Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s response to the immediate criticism of her private, suspicion-generating meeting with Bill Clinton was the correct one and the only ethical response open to her now. Today she admitted that that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton while possible charges against Hillary Clinton were being explored by the FBI had undermined public trust in the investigation, and she also took remedial action. She did more than recuse herself from the matter. She announced that she would accept whatever recommendations that career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges against the presumptive Democratic nominee.
“I will be accepting their recommendations,” Lynch said in an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival. She said that “the case will be resolved by the same team that has been working on it from the beginning.”
This remarkable move will not remove the stain on the meeting, which already created the “appearance of impropriety” at the worst possible time in the worst possible matter. However, Lynch acted quickly, appropriately, honestly and decisively. Incredibly, the episode may have actually resulted in a situation that will reduce public and political cynicism if Clinton is not indicted, except for those who will insist that the fix was in from the beginning, as indeed it might have been, given the general lack of accountability and propensity for cover-ups in the Obama administration.
As one delicious scenario, it is possible that Bill Clinton’s characteristic penchant for breaking the rules at will may have created a situation that leads to his wife having to face criminal charges. It is certainly true that the chances, still slim, that Hillary will have to face the music is greater now than it was two days ago.
Too late, Attorney General Lynch has provided a lesson to the pre-anointed Democratic nominee how an ethical (or aspiring to be more ethical) official handles incontrovertible proof that she has engaged in misconduct. Such an official…
….immediately and unequivocally admits wrongdoing. She does not claim for months that she was following procedure and “did nothing wrong.”
…does not fall back on rationalizations, like “everybody does it.” Lynch, unlike Clinton, immediately acknowledged that what she did was wrong.
…does not blame previous officials and claim that their conduct years ago under different circumstances created a precedent.
…does not attack critics, send out allies to do the same on her behalf, and encourage the biased news media to bolster that strategy. “I think that people have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business, and how we handle business and how we handle matters,” Lynch said. “And I think that, again, I understand that my meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”
…does not attempt to trivialize the offense by saying, for example, “It wasn’t the best choice.”
…takes immediate remedial measures.
Lynch’s alternative measure, which would also have been appropriate, would have been to resign. In Hillary Clinton’s case, the only ethical response to the revelation of her conduct regarding his handling of her official e-mails would be to withdraw her name from consideration as a candidate for the presidency.
Unlike Loretta Lynch, Clinton lacks the courage, integrity, accountability and respect for the position she has a duty not to dishonor, so she won’t do it.
As for Lynch, seldom has an official demonstrated such wretched ethical judgement and such exemplary conduct in such close proximity.
Ethics Alarms 
Smart woman. Why go down with a sinking ship? My respect for her has moved up a notch.
“As one delicious scenario, it is possible that Bill Clinton’s characteristic penchant for breaking the rules at will may have created a situation that leads to his wife having to face criminal charges.”
I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate my conviction that when push comes to shove Bill Clinton will say or do anything to avoid having his Secret Service detail answerable to his wife.
This is refreshing to hear about.
Wish there were more positive stories to report on like this =\
I guess I need to be counted among “those who will insist that the fix was in from the beginning.” Now Ben Rhoades or Valerie Jarrett will go right to the FBI people and put the screws directly to them rather than instruct LL to do so.
But good for Loretta Lynch. Very admirable. It certainly would have been interesting if she had resigned. That would have opened up a big can of worms for any media people old enough to remember Archibald Cox. Which begs the question: are there any? Few of these “reporters” are even forty. I’m thinking of a new slogan: “Don’t trust anybody under fifty.”
Can anyone believe HRC started out working on the Watergate committee? Today’s word is “irony.” Can you say “irony” boys and girls? Sure you can.
OB, you’re absolutely right, the fix is in. Unfortunately, it has ALWAYS been in. Loretta Lynch would not have done as she did had not the FBI director already been tutored in exactly what the results of his investigation are going to be. And LL KNOWS it. Mark my words, “poor judgment but no prosecutable behavior”. Therefore, no indictment, and Obama will be crowing about it.
This is a flagrantly irresponsible statement, dd, and I just posted a 2000 word essay in response. You obviously know nothing about Comey, and that makes what you wrote a flat-out smear.
Cheerfully admit that I know nothing about Comey. Time will tell if this is a smear or not.
Jack, I am not sure where gullibility falls on the ethical spectrum, but I choose not to fall for Lynch’s actions here. I understand you are judging her ethical conduct here based on current information, but allow me to offer a deeply disturbing underhanded play.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I believe this is a ploy by Lynch and this administration to remove themselves from any accountability from this case. How?
Obama and Lynch will never allow an indictment against Hillary (gullible (g) if you think otherwise); however, they cannot be seen to directly exonerate her. In addition, they cannot simply remove themselves from this decision without just cause. So, they plan this meeting (do we believe this was a coincidence? g2) and appear ethical by recusing themselves. Do we really believe suddenly Lynch and Obama have discovered ethical conduct?g3
Now, they just sit back and allow the DOJ bureaucracy to do the work for them. The legal bureaucracy have minimal incentive to fight Lynch, Obama, Clinton and the Dem machine by indicting. Also, a good chance that Hillary will win, and that bureaucracy will report to her…they are govt. officials.
Net/Net – This Lynch/Bill play shows me there is no indictment coming. Lynch and Obama will claim the decision to exonerate Hillary was not theirs. Hillary will point to the FBI and DOJ as having investigated and found nothing. And, the dumb republicans (gump makes them look like geniuses) who are hailing this recusal will be blamed for this entire investigative fiasco.
Jack: What’s the scuttlebutt around D.C. coming from FBI and DOJ people there on this? Are they just going to roll over?
Who’s “they”?
“They” would be FBI people involved in the investigation who think the facts justify an indictment and DOJ people who are leaning the same way.
And on further reflection and reading Ed Rogers’ column in the WP, what AG doesn’t take the recommendation of the FBI regarding bringing charges as a result of investigations? Is it really such a bold statement?
She really should appoint a special counsel. Do you think a Republican administration could get away with leaving a Republican AG at the head of an investigation into a Republican candidate?
That’s not the standard, though. The news media is biased. But after Whitewater and the stupid Valerie Plame incident, neither party will ever trust an unprecedented council again. That’s just a fact.
Yes, Bill, because 1) the Department doesn’t HAVE to and 2) most of the public doesn’t understand squat. Hell, YOU don’t believe the AG will accept an indict recommendation! How can you even ask the question?
Loretta Lynch aside, most of the FBI is populated by lifetime agents who are not political appointees but work their way up through a tough law enforcement bureaucracy. They are proud of what they do, committed to it, and care about their independence as an agency. At least that’s my take and my experience. If no indictment(s) come down, I fully expect an FBI whistleblower in the mix.
The problem is this: even if she’s indicted the Clinton/Democratic machine will get to work and there are enough HRH acolytes out there who just won’t care. I can only hope that in some dark room Democrats are looking around wildly for a replacement for HRH, should the indictment come down, but I can’t think of one Democratic governor or senator who can be pulled out of the woodwork to take HRH’s place and send someone other than Trump to the White House. Someone help me here…
So good for ol’ Loretta and her last-minute ethics. She’s made things more interesting, but hasn’t solved any problems, has she?
There is no way she would have said this if she wasn’t fully aware that there would be no recommendation to prosecute.
There is no way she could know, before the investigation is complete; that assumes the investigation is a sham, and there is no reason to accuse the FBI of running scam investigations, or the FBI Chief of tolerating one.
Your statement is 100% backwoods. There is no way she would have said this if she wasn’t willing to accept a recommendation to prosecute.
Oh, there will absolutely be recommendations to prosecute. I suspect a great many people will get to enjoy the tender, loving touch of the criminal justice system. People that had never imagined that such a thing would ever come to pass. Some of them might actually do some amount of time in a federal prison.
But there is no way that one of those people will be Hillary Clinton.
Edward Mejia Davis just tweeted that sources familiar with the investigation have told Evan Perez that the FBI will announce no charges in the next two weeks. The fix WAS in.
And other sources have said the sources are full of hooey. Clinton’s 4 hour interview took place today. “Unidentified sources” prove nothing, and never have. Flip a coin, believe what you want. You WANT the fix to be in. Why?
That interview consisted of nothing but Hillary saying “I don’t recall” and “On the advice of counsel…”