HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » How everyone looks bad be...

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:49 AM

 

How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch

Bill Clinton has made a mess. It was either out of foolish indifference or plain foolishness, but it has created a terrible moment for his wife and the Democrats, and for President Obama and perceptions of the integrity of his administration.

Clinton’s private, unplanned meeting with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch at the Phoenix airport last week, coming at a time when the Justice Department should be nearing completion of its examination of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails as secretary of state, will inevitably — and negatively — affect public attitudes about that investigation.

For a politician long praised for his political smarts, it was a striking error of judgment on Clinton’s part to walk to Lynch’s plane for any kind of conversation. It was a similarly huge lapse on the part of the attorney general, who was appointed by Clinton as a U.S. attorney in 1999, to allow him to come aboard for any kind of conversation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-bill-clinton-met-with-loretta-lynch/2016/07/02/a7807adc-3ff4-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html


Revered by even Ken Starr as “the most gifted politician of the Baby Boomer generation” - Bill Clinton sure stepped in with this Lynch fiasco. Why risk even the appearance of impropriety? What was there to gain?

Was the sense of privilege was just too high to contain?

45 replies, 2768 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch (Original post)
demwing Jul 2016 OP
okieinpain Jul 2016 #1
merrily Jul 2016 #15
okieinpain Jul 2016 #44
merrily Jul 2016 #45
Angry Dragon Jul 2016 #2
demwing Jul 2016 #3
Angry Dragon Jul 2016 #4
merrily Jul 2016 #16
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #34
gordianot Jul 2016 #5
Wellstone ruled Jul 2016 #6
elfin Jul 2016 #7
Demit Jul 2016 #8
demwing Jul 2016 #9
senz Jul 2016 #12
merrily Jul 2016 #19
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #35
merrily Jul 2016 #18
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #27
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #36
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #39
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #40
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #41
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #42
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #43
TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #10
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #37
msongs Jul 2016 #11
merrily Jul 2016 #14
merrily Jul 2016 #13
Demit Jul 2016 #20
merrily Jul 2016 #21
Demit Jul 2016 #22
merrily Jul 2016 #23
Demit Jul 2016 #24
merrily Jul 2016 #25
R. Daneel Olivaw Jul 2016 #38
merrily Jul 2016 #17
Loki Jul 2016 #26
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #28
Loki Jul 2016 #29
BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #32
riversedge Jul 2016 #30
brush Jul 2016 #31
Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #33

Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:51 AM

1. just my opinion, but the whole "their" deal is pissing me off

this is no one's fault but big dog clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:01 AM

15. You know that how? Be as pissed off as you want, but I'm guessing the Clintons still speak to each

other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 12:29 PM

44. not sure what you mean by "you know that how". it was in the

article. president b. clinton, had his plane wait till the AG plane landed then he used his clout to walk over to her plane un-announced to speak with her about his grand babies and golf game. people keep saying they both (pres b. clinton and AG Lynch) should have known better, I say bullshiY it's all pres. b. clintons fault, AG Lynch had nothing to do with this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okieinpain (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 10:00 PM

45. I agree that, from all reports, AG Lynch did not have anything to do with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:56 AM

2. I think this is pure republican bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:58 AM

3. And if a Republican politician did it, what would we say?

 

probably the same thing, but for different reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:02 PM

4. I don't think so

Republicans are so use to lying and to game the system they think everyone does it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:02 AM

16. How's that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:26 PM

34. Of course you do, and bless your heart.

 

The republicans must have made Clinton and Lynch meet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:03 PM

5. I really do not think there is much that can be said beyond the obvious.

What were you thinking? vs Were you thinking?

This is what was said to my brother after he took a two day vacation in the family car the day after he got his drivers license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:06 PM

6. Bill is a Social Butterfly,

 

and that keeps getting his ass into trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:19 PM

7. The incident tells me that the Clintons are REALLY worried about the out

Thinking he could schmooze Lynch in order to repair, deny, or somehow skirt the report was a huge mistake.

If their inside FBI contacts alerted them to a coming disaster, that may have prompted this contact. If so - big backfire. I really like Lynch. I no longer like Bill at all.

This whole thing is horrible - election-losing horrible on so many fronts - especially the optics reflecting on judgement and character, no matter how mild compared to Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:27 PM

8. Funny how they never mention Lynch's husband was there.

 

So Dan Balz wants to imply that the Attorney General thinks so little of her professional ethics that she would casually discuss an active case in front of her husband?

This is not a "fiasco." This is a nothingburger. We are very wrong to adopt the rightwing faux outrage. And this Dan Balz piece is the last in a long line of insinuations and innuendo by the Washington press and their "Clinton rules."

Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:42 PM

9. Perhaps you would prefer Ryan Grim's HuffPo piece: "Man, Bill Clinton Is An Idiot"

 

On Monday, Clinton was on a tarmac in Phoenix when he learned that the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would soon be on the same tarmac. He delayed his flight so he could try to meet with her. He asked for a meeting, boarded her plane and chatted for about 30 minutes.

On Friday, MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart asked Lynch if there was one important thing she wished former Attorney General Eric Holder had told her. “Where the lock on the plane door was,” Lynch deadpanned.

<snip>

The fallout from the meeting was predictable: Lynch has said she regrets sitting down with Clinton and wouldn’t do it again, given a do-over. And she has said that she will not overrule career prosecutors if they recommend an indictment. Whatever decision the Justice Department ends up making is now clouded in (even more) suspicion.

And perhaps the greatest damage was done to Lynch. It must be awfully difficult to turn down a meeting request from a former president, the spouse of the likely future president, especially for somebody who may have future political ambitions. Did Lynch have aspirations for the Supreme Court? If so, what Clinton just did casts a pall over whatever chance she had.

And for what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-is-an-idiot_us_5776956be4b04164640fbfd7

Lynch regrets the meeting, which looks to be an imposition on her time and her good graces by Bill Clinton.

Disgusting indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:32 PM

12. Yesterday, NPR reported it as "a chance encounter on the tarmac"

 

and seemed puzzled at the excitement over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:30 AM

19. Chance? LOL! Leave it to NPR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:36 PM

35. NO, seriously. Clinton was just ambling around on the tarmac and bumped into Lynch.

 


Good times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:29 AM

18. It doesn't matter what they discussed, just as it didn't matter what Scalia and Cheney discussed

when they went hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:19 PM

27. "Rightwing faux outrage". That's what this is. Period. Too bad too many on this board who are happy

to adopt anything negative about the Clintons will tout this nothingburger as the latest truth. I, as a Democrat who supports Democrats, find this "willingness" by some people to carry water for the Republican Party's political benefit downright appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:38 PM

36. Sounds like a conspiracy. You should alert the authorities.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 10:20 AM

39. Naw. Just stating the facts, R. Strange you have a problem with that. You'd otherwise not

have responded to my post if that weren't the case, so save yourself the trouble of denying it.

It appears I'm hitting too close to home for...some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:06 AM

40. LOL. If that's what you believe then run with it...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:13 AM

41. Just stating the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:25 AM

42. If ya sayso...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #42)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:28 AM

43. I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:52 PM

10. I believe Bill

will be facing health issues in the not-too-distant future.

His behavior at times makes me think he is losing it.

He needs to be kept on a very short leash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:40 PM

37. But will the short leash bring him to heel?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:12 PM

11. personal opinion = false premise not supported by fact - "how everyone looks bad..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 05:57 AM

14. Lynch said it made her look bad. Your criticism of posting unsupported personal opinion is ironic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 05:53 AM

13. The F.B.I. should interview him, since he warned about data vulnerability.

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Then again, would the FBI trust his testimony? I guess it's covered by spousal privilege anyway. He doesn't have to testify unless he wishes.

Bill Clinton, like every President, is a mixed bag. So are his alleged political gifts.

Hearing him discuss politics is a privilege. I could listen for hours. Watching him practice politics, though? Yes, he got elected twice. Yes, he was dubbed the Teflon President. However, his Vice President of two terms opted to campaign for President without him. (Whether that was a smart move or not in the opinion of DU is not the point. It was an unusual decision for Gore and his advisors to make--and it was not without reason).

The conversation with Lynch is not entirely dissimilar to his visiting polling places in Massachusetts on Super Tuesday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:42 AM

20. Nobody dubbed Clinton the Teflon President. That was Ronald Reagan.

 

Clinton was criticized from the word go. Which was why Al Gore made the tactical decision to not tie himself to Clinton. You are a little mixed up in your recollections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 07:27 AM

21. You are mistaken. Clinton was most definitely dubbed Teflon as well.

The New York Times, for one, dubbed him Teflon, even while he was running.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/03/opinion/clinton-the-teflon-candidate.html

The Baltimore Sun called Clinton the Teflon President, too.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-08-18/news/1997230070_1_teflon-president-ronald-reagan-white-house

So did many others. See the hits returned by this search. https://www.google.com/search?q=Teflon+President+Bill+Clinton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


The term was even part of a book written about Clinton's political career:
Bill Clinton...A Life of Politics, Scandal and Controversy: From "Boy Governor" to "Teflon Bill" and Beyond (Recent Presidents Book 2) https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Clinton-Politics-Scandal-Controversy-ebook/dp/B0083EOHI6#navbar


Also, Teflon does not refer to someone who is never criticized, but to someone from whom criticism slides off without doing harm. That was certainly Clinton as a candidate and a President. He was elected and re-elected and his popularity ratings also rose after impeachment. Very teflon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_(nickname)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:49 AM

22. Your cites don’t say what you think they say.

 

Most refer back explicitly to who actually was THE Teflon President, and that was Ronald Reagan.

The NYT op-ed—not the NYT itself, but an op-ed by Haley Barbour, Reagan’s political director with an obvious axe to grind—is titled “the Teflon Candidate.”

The Sun article refers to Clinton as “another" Teflon President and “a" Teflon president.

Even your Google search belies your thesis. The first entry, Wikipedia, notes that “The Teflon President” was a nickname coined for Reagan.

Yes, as Wikipedia notes, many politicians etc have been called Teflon something or other, but those nicknames all came after Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan was the only one whose nickname was The Teflon President. Bill Clinton’s nickname was “Slick Willie.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:57 AM

23. You are mistaken again. It's easy to say a poster is wrong if you pretend

pretend the poster said something they never said.

Your post 22 reads as though I claimed that Reagan was not called the Teflon President, or that I said Reagan was not called that before Clinton was. However, I never said either of those things. To the contrary. I said that Clinton was called that as well . That is right in the subject line of Reply 21.

Originally, I said only that Clinton was called "Teflon" and, as the links in my prior post proved, people did call him "Teflon, both while he was a candidate and after he became President.

You, however, claimed flatly that no one ever called Clinton the Teflon President, as follows:

Nobody dubbed Clinton the Teflon President.


However, that claim of yours is incorrect, as the links in my prior post proved.

You've now twice incorrectly claimed I was wrong. Something tells me you'll go for a third time, but the posts and the links speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 11:43 AM

24. Your post #13: "Yes, he was dubbed the Teflon President."

 

Unless you go back and edit it out, that is a direct quote from you—no "as well" there—and that is what I responded to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 01:58 PM

25. As predicted, you're now 0 for 3. I provided links showing he WAS dubbed that.

Nor have I denied that I said he was dubbed that as well (as Reagan). What I never said that Clinton was the first or only President dubbed Teflon, as your prior post impled. My Reply 23 was quite clear on what I said versus what I had not said.

I posted that Clinton had been called the Teflon President; I proved that Clinton had been called the Teflon President and, in proving that, I proved false your assertion that Clinton was never dubbed the Teflon President by anybody. No clue what the point of your Reply 24 is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 10:47 PM

38. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)


Response to demwing (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:14 PM

26. Another lame outrage,

no Benghazi, no FBI indictment, they have to have something to get their fucking pants in a twist over. This is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:22 PM

28. And then they're silent about the Federal lawsuit filed against Trump for allegedly sexually

abusing a 12 year old and a 13 year old. God forbid they report on that scandal - a scandal with teeth due to eyewitnesses who were there and who saw it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:25 PM

29. And the Trump University fraud charges.......crickets.

But OMG Bill said hey to Loretta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:35 PM

32. Haven't heard a darn thing about that lately, either. It's all Lynch and Bill. Lynch and Bill. Lynch

and Bill - 24/7.

Once again I'm seeing a repeat of the 1990's witch hunt and a repetition of the 2012 presidential primary and G.E. elections - with the Democrat getting the LEAST positive coverage while Republicans get the MOST.

I won't be falling for this crap and urge fellow Democrats and people who care about moving this country forward not to, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:29 PM

30. Your OP matches up with the RW media-and some msm, esp this

comment. They have repeated it over and over for days now. You learn well.


......
Was the sense of privilege was just too high to contain?.............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:29 PM

31. TarmacGahzi is not much of a scandal

But neither was Whitewater, Vince Foster's "murder", travelgate, Benghazi and emailgate and on and on and on.

It was a chance public encounter, not a surreptitiously planned clandestine meeting. Clinton and Lynch are both attorneys and know what legal boundaries not to cross. Pleasantries were exchanged between Clinton and Lynch and her husband and that's about it.

What people are ignoring, or not thinking about at all is that the meeting on the plane, being publicly known and all, made the FBI and DOJ get off the pot and bring an end to stringing out endlessly this latest Clinton non-scandal.

What was it, 3, maybe 4 days later the FBI finally ended this by interviewing Clinton? And of course, as many of us have been saying over and over and over on these email threads, there will be no charges as Clinton was never the target of the probe anyway.

Those saying the Big Dog is losing it better think again. Maybe his intention all along, because he knew there is no chance of an indictment, was to get the some traction on this and get rid of this emailghazi hanging over the campaign's head.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 04:40 PM

33. Perhaps the Big Dog really thinks his don't stink.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread