wait at the airport anyway. Who, normally, snubs a chance to meet with a former president?
Remember, so far the only person whom we might know who might be under investigaton is Hillary Clinton.. Bill Clinton would only be under investigation if this was turning into a RICO case.
She met him. It’s not, so far.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:07 amMore than likely he followed the stance of William fulbright arriviste segregationist who fashioned himself into internationalist when he cared to be.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:08 amLoretta Lynch said they did not discuss Benghazi (the report about which was coming out that day) nor her e-mails, but they did discuss the U.K. vote to leave the European Union, and Janet Reno.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:09 amI don’t uderstand the referece to Fulbright. Who was like Fulbright, and when?
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:10 amSammy,
It’s a conflict of interest. Nobody else in America who’s being investigated by the FBI would be able to have their spouse meet for “social hour” with the person doing the investigating.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:12 amIt’s so funny that Lynch and Clinton believe that characterizing it as a “social call” somehow diffuses the impropriety.
In fact, the impropriety is INCREASED by virtue that Clinton and Lynch are socializing and chatting about grandkids.
You mean Bill Clinton was modeling himself on Fulbright, rather than Owney Madden and assorted other crooks?
Fulbright was actually part of that machine, I think.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:12 amThe big news here? Somebody actually committed Journalism.
f1guyus (bde5e6) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:13 am54. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:12 am
But she’s NOT the person doing the investigating. She’s their boss – the highest ranking person who will make a decision as to whether or not to proceed with an indictment.
And whether or not Hillary or Bill is the target of an investigation is the very question that Bill Clinton was seeking to find an answer to. Has it reached the stage that it would be coinsidered unethical for her to meet with him? She would only refuse if she had been warned not to by someone else. If it went to her office maybe that would happen, but on the tarmac, she’d be on her own. She probably already maybe was waved off Hillary, or taht went without saying, given other facts, but Bill’s another question.
I think, he maybe was seeking to determine if the investigation was now one also one into him. Has it become a RICO investgigation into the Clinton Foundation or all things Clinton, going back maybe into the 1990s and before, or was this confined only to the e-mails?
What topics did Attorney General Loretta Lynch agree to discuss, and what did she avoid?
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:24 am22. nk (dbc370) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:05 pm
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:30 amI spent 33 years in the Federal government most of that working in law enforcement related matters. I actually have no idea whether “the fix is in”. But, based upon my experience, I find the Lynch/Clinton meeting more indicative of the possibility that Hillary is in real trouble with the FBI/DOJ.
The idea that Lynch met with Bill Clinton to assure him that “the fix is in” makes little sense to me. There are many less public avenues by which this administration could have sent (and would have sent) that message.
In my mind the only motive for having the Nation’s top law enforcement official meeting with Bill Clinton would be to send the contrary message in the strongest possible fashion. And, again in my experience if such were the case, the intent would be to minimize the political impact upon our elective process by allowing the Clinton’s to semi-gracefully exit from the Presidential campaign prior to the Democratic Convention. I personally have no problem with a decision to do so and believe that such an approach is consistent with minimizing the political impact of prosecutor’s decision
Lynch does hold a political position but, as previously demonstrated by the Watergate fiasco, many of our law enforcement officials take their responsibilities seriously and are capable of rising above mere political considerations. I certainly pray that that is the case in this matter.
Paige Jackson (12c077) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:52 am#57 Sammy,
That’s sick and twisted.
Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General — her office is doing the investigating. She calls the shots. She’s the Boss.
There’s no reason for her to be having “social hour” chatting about “grandkids” with the husband of the woman she’s investigating. They’re not old friends, they’re not old buddies, they’re not old colleagues — but they do appear to be co-conspirators.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:01 amI think it was a mutual exchange of assurances. Lynch assured Billy that Hillary would not be indicted, and Billy assured Lynch that Hillary would not reveal that Obama murdered SEAL Team 6 to cover up the fact that Osama bin Laden was not killed in the raid on his compound.
nk (dbc370) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:09 amAnd I think Billy’s idea of subtle seduction is “You got time for a quickie?”
nk (dbc370) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:10 amnk @61: But Osama bin Laden was killed! And Seal Team Six is alive.
One thing almost impossible to hide for more than a day or two is the death of somebody in charge of an organization. It was announced that Stalin was dead within a day. Howard Hughes’s death was announced almost immediately, even though nobody reakky knew where he was or had contact with him. We alwsys know when the dictator of North Korea dies.
Mullah Omar’s death was kept secret for 2 years, but then, that only goes to prove that he was not in charge of the Taliban, but Pakistani intelligence was.
By the way, there is no Seal Team One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight or Nine. They picked the number Six just to make the enemies of the United States think there were more of them than there are. That’s an open secret now.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:28 amPaige Jackson (12c077) — 6/30/2016 @ 10:52 am
Lynch didn’t meet with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton obviously contrived to have this meeting without Loretta Lynch knowing about it until he was there in the next plane. Bill Clinton scheduled this meeting himself, without her knowledge.
His chief motive probably was to see if she would refuse to meet with him, or not, and there was a lot that could be deduced from that, plus what could be deduced from what she agreed to talk about and what she did not.
Bill Clinton knows there is such a policy of minimizing the political impact of prosecutor’s decision, which I think, many people do not, and Id like to hear more about it.
And I think, therefore, because of this policy managed to stretch things out, by, for instance, delaying the FBI interview of Hillary, so that any indictment of Hillary Clinton would fall into the ” “Don’t indict someone when it might be perceived it was done to influence an election” period.
He may, however, have wanted to assure himself, that it was not occur before the convention, although he was probably well over 95% certain it would not, or that there was no RICO investigation under way involving himself
nk @62. Bill Clinton sometimes attacks, or attacked, women because he thinks, like Senator Packwood did, that sometimes that works best. He wouldn’t dare that with the Attorney General of the United States, nor would he make asudden request. And he always made the sure the women he went after were Democrats tied into politics, and somewhat dependent on him, so at least they wouldn’t talk. So he plans things. Kathleen Willey was there to ask him for a job.
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:36 amI forgot to put this in the post, but what I also found very troubling was Lynch’s description of her visit with Clinton and claiming their conversation was “primarily social”. Primarily doesn’t mean entirely or totally. Being a lawyer, Lynch knows words, and she knows how to use them artfully and effectively. So why leave this little opening? I don’t believe it was accidental.
Dana (995455) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:51 amPaige Jackson, a most reasonable theory.
Patricia (5fc097) — 6/30/2016 @ 2:54 pmDana (995455) — 6/30/2016 @ 11:51 am
It is indeed not accidental and Loretta Lynch mentioned the British vote to leave the European Union as an example. She says they talked about some other matters.
Maybe they also talked about other things. The U.S. presidential race, and Donald Trump and the future of the Republican Party, are obvious topics, and maybe also the purpose of her trip.
Loretta Lynch specifically said they didn’t talk about e-mails or Benghazi, although I don’t know if she would still say that even of Bill Clinton tried to segue into those subjects.
Loretta Lynch probably would characterize talking about Janet Reno as social although that probably wasn’t Bill Clinton’s motive for bringing her name up. What’s Janet Reno doing now, or what did she do after she left office?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno
Anything negative tends to be removed from Wikipedia articles about living persons, particularly Democrats, but also Republicans, like George Allen. There used to be “controversies” sections, but they are gone. You might find some discussion of what’s missing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Reno
Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f) — 6/30/2016 @ 3:25 pmDo you have any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the Operation Re-elect Obama raid on his alleged compound, Sammy?
nk (dbc370) — 6/30/2016 @ 4:34 pmI smell a rat, a democrat rat. The hair is up on the back of my neck, and I’m getting that particular feeling of being hade. This could well be a set-up. Everyone knows how bad this looks, it obviously flunks the smell test.
Smart operators like Slick Willie Clinton don’t intentionally make such blunders, he’s got plenty of experience arranging secret meetings. Decades of experience. He wanted to give the Attorney General a way out of indicting Hillary.
The FBI case against her is so strong there’s no way AG Lynch could decline to prosecute and keep any shred of integrity. Additionally, if Lynch let Hillary off the hook it would add another major scandal to Obama’s record of malfeasance.
So, the problem was how to create a situation the Attorney General could use to recuse herself and let some tundeling do
ropelight (596f46) — 6/30/2016 @ 6:20 pm…let some underling do the dirty work of letting Hillary go and keeping Loretta Lynch’s skirts clean and handing Obama a fig leaf at the same time.
I smell a roundtable of rats.
ropelight (596f46) — 6/30/2016 @ 6:23 pmHere’s an excerpt from today’s New York Times by Matt Apuzzo:
ropelight (596f46) — 7/1/2016 @ 3:56 amNow, there’s contradictory information. Here’s an excerpt from Breitbart’s Jeff Poor: (emphasis added)
ropelight (596f46) — 7/1/2016 @ 7:38 am68. nk (dbc370) — 6/30/2016 @ 4:34 pm
No leaks to the contrary – not in the United States, and not in Pakistan; universal acknowledgement that Osama bin Laden is dead; released and leaked documents written by bin Laden said to have been taken from (computer files in) the house in Abbotabbad indicating he was alive earlier in 2011, combined with no contradictory leaks about those dccuments denying that they came from there. Plus some circumstantial evidence that that location was important to the Palistani military, like arresting and giving along prison term to a doctor who tried to confirm bin Laden lived there, plus the fact they destroyed the building (obviously because they didn’t want something to turn up that might be hidden in the walls linking people in Pakistan’s military to bin Laden.)
What we don’t have is released pictures or independent DNA testing or review of the testing, but that doesn’t mean that they faked his death or that he is a secret U.S. prisoner. And if was a secret U.S. prisoner, they couldn’t keep it secret. It just means they stupidly decided not to offer better proof that they said hey had.
Sammy Finkelman (09e4a9) — 7/1/2016 @ 8:06 amropelight (596f46) — 7/1/2016 @ 7:38 am
CBS This Morning reported at 7 am that it would not be a complete recusal – what she would do is say that she would accept whatever prosecutors recommended.
Some Republicans in Congress want more – a special prosecutor (of the informal Archibald Cox/Leon Jaworski type)
That’s waht the New York Times has also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0
Sammy Finkelman (09e4a9) — 7/1/2016 @ 8:10 amropelight (596f46) — 6/30/2016 @ 6:23 pm
There may be some general policy guidelines at the Justice Department – alluded to by Paige Jackson at #59 above – to minimize the political impact upon our elective process of a prosecutor’s decision.
Which probably means don’t indict someone running for office too close to an election for the nominee to be replaced.
I think Bill Clinton was trying to determine if an indictment was imminent, or if there was a formal RICO investigation. Loretta Lynch meeting with him exluded both possibilities. Since the FBI interview of Hillary Clinton is not on track till we will reach, or almost reach, the “no indictment time period” he can almost guarantee we will in time period before an indictment is ready. And then she’s home free until the November 8.
She might be indicted after the election, as that would not violate any Justice Department policy guidelines, and career people probably would be anxious to indict before January 20.
I think she survives if the indictment is to a relatively minor crime, like not safeguarding government records. Obama will NOT pardon her. That would sully his legacy.
Clinton’s lawyers will argue, like Nixon, that no president can be indicted, or put on trial, until he has been impeached (which is not legally accurate) and also that she’s immune under the Soldier’s and Sailors Relief Act until after she competes her term as president. And on the last day, maybe she will pardon herself.
Sammy Finkelman (09e4a9) — 7/1/2016 @ 8:25 amActually, I think, a federal judge will rule that a sitting president can be put on trial, and does not need to be impeached and removed from office first. It may go to the Supreme Court. This probably will prevent the filling of any vacancies while she is president.
Sammy Finkelman (09e4a9) — 7/1/2016 @ 8:28 am