According to the New York Times, “Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general.”
The woman’s department is currently involved in a criminal investigation of Clinton. Lynch has refused to recuse herself from the investigation despite the taint of the meeting with Bill Clinton, which was apparently engineered by one or both Clintons. Though she has said that she will accept the recommendation coming out of the FBI investigation, she is not obligated to do so. Thus she is still a participant in the process and a decision-maker who has significant power and influence, as of this moment, over Hillary Clinton’s political future.
And yet Clinton allows her camp to send the message to Lynch—through the New York Times— that there may be a job waiting for her in the Clinton Administration….as long as, well, you know. This goes beyond the mere appearance of impropriety that Bill’s trick created for Lynch.
The dangling of a potential high-profile job creates an actual conflict of interest. After all, Lynch can’t continue as Attorney General is Hillary isn’t elected, and Hillary’s election prospects are likely to be significantly diminished if she’s in the Big House.
What is this? A flat learning curve? Complete arrogance and open corruption? Stupidity? Are all of Clinton’s advisors and staff as ethically obtuse as she is, just as Trump’s advisors and staff appear to be as inept as he is? How could Clinton let this happen?
If Lynch wants to guarantee that the public does not assume that this is yet more proof that the Clinton’s are rigging the investigation, she needs to declare, right now, that under no circumstances will she consider or accept any post in a Clinton administration. Failing that. she needs to resign.
Sometimes the prosecutor offers the accused a deal and, on rare occasions, the accused offers the prosecutor a deal. But offering it right out in the open like that? It’s as ballsy as a former President strutting across a tarmac in 107° heat, fueled by a raging desire to talk about his grandchildren.
I don’t know if this was really “ballsy.” Having just written at length about Hanlon’s Razor, I’m more inclined to think that Clinton and her camp are just stupid and incompetent, which, if true, calls into question one of the few clear advantages she supposedly has over Donald Trump.
25 thoughts on “Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton Meeting Aftermath: Hillary Drops An Unethical Hint, And My Head Explodes”
Who were these Democrats close to Clinton?
Poor saps who were turned down for a raise?
Lanny Davis? Stupid?
If this were a movie script, Trump would be now offering Lynch to stay as AG for his administration. I’ll invest in popcorn futures if that offer is made.
This is a bribe, pure and simple.
How about this scenario? Mrs. Lynch does want to prosecute Mrs. Clinton. The tarmac talk seemed good enough to compromise Mrs. Lynch. When that didn’t work a more drastic action was needed. Hence the job offer.
That’s certainly what this stuff invites us to ponder.
I assume there are some prosecutors among the commentors who can say whether this entire operation involving the “leak” through the Times could be prosecuted as a conspiracy to bribe. Not sure there is such an offense but I’m assuming you don’t need a completed offense and conspiring is supposedly worse than acting alone.
Probably not since it would be described as simple political maneuvering and organizational planning. But talk about a quid pro quo. Sheesh.
I wonder how late Obama could push his preferred candidate into the race and still have a viable chance to win?
Cynical as it may be, I don’t see a democrat administration actually pushing through this prosecution without a mitigating strategy already in the works. Has there not been a rumored Obama-Clinton civil war?
Or, this scenario: the tarmac meeting was not about the investigation, but about how Bill Clinton thought her grandchildren (and his) would be so proud if Ms. Lynch continued as the AG for Hillary. Not a bribe in so many words, and there was absolutely no mention of the ongoing investigation.
Either that or they already know the recommendation of the FBI and this is all wretched political theater.
Hillary Clinton wants Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recuse herself from the case and appoint an independent prosecutor. An independent prosecutor will spend six months minimum before an indictment which is well beyond the Democrat’s convention, beyond the presidential election and maybe even past the presidential inaugural.
Because having a special prosecutor digging around during most of her husband’s Presidency worked out so well.
Hmmm…which would you choose….
Special Prosecutor vs The President
US Prosecutor vs exPresidential candidate
But Hillary knows she isn’t likely to face the latter, so she need not subject herself to the former.
You can’t make this stuff up! This is just ridiculous. How stupid do they think we are? Both the DNC and the RNC have permitted non-viable presumptive candidates to compromise the democratic process. What a horrible bunch of people — on both sides. And we, the people, DO seem to be stupid because we allowed this to happen, even participated in making it happen. Perhaps it is not just our major candidates who are ethical disasters. We ourselves have lost our personal moral bearings, and our candidates are merely reflections of who we as a people have become.
Still think the fix isn’t in?
I think someone is certainly trying like hell to get it in.
Well, you’ll find out in about half an hour. Comey is addressing the press. I would bet you the most valuable piece in my collection that he is going to exonerate Hillary.
He can’t exonerate her–lets ban that word right now. Not indicting someone isn’t exonerating them.
OK, he’s going to say that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. I still bet that’s what he’s going to say.
Bingo. All kinds of violations, but not enough to support criminal charges. Of course Comey is saying he wasn’t influenced. I can’t wait to see your post on his statement.
My question to you is this – although he didn’t recommend criminal charges since there was no evidence of intent to do harm to the US, he did detail several lapses and compromises, and indicated that Clinton and her staff “knew or should have known” that this was not the way to handle classified information. Given this poor handling of classified information and the fact that Clinton should have known better, is she now, in your view, disqualified from being president?
The more I replay everything from the past week or so in my mind I can’t help but conclude everything has already been ensured and this is all just depraved theater.
Who do you think will come up with the best conspiracy theory? My money’s on world net daily.
No conspiracy needed. According to Comey: “…this is not to suggest that an individual in similar circumstances would not face” charges. What does that tell us except that the Clintons are held to a different standard than the rest of us?