2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill C. meets Loretta L. at the airport.. stop the presses!!!
Of all the stupid stuff to get head up about..this one has got to be in the top ten.. Oh yeah.. in a public airport.. God give me strength..
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)and it just looks bad.
She probably didn't want to be rude but....
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that the media has been running with.
two democrats chatted with each other. moreover, they probably have also run into each other at parties, democratic fundraiser, democratic events of other kinds etc.
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)
Post removed
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I don't think anything nefarious happened, but this is unforced error, giving unnecessary fodder.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Unforced error.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)if at any point this was unethical, the AG could have just said NO, obviously no one thought it was controversial till the media on a slow news day made it so. and some people who always happy to join the anti-clinton bandwagon jumped on it.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)with the police chief...not illegal but it would raise questions
Appearances matter
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)If found out, the judge would have to recuse him or herself from that case, and if the trial were ongoing, the defense would move for a mistrial. The judge might be admonished by the bar at the very least, and it would be an issue at re-election if applicable.
Same thing if you substitute "prosecutor" for "judge."
Not good.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)And, the AG is the final authority on this matter. She can do whatever she wants. By definition, she did nothing wrong.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Further, the AG is not infallible. But I don't fault her at all. This is all on Bill. Bad move on his part.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)She is required by those rules to avoid both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. This gives the appearance of impropriety, and she doesn't make the call on herself.
Bill surprised her and he put her in a bad position, but she should have had one of her aides politely turn him away, or she should have done so herself, politely, with witnesses outside the plane. And she knows it, but I'm wondering if Bill understands. He's lost a few steps.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)does not make it ok. Same as Scalia (may he not rest in peace)... He completely ignored legal ethical rules.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)JudyM
(29,185 posts)However, this is my field.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #76)
JudyM This message was self-deleted by its author.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)JudyM
(29,185 posts)to the door of the plane and shaking his hand goodbye. A 30 minute private meeting is beyond the pale, even if they actually didn't reference the investigations. And they both know it.
Isn't it stunning how our government's culture has evolved to accept outright ethical violations with a wink and a nod? Judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch... the bar has been lowered so much in our lifetimes, integrity doesn't seem to matter. No one is being held accountable, not Shub/Cheney/Scalia, not the corporations that support the government (with "donations," not with taxes!), no one. As a lawyer, it has just been especially disheartening to witness the decay, right?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)People make fun of Carter, but he was ethical, and eveyone since has had problems.
This is how people lose complete confidence in their government.
This what turns legitimate governments into tinpot dictatorships.
And very few people seem to care.
Glad to meet a kindred soul!
JudyM
(29,185 posts)Kinda cold out there.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)30 minutes seems like a long time to talk about the grandkids.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)Hekate
(90,538 posts)Bring me my fainting couch and my smelling salts!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)It's not that she engaged in wrong doing but she gives the appearance of wrong doing with this.
She's the one that makes the decision on indictments, should they be rec'd by the FBI, meeting with the husband of the possible target of that indictment....it just doesn't look good.
It's a nothing story but it does project an appearance
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Svafa
(594 posts)It's just not a smart move.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)It was bad judgement.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How many degrees of familial relationship are involved here?
Do you know that Bill Clinton appointed her as a federal prosecutor in the first place? Is that a conflict?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)anyone questioning her ability to be impartial. Especially given the prior relationship.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"Some" will vote for Trump.
"Some" would say the government put radios in their dental fillings.
There is a longstanding pre-existing relationship which pre-dates her current office.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)it just looks bad.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)of which she is a member and by the DOJ itself. This gives the appearance of impropriety, and she should have avoided.
I'm a retired lawyer who clerked for a federal judge and has known some prosecutors.
Bill put her in a bad position, but she made a mistake. The most she could have said, and IN PUBLIC, is hello and best wishes to your new grandson and good bye.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Bill Clinton is not under investigation and they have a pre-existing relationship. Secondly, a state bar, and a state "bar association" are two different things, which most of my colleagues in the profession understand. It is not even a requirement of practice to be a "member" of a "bar association" in order to be admitted to the bar. Again, most actual attorneys are aware of that distinction.
The role of USAG is complex, since the USAG serves at the pleasure of the President, is a cabinet level officer, and yet the DoJ more broadly conducts investigations of activities within the executive branch all of the time. None of that prevents the USAG from associating with others in the administration or with colleagues with whom the USAG has a pre-existing relationship.
Bill Clinton was not involved in either Secretary Clinton's duties as SoS nor in how she chose to conduct her communications. As noted previously, she was appointed as an AG by Bill Clinton, so you might as well claim "conflict" right there.
Our legal system does not include spouses as subjects of investigation by some kind of induction. If you believe otherwise, please let me know the degree of relationship you believe AG Lynch is prohibited from communicating with on a social basis.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)You are right about the bar association, but the bar association in many states, including the ones in which I am admitted, play a major in setting and enforcing legal ethics. We are writing for non-lawyers here. What I have written about the nature of ethics rules you have not challenged. You can throw up dust, but that doesn't change the ethical rules themselves.
The DOJ does conduct investigations, but there is no way that an attorney working for the DOJ itself or with FBI, which is under the DOJ, would be palling around with the government employees that they are investigating. If they did pall around and someone found out, they would be transferred from the case and perhaps forced out altogether. No supervising attorney would want someone like that on a team. No way. The same goes for the AG herself. If she investigates a fellow cabinet member she's not going to be palling around with her. It would be a total conflict of interest.
Bill Clinton appointed Ms. Lynch to be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York back in the late 1990s, and I'm sure that she has met Bill and Hillary a number of times. But the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation received subpoenas last autumn. It was reported in the New York Times. Consequently, Bill has a real interest in the outcome of the investigation and prosecution that might result. He might be a witness to the Clinton Foundation matters, and since the server was in his home and the person in New York who took care of the server was paid by the Clinton Foundation, he would be a witness in any trial involving the e-mails.
I had the honor of clerking for a federal district judge when I first started out. He was respected by everyone as being extremely ethical. He expected his clerks to follow his lead, and tried very hard to do so. He lectured his clerks regularly about avoiding the appearance of impropriety and impressed on us the need to watch what we did outside the court room and chambers as much or more than what we did inside. The ethical rules, as I recall, are similar for federal prosecutors and federal judges. My judge passed away about 8 years ago, so I can't call him up and ask him what he thinks. But I think I know the answer. It would be a lecture on why what Ms. Lynch did was wrong because it gave the appearance of impropriety, and my judge had been an active Democrat and the US attorney for his district before he was appointed to the bench.
In summary, I could not disagree with you more completely, and I stand by my posts.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)the Clinton Foundation?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)had received FBI subpoenas to produce documents. That is not a good sign.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)What named source, not a Republican, did you read about? I haven't found any such reports at the NYTimes or through google.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)issued in the fall of 2015. Here's the link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
JudyM
(29,185 posts)their legal ethics training.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But the use of the server in his home is the subject of a criminal investigation. By the way, did he use that server? If so, that's even closer.
I don't think Lynch did anything wrong, she had no idea he was coming. I don't see any legal ethic rule that Bill violated either. Just bad optics and a dumb unforced error. That is unless he really needed to talk to her about the grandchildren.
George II
(67,782 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)a possible criminal charge for Hillary. This was confirmed by James Comey, the head of the FBI who was appointed by Pres. Obama.
The investigation may have spread to the Clinton Foundation, and yes, Bill himself. The question there is whether or not Hillary handed out favors at the State Department in exchange for money paid to the Foundation or to Bill himself in speaking fees and other remuneration.
In further news, the DOJ wants to delay for 27 months producing 30,000 or so e-mails sent by Hillary's aides to the Foundation and to a pr consulting firm connected to Bill and to Houma Abedin. That Wed. pm, and the timing looks bad.
George II
(67,782 posts)....of famous people at airports and taxi lines.
I once shared a cab from LaGuardia to Manhattan with Martina Navratilova.
I once was on the same plane as the New York Islanders from New York to Chicago, and another with Chris Berman (ESPN) from Chicago to Hartford.
And so it goes. No one thought there were any ulterior motives behind those or other chance encounters at airports. Do people REALLY think that Bill Clinton went to the SAME city/airport as Loretta Lynch just so he could talk to her surreptitiously?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)impartiality and independence and how appearances affect perceptions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when he was in Congress, if a similar situation cropped up, he would have had 12 staffer screaming, "Not a good idea!"
I wonder how many of those 12 screamed prior to the dead intern incident?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and nothing good comes of it.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I respect Loretta a lot but this doesn't look appropriate. I'm not gonna say the sky is falling but still...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Agreed ... but, alas, anymore, that is what most of this site has become.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)It is IMO a breach of legal ethics on her part since DOJ has already notified a court that Inspectors General are preparing a referral to DOJ concerning his wife's use of her personal server, as well as his foundation being investigated.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Is if she was letting him know that a special prosecutor has been selected or will be.
I also think that would be the best case scenario for Clinton as well. If she is cleared. Having a special prosecutor in place would nullify a lot of the outrage.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)means to do it far away from any public scrutiny. The notion that Clinton went to a large airport to have a nefarious and unethical meeting with Loretta Lynch in full view of the public and press is ludicrous.
As was noted earlier, Lynch may be AG, but she is also a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President and whom Bill Clinton appointed to the bench during his administration. They are probably friends and surely have plenty to talk about that has nothing to do with the investigation.
I think folks are just looking for things to get worked up over.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Well there is an election going on and the political junkies are out.
That said. No matter how you slice it, its not a good look for either of them. Especially given the timing.
Nah, I didn't think you could back that one up.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)it has been posted on DU. Feel free to do so again, but facts are facts.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Link or it ain't so.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)Here's the post with the link, hand-served to you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2228857
Response to JudyM (Reply #29)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)See page 6 of this DOJ filing in court that states as support for withholding info in that court proceeding:
The FBI has stated publicly that it ... is
working on a referral [from] Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary
Clintons use of a private e-mail server.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379/FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.txt
A "referral" (a case prepared for DOJ to prosecute) in connection with her use of her server. The Inspectors General are the State Dept and the Intelligence Community. That is about as clear as it can be.
(Note to jury if this is alerted on: please see that this is a report of an actual court filing by DOJ, in response to a question about whether such a status statement was in fact made by DOJ).
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That is a text file on a blog site that has no basis in reality. It references no real DOJ filing that can be found on a real government site.
Link to the actual DOJ filing or this is a completely bogus claim.
Seriously, dude, if you think I'm going to buy a text file from Jason "24 Business Hours" Leopold as the actual text of a DOJ filing, you must think I would buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)Why don't you contact the clerk of court and report back, if that's the level of proof you need.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)one defines "referral". The question boils down to whether this was an acknowledgement by Justice that a criminal investigation targeting HRC is actually underway or whether this simply says that the IGs referred their findings a year ago for a more general follow up by the Bureau.
I don't think they want us to know the answer to that until the Intel Community IG and the Bureau Director actually get around to releasing their public reports. Now would be the time.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Link a court site or Leopold fabricated the document over 24 business hours.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)happening. Feel free to prove he fabricated it -- easy enough by calling the clerk of court.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Here's a more complete excerpt of that page of the gov't's court filing: Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 12
It is the defendant's (government's) filing, as the title page shows: DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
pending investigation. Id. ¶ 18. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and is
working on a referral (from) Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary
Clintons use of a private e-mail server. Id. ¶ 15 (quoting Oversight of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 32
(2015) (statement of FBI Director James Comey)). However, (b)eyond Director
Comeys acknowledgment of the security referral from the Inspectors General of the
Intelligence Community and the Department of State, the FBI has not and cannot publicly
acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation
without adversely affecting the investigation. Id.
It can be characterized either way.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But the poster misinterpreted the quote. What it repeats is only what has been publicly stated: that the FBI is conducting an investigation into the subject at issue and that the FBI received referrals to investigate from two inspectors general, one from a intelligence agency and one from state.
The filing also says they filed an in camera ex parte explanation for why they cannot comply.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It is a text file posted by Jason Leopold. Given his history, it could have been edited any number of ways or even fabricated in whole.
I will only trust it if a link is provided to an actual government site with the document.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)for which it is a party on some website.
It's a publicly accessible document filed in a federal case signed by Assistant AGs. You may not like it, but it is real.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It cannot be trusted.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)the DOJ drafted, signed and filed it in a publicly accessible database.
It makes no difference whatsoever if you choose to disbelieve a simple fact.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The poster linked to a text file on a non-government site.
That cannot be trusted.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Go here: pacer.gov
Go to DC District court, enter 15-cv-2117 as the case name, document 12. Probably a fee.
Seriously, you will need another argument, the filing is real.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Link or it's phony.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)becuase you apparently are unfamiliar with court filings.
You can't "link" to a filing in a federal case. You have to access the pacer database and retrieve it. That is what is meant by "publicly accessible."
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)An assertion was made, a link was requested, and a link to a random text file on a blog's site was claimed as proof, which it is not. Anybody can publish any document on any non-government web site and claim it is anything they desire.
So no, it is an obvious phony prima facie.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Here is a link for you where someone with an account downloaded the filing and uploaded as a PDF:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310687347/DOJ-Filing-on-FBI-Investigation
okasha
(11,573 posts)this is a civil, not a criminal, case. The state or the federal government is the opposition in a criminal case.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Leopold sued the DOJ for access to public records. The DOJ filed this document to argue why it cannot produce and should not be required to produce the records requested.
The DOJ said that the records are subject to an FBI investigation which could be compromised by disclosure.
okasha
(11,573 posts)this is not necessarily a criminal investigation, and it tells us nothing we don't already know.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)the Inspectors General in Intelligence and State.
Another federal judge has stated on the record that Pagliano's immunity is subject to a criminal investigation. Not sure if any of that is new to you.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Nor is it new that at least two other candidates' only chance of success lies in Hillary being hauled off the political stage in handcuffs.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I posted the case and document number, above.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I'm certain the former President considers her as not just a colleague, but as a friend.
I'm also certain that at some point she would speak to the former President regarding the server since the server belonged to him.
Your dislike of Hillary Clinton is causing you bias and leading you to buy into tabloid type conspiracy theories. There is no there, there. Even Trey Gowdy would not propose such nonsense.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)you might want to buy... get real.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)it would be in regards to the fact that it was former President Clinton's server.
This whole investigation is wrapping up. The conclusion is not going to be what you dream it to be.
Silliest non-scandal ever.
JudyM
(29,185 posts)I just use common sense.
But if you want to carry on with a theory that is even kookier than what Trey Gowdy attempts, have at it.
kacekwl
(7,010 posts)gossip and rumor mongering. Bad move .
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)the show in the OP, it showed where Mark Halprin of Bloomberg News (who is no friend of the Clintons) said that the two were very good friends and their friendship went back years. While I think Bill Clinton showed poor judgment, I also believe that nothing nafarious happened on that aircraft parked at the airport of two of the most highly profiled people in the US that couldn't have happened in a private phone conversation that took two minutes and would have been witnessed by no one.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)DemFromPittsburgh
(102 posts)Zambero
(8,962 posts)If so, then Joe S. should not lose too much sleep, not that he ever has.
BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I was concerned by the appearance of Bernie's vatican visit because of the implications of influence involved there. But fair is fair. I think this was one of Bill's more terrible ideas. Even if it was completely innocent, it just looks terrible and gives both the crazy right wingers and those who are still fighting the nominee talking points for months. Bill has certainly helped Hillary's career but this is not one of those instances.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I don't always love his choices. I very much doubt he jumped on the plane and said, "don't prosecute my wife," but why give her worst critics ammo like this? The ever-varying polls aside, this is her election to lose and it always was. Trump's appeal is waning by the minute. I have the max 5,000 Facebook friends and see all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. A lot of them have battled it out over Hillary versus Bernie. The only ones on that friend's list who support Trump are nearly always in some embattled position among their friends or relatives and half the time are either embarrassed to admit supporting him or they constantly pretend that they didn't know he's spoken against gays or whatever else I've thrown at them. No matter how many times i repeat the same item to them, It's always, "I didn't know he took that position." Now my friend's list isn't a slice of everyone but it does seem pretty indicative of a lot of what I've seen out there. I very much want Hillary to win, but if she screws this up, it's on her. She should step it up and be everything that moron isn't and not give anyone a single reason to doubt her.
madamesilverspurs
(15,798 posts)he's still bound to refrain from discussing certain things publicly. So of course they met privately to confer about what's really happening on board the mother ship that's hidden at Area 51 . . .
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)According to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter, the former president saw Lynch's plane on the tarmac and walked onto her aircraft. Lynch's FBI security detail did not stop Clinton and he proceeded to initiate an extended conversation that included discussion of grandchildren. Lynch was surprised to see Clinton walking onto her plane, the official said, and no Justice Department business was discussed.
Speaking at a news conference in Phoenix on Tuesday, Lynch confirmed the meeting and denied the two spoke about any matter pending before the Justice Department or the Benghazi probe. She also said the former president "did not raise anything" about an ongoing case or anything of that nature.
Bad bad optics. Why did he need to speak to Lynch so urgently .... about local policing?
JudyM
(29,185 posts)multiple cases likely coming up before her, and the simple act of visiting her (wink, wink) sent a clear message. This should be on the front pages as it is speaks volumes and is also very likely a breach of legal ethics on her part to not have kicked him off the plane. The only way this is ok now is if she releases an unredacted vid of the entire interaction; um, not likely.
840high
(17,196 posts)BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)BREAKING: "Judicial Watch asks Justice Department's Inspector General to investigate airport meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch"
Kingofalldems
(38,419 posts)Judicial Watch is a right wing Trump supporting organization.
840high
(17,196 posts)they met.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)This is a serious breach of legal and prosecutorial ethics put forth by bar associations and the DOJ.
The organizations are right wing, but any organization or individual is entitled to review all government papers including e-mails unless withheld for security reasons or ethical reasons, such as attorney-client and attorney work product privilege. The legislation that gives us all the right is called the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and has been around for some time.
The FOIA allows you as an individual to see your government in action. It is the records equivalent of open meetings laws that state and local governments have. It has been used by both conservatives and liberals over the years.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Went out to dinner last night and EVERYONE was talking about it!!!!
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)...say that employees should avoid even giving the appearance that an ethical violation has occurred. This was just a terrible idea all around. If the two wanted to talk briefly they should have just done it out and open in the public.
14. Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.
5 C.F.R 2635.101 (b)
An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.
5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)
JudyM
(29,185 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Why is it when a Dem wants to socialize, they must have some insidious agenda...but when GOPers want to drop a body in a deep river, everything is always peaches?
So what. He meant to talk to her about something and he did. I'll cry more about it when I see even ONE GOPer ever called onto the carpet for...well just about anything.
She wasn't about to kick him off her plane, that would have been stupid. She handled it correctly imo.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)....had he wanted to talk to her about the FBI case and no one would have ever known. What a bunch of horse hockey.
What angers me is those pushing the insinuations and acting like, "who me" in attempt get around DU rules.
They should teach lessons on how to disparage the Democratic nominee while pretending not to do so.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So she would sit there when he visits her in her plane in broad daylight talking to him for 30 minutes without once saying even saying "look, this doesn't look good" and she wouldn't take her a call from him when no one else would know it was happening? Totally illogical!
Why are you interested in this? Are you suddenly concerned about Hillary after all the crap you threw at her here on DU? Or are you still interested in tearing down the Clintons?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You made an assumption, I offered a counter. You don't need to make it personal, stick with me on the issue. New TOS!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Enough said.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)showed your simple assumption could easily be erroneous.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And those that don't have a long history to trying to tear down the party's nominee and want to continue to fight primary battles after the primaries over.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Good luck to you.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,419 posts)and call Lynch, not meet her in public.
Only desperate Trump supporters are hyping this nonsense.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)A strange thing is uniting Democrats and Republicans in Washington: the widespread disapproval of a meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch speaks at a June 22 news conference in Washington.
Politics
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Met Amid Email Investigation
Lynch told reporters that the impromptu conversation on her government aircraft in Phoenix on Monday centered on social issues, from talk of grandchildren and Clinton's golf game to their recent travels. Nothing came up, the attorney general said, about any ongoing Justice Department investigations.
But the chat took place in the midst of an FBI investigation into the security of Hillary Clinton's private email server, which she used to conduct government business as secretary of state. And that's creating a major appearance problem for the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House and the top federal prosecutor in the country.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I recognize you a Sanders supporter who wrote stuff like "Yeah fuck that economic justice shit!" (And that was one of your nicer posts.) Are you still trying to re-fight the primary battles while pretending to obey the new DU rules. Stop it nobody cares anymore. I certainly don't care what Sanders does or doesn't do. He is a non-factor as far as I'm concerned.
My point, if you weren't able to grasp it, is that Bill Clinton wanted to really talk to the Attorney General about his wife's involvement in an FBI case, all he had to do was call her at home and no one but the two of them would have known about it. He didn't have to board her plane in broad daylight to talk to her, except if he just wanted to pay a polite social visit. Anything else is wild speculation which plays into Republican talking points.
840high
(17,196 posts)else. I don't use the F word.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)To that end, she probably wouldn't take a call from Bill, hence the unannounced visit.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)She would have said, "Bill, I know you mean no harm, but I'm concerned about how this conversation could be perceived. Let's change the subject (or, let's get together after the election, or something else).
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I respect Lynch as a professional. I think bill was out of line and what he did looks bad.
okasha
(11,573 posts)snot
(10,496 posts)If he phoned her, the NSA and possibly others could get it. If they talk in person in a private place, there's no worry about that.
I'm not reaching any conclusions; just saying the appearances are not worth it, just to say hello.
coco77
(1,327 posts)Bill was going to be a problem and this is just the beginning.
dflprincess
(28,071 posts)He's not stupid, he had to know this was a dumb stunt.
oasis
(49,321 posts)They act accordingly.
Lance Bass esquire
(671 posts)Trey Boy Howdy Gowdy is firing off memos to his Clinton gate staff.
We back in business fellas.
Stupid move on Bills part but don't think its the game changer media spoke holes are gloming onto tonight.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)problem with GOPers and the far left.
Anywho, HRC for the win!
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)spooky3
(34,401 posts)Come on--there are so many witnesses at an airport--he's not too stupid to know how to try to communicate with Lynch in a way where he would be unlikely to be detected.
I see Lawrence O'Donnell again indulged his Clinton Hate by making a big deal about this and having guests talk about how inappropriate it was because of how it looked. I wish he would spend this time on trying to dig up actual facts of things that matter, for example, about Trump Institute, the Trump tax returns or other evidence of fraud, etc.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bill entered her plane, unannounced.
He apparently needed to see her face to face, privately for half an hour, appearances be damned.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)If there were not witnesses, there were no "appearances" to worry about.
I'm sick of innuendo. When facts clearly show bad behavior, I'll be more interested.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)He entered the plane unannounced and uninvited and spoke to her and her husband for half an hour.
It was a stupid unforced error that shifts the narrative.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Do you know what that word means?
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)If so, do you have a shred of evidence?
If not, then what is your problem?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I believe exactly what she said. I don't have evidence of anything and haven't claimed anything improper was discussed. Perhaps you are confusing me with another.
My point is simple: it was unnecessary and it looks bad. Unforced error. I take Lynch at her word.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Instead of meeting her openly in public. Geez.
betsuni
(25,374 posts)Then I realized it was another Loretta but still don't know why the big deal. A Clinton does something human and it turns into yet another episode of The Clinton Evil Conspiracy Theory Show.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)if he felt like it.
Instead, he greets her openly at the airport. What a way to conspire!
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I doubt anything corrupt actually went down. If he were meeting her to try to influence the investigation he would have been more discrete about it. But tactically, it was just stupid. Now if the FBI clears Hillary there will be more questions about whether the investigation was compromised, and it won't give her a clean slate like it should have. I don't know what Bill Clinton was thinking.
aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)When you can board the AGs plane uninvited you are showing that you are more powerful than the AG.
I can't imagine there is another spouse of someone under investigation who could do it.
Its really a classic move that business people use all the time to remind people who is in charge.
Now maybe that wasn't Bill's intention at all, but it definitely could function that way.