Is Loretta Lynch an incompetent, or just another political crook and liar?

[eohrnberger]

Do you really believe the corrupt Obama administration will allow Her majesty Hillary to be "brought down?" If the fix isn't in, how come Obama has endorsed her majesty and has been campaigning for her? Doesn't he realize what that will do to his legacy if he allows her to be brought down?

The fact that Obama endorsed Hillary already says that he thinks she won't be indicted, much to pity. By all rights, her actions certainly seems to have warranted it.

 

[Enola]

The fact that Obama endorsed Hillary already says that he thinks she won't be indicted, much to pity. By all rights, her actions certainly seems to have warranted it.

None of anything matters. Hillary has already bought her place as POTUS and the corruptness will continue. We, the people, may speak, but we have no say. It's quite obvious.

 

[TheGoverness]

The fact that Obama endorsed Hillary already says that he thinks she won't be indicted, much to pity. By all rights, her actions certainly seems to have warranted it.

Man, I have a feeling Hillary isn't going to be indicted. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[eohrnberger]

Man, I have a feeling Hillary isn't going to be indicted. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah. Pretty low, the country has sunk.

 

[humbolt]

Yeah. Pretty low, the country has sunk.

The question begging for an answer is whether our leaders are a reflection of the country as a whole, or not. If so, then we have to ask if we can recover from the last few decades, or not. I'd say we can, but if current events are an accurate portrayal of our condition, maybe not. AG Lynch has been thrown into things she's not prepared for, I think. That's a shame, but who knows when one's number will be called, and to what end? Lynch has had her credibility put to the test, and at the hands of Bill Clinton, who risks nothing. Nice guy.

 

[eohrnberger]

The question begging for an answer is whether our leaders are a reflection of the country as a whole, or not. If so, then we have to ask if we can recover from the last few decades, or not. I'd say we can, but if current events are an accurate portrayal of our condition, maybe not.

In my view, the current poor state of federal politics, the utter lack of morals, ethics and integrity, isn't a reflection of the electorate, as I believe the electorate to be far better than this. I believe it's the result of a distinct lack of accountability of the political elites to the electorate enabled by what was once justified as a free press which previously spoke truth to power, and now no longer does. This, combined with the electorate's lack of concern and engagement in politics, their lack of accurate and truthful reporting on politics as well as the electorate's general instant gratification and distraction by any number of other pursuits had enabled the political elites to get away with this continued decline in their conduct.

AG Lynch has been thrown into things she's not prepared for, I think. That's a shame, but who knows when one's number will be called, and to what end? Lynch has had her credibility put to the test, and at the hands of Bill Clinton, who risks nothing. Nice guy.

I disagree. When Lynch accepted the appointment to be Obama' AG, I think she knew quite well what sort of environment she was agreeing to and getting herself into, if not specifically what situations she would face but definitely the types of situations she'd be facing. After all, she had the example of AG Eric Holder's term in that role to observe as well as Obama's politicization of the DOJ. She knew, or should have known, exactly what she was getting herself into.

In Lynch's previous experience in NYC in a similar role I'm sure she faced similar situations as she faces and has faced as Obama's AG. None the less, she agreed to take on this role, and now she has to execute the demands of the office.

In agreeing to meet with Slick Willie, she knew exactly what this was going to do to her position and her public image. She could just as easily have NOT met with Bill, and could have avoided the entire besmirchment of her, her office, as well as the continued besmirchment of the DOJ. She elected to meet with Bill. She didn't have to.

 

[katzgar]

Is Loretta Lynch incompetent or is she just another political crook and liar?


If we are to believe that Lynch inadvertently met up with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac and only discussed Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren in the face of the FBI’s & Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s insecure e-mails and the Clinton’s Foundation operations, then shouldn’t we also believe that Loretta Lynch is either an incompetent for exposing herself to the illegal impropriety or a liar?

neither, you are demonizing someone that doesnt deserve it.

 

[humbolt]

In my view, the current poor state of federal politics, the utter lack of morals, ethics and integrity, isn't a reflection of the electorate, as I believe the electorate to be far better than this. I believe it's the result of a distinct lack of accountability of the political elites to the electorate enabled by what was once justified as a free press which previously spoke truth to power, and now no longer does. This, combined with the electorate's lack of concern and engagement in politics, their lack of accurate and truthful reporting on politics as well as the electorate's general instant gratification and distraction by any number of other pursuits had enabled the political elites to get away with this continued decline in their conduct.

Yup.

I disagree. When Lynch accepted the appointment to be Obama' AG, I think she knew quite well what sort of environment she was agreeing to and getting herself into, if not specifically what situations she would face but definitely the types of situations she'd be facing. After all, she had the example of AG Eric Holder's term in that role to observe as well as Obama's politicization of the DOJ. She knew, or should have known, exactly what she was getting herself into.

In Lynch's previous experience in NYC in a similar role I'm sure she faced similar situations as she faces and has faced as Obama's AG. None the less, she agreed to take on this role, and now she has to execute the demands of the office.

In agreeing to meet with Slick Willie, she knew exactly what this was going to do to her position and her public image. She could just as easily have NOT met with Bill, and could have avoided the entire besmirchment of her, her office, as well as the continued besmirchment of the DOJ. She elected to meet with Bill. She didn't have to.

Clinton appointed her to the AG position in NY. The bill for that promotion came due on the tarmac. She responded poorly to the situation. My opinion of her as a person will hinge on the outcome of the email thing and all the surrounding issues. My opinion of her as the AG was never high, but not so low as it may be shortly. We have come to expect such behavior from administration appointees for a long time, and they are all too willing to exploit such low expectations. Yes, these are political appointments, but when the politics over rules justice, we're in trouble. If she doesn't want to be a part of that, then all she has to do is make the decisions justice demands. It's not looking good so far.

 

[jimbo]

Is Loretta Lynch incompetent or is she just another political crook and liar?


If we are to believe that Lynch inadvertently met up with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac and only discussed Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren in the face of the FBI’s & Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s insecure e-mails and the Clinton’s Foundation operations, then shouldn’t we also believe that Loretta Lynch is either an incompetent for exposing herself to the illegal impropriety or a liar?

There's no reason she can't be both.

 

[polgara]

Yup.





Clinton appointed her to the AG position in NY. The bill for that promotion came due on the tarmac. She responded poorly to the situation. My opinion of her as a person will hinge on the outcome of the email thing and all the surrounding issues. My opinion of her as the AG was never high, but not so low as it may be shortly. We have come to expect such behavior from administration appointees for a long time, and they are all too willing to exploit such low expectations. Yes, these are political appointments, but when the politics over rules justice, we're in trouble. If she doesn't want to be a part of that, then all she has to do is make the decisions justice demands. It's not looking good so far.

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Very well said! :thumbs: Has she really agreed to anything that will make a difference in the outcome, though? It will be interesting to see what BHO does next, since he is running this show, and everyone involved knows it ...

 

[eohrnberger]

Yup.





Clinton appointed her to the AG position in NY. The bill for that promotion came due on the tarmac. She responded poorly to the situation. My opinion of her as a person will hinge on the outcome of the email thing and all the surrounding issues. My opinion of her as the AG was never high, but not so low as it may be shortly. We have come to expect such behavior from administration appointees for a long time, and they are all too willing to exploit such low expectations. Yes, these are political appointments, but when the politics over rules justice, we're in trouble. If she doesn't want to be a part of that, then all she has to do is make the decisions justice demands. It's not looking good so far.

Quite true. All political favors come due at some point, and this may very well be when the favor of Bill's appointing Lynch has come due.

Mission Impossible: Finding an honest, moral and ethical politician in Washington DC. The more everyone accepts this bad situation as incurable, the more everyone enables the same to continue unabated. But there's hope in the increasing numbers of the electorate that are 100% fed up with this. We'll have to see if this has the much needed effect on the elite politicians in DC or not, to change their behaviors, or get voted out.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Quite true. All political favors come due at some point, and this may very well be when the favor of Bill's appointing Lynch has come due.

Mission Impossible: Finding an honest, moral and ethical politician in Washington DC. The more everyone accepts this bad situation as incurable, the more everyone enables the same to continue unabated. But there's hope in the increasing numbers of the electorate that are 100% fed up with this. We'll have to see if this has the much needed effect on the elite politicians in DC or not, to change their behaviors, or get voted out.

Like the people who are fed up...are going to find people who will govern without being subjected to the same pressures present politicians face?

That is not going to happen.

The people who make it up the ladder to positions of power in government ARE LEADERS...leaders who have striven to attain the goals they have achieved.

THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS...and human beings see to themselves and their families first.

If you think you are going to develop a class of humans who will run the show and take all the abuse public officials take...

...and do it on the cheap...

...you are kidding yourself.

The ragers and ranters and anti-this and anti-that's...are not going to do anything to improve things. In fact, it may well be that they will make things worse.

That crowd got its way in the UK recently...and now are dealing with what may be seriously debilitating consequences.

 

[RetiredUSN]

 

[jet57]

Is Loretta Lynch incompetent or is she just another political crook and liar?


If we are to believe that Lynch inadvertently met up with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac and only discussed Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren in the face of the FBI’s & Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s insecure e-mails and the Clinton’s Foundation operations, then shouldn’t we also believe that Loretta Lynch is either an incompetent for exposing herself to the illegal impropriety or a liar?

She either of those. She's an appointee who has a lot to lose by doing anything that would be considered dishonest. Bill Clinton's timing was awful, and it certainly wasn't a "meeting" with any agenda, it was a visit and apparently Clinton is known for that. As I say though, his timing was awful, and it could be that he was trying to suck the right-wing into another witch hunt, and if that was the purpose, it payed off nicely.

Lynch saying that she wouldn't do it again, is only a reflection of the witch hunt factor.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Is Loretta Lynch incompetent or is she just another political crook and liar?


If we are to believe that Lynch inadvertently met up with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac and only discussed Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren in the face of the FBI’s & Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s insecure e-mails and the Clinton’s Foundation operations, then shouldn’t we also believe that Loretta Lynch is either an incompetent for exposing herself to the illegal impropriety or a liar?

I've heard AG Lynch speak and, personally, I believe her to be a very intelligent and well spoken individual.

As a consequence, I don't believe her to be incompetent but I do believe her to at best have a horrible sense of propriety and judgement and at worst to be a corrupt political hack, both of which should disqualify her from continuing in the position she currently holds.

 

[humbolt]

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Very well said! :thumbs: Has she really agreed to anything that will make a difference in the outcome, though? It will be interesting to see what BHO does next, since he is running this show, and everyone involved knows it ...

Who knows what Lynch has agreed to? I don't. I doubt the meeting was purely coincidence, but I don't know that either. Probably wasn't for Bill. I have no idea what one would say when a former president walks onto your plane. I don't have a plane. I do, however now have a sailboat again. I'm pretty sure I'd have to ask Bill how it's hanging. Seems to be in his ball park. Hmmm. Lots of unfortunate associations there, and all purely unintentional. I can assure you.

 

[polgara]

Who knows what Lynch has agreed to? I don't. I doubt the meeting was purely coincidence, but I don't know that either. Probably wasn't for Bill. I have no idea what one would say when a former president walks onto your plane. I don't have a plane. I do, however now have a sailboat again. I'm pretty sure I'd have to ask Bill how it's hanging. Seems to be in his ball park. Hmmm. Lots of unfortunate associations there, and all purely unintentional. I can assure you.

Some of the posters here seem to think it was a mistake for Bill to do what he did, using bad timing on his part as their reasoning since it was so close to her meeting with the FBI , but I'm not so sure about that. He knew exactly what he was doing, IMO, even though she may not have before she met with him - I believe she soon learned the reason for the visit. What a position to be put in! I don't doubt that a few minutes were spent on inquiring about grandchildren etc, since she would likely have brought the subject up herself in case she was queried, which she was, and was not put in a position of lying! However, while we don't know what else was discussed, they do. Whatever the reason, it was important to WJC and perhaps others we don't know about yet. Whatever... :shock:

You stated you had a sailboat again? What happened?

 

[eohrnberger]

Like the people who are fed up...are going to find people who will govern without being subjected to the same pressures present politicians face?

That is not going to happen.

The people who make it up the ladder to positions of power in government ARE LEADERS...leaders who have striven to attain the goals they have achieved.

You are correct in that the people in powerful position in government, leadership positions are leaders by definition. Yes, they will face political pressures, and the type of leaders they are determines how they respond to these political pressures that come with the role they have chosen to take on.

None of this excludes a politician from being honest, moral and ethical. I find it rather troubling that you seem to believe that it's an either or proposition. I maintain that it's not.

THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS...and human beings see to themselves and their families first.

What's this injection of non sequitur? Leaders can be honest, moral and ethical, and have families.

If you think you are going to develop a class of humans who will run the show and take all the abuse public officials take...

...and do it on the cheap...

...you are kidding yourself.

No, a new class of person doesn't have to be developed. Honest, moral and ethical leaders already exist in our midst, in fact, they run for office, all we have to do is vote them in. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that it is not possible to be both a leader and honest, moral and ethical at the same time.

The ragers and ranters and anti-this and anti-that's...are not going to do anything to improve things. In fact, it may well be that they will make things worse.

That crowd got its way in the UK recently...and now are dealing with what may be seriously debilitating consequences.

And more non sequitur.

 

[katzgar]

silly pointless thread

 

[Moot]

Is Loretta Lynch incompetent or is she just another political crook and liar?

How about neither?

If we are to believe that Lynch inadvertently met up with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac and only discussed Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren in the face of the FBI’s & Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s insecure e-mails and the Clinton’s Foundation operations, then shouldn’t we also believe that Loretta Lynch is either an incompetent for exposing herself to the illegal impropriety or a liar?

We don't know what they talked about. So why pretend that you do?

 

[Moot]

The Clinton crime family belongs behind bars.

Shouldn't they at least have committed a crime, first?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Like the people who are fed up...are going to find people who will govern without being subjected to the same pressures present politicians face?

That is not going to happen.

The people who make it up the ladder to positions of power in government ARE LEADERS...leaders who have striven to attain the goals they have achieved.

You are correct in that the people in powerful position in government, leadership positions are leaders by definition. Yes, they will face political pressures, and the type of leaders they are determines how they respond to these political pressures that come with the role they have chosen to take on.

None of this excludes a politician from being honest, moral and ethical. I find it rather troubling that you seem to believe that it's an either or proposition. I maintain that it's not.

You "maintain" all sorts of things, Eo.

I think you are being naive.

Replace every politician alive...and you will soon have the replacements doing the same thing as the people they replaced.

But dream on, if you want.

What's this injection of non sequitur? Leaders can be honest, moral and ethical, and have families.

You seem to think they are not being so. This is not a non sequitur. The fact that they do things that benefit them and their families, sometimes at the expense of the general public, is not irrelevant to this conversation.

No, a new class of person doesn't have to be developed. Honest, moral and ethical leaders already exist in our midst, in fact, they run for office, all we have to do is vote them in. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that it is not possible to be both a leader and honest, moral and ethical at the same time.

Oh, that's all. Just vote the right people in.

Do they have the words "The right people" stamped on their foreheads?

Do you think the people you consider "the right people" are the same people I would consider "the right people?'

C'mon. "The simplistic solution" should be beneath you by now.

And more non sequitur.

Okay, pretend my comments are that.

Perhaps some day you will see the truth. I can only hope that day comes for you.

 

[eohrnberger]

You "maintain" all sorts of things, Eo.

I think you are being naive.

So what you are saying is that every leader is dishonest, amoral and unethical? That's a very dim view of things, don't you think?

Replace every politician alive...and you will soon have the replacements doing the same thing as the people they replaced.

But dream on, if you want.

I never said anything about replacing every politician, but given your view that all politicians are dishonest, amoral and unethical, I can understand why you'd say that.

You seem to think they are not being so. This is not a non sequitur. The fact that they do things that benefit them and their families, sometimes at the expense of the general public, is not irrelevant to this conversation.

"do things that benefit them and their families, sometimes at the expense of the general public" is the definition of political corruption.

You accept it. I do not. By accepting political corruption you are only enabling it to continue to the detriment of all.

Oh, that's all. Just vote the right people in.

Do they have the words "The right people" stamped on their foreheads?

Do you think the people you consider "the right people" are the same people I would consider "the right people?'

C'mon. "The simplistic solution" should be beneath you by now.

It's not hard to see that Hill, Bill, Obama and his administration are all corrupt and have compromised Lynch in the process, it spreads like a contagion.

This latest example of the FBI apparently having the grounds to criminally charge Hillary, and yet also the appearance that they are being politically thwarted from doing so. It's pretty plain to see, wouldn't you say?

Government needs to avoid to appear such as this, lest the electorate cease to believe in their government, which, given the present polling results, it seems they already have.

Yes, sometimes the simplest solutions are the best solutions, and yes, I think that honest, moral, ethical and principled leaders would be recognized as such by all of the electorate, and while not agreeing with them all the time, could and would support them and their actions more often than not.

Okay, pretend my comments are that.

Perhaps some day you will see the truth. I can only hope that day comes for you.

Rather than me coming to the point to accept political corruption, such as you have, I'd much rather that more people would stop accepting it and enabling it to exist by accepting it.

 

[humbolt]

Some of the posters here seem to think it was a mistake for Bill to do what he did, using bad timing on his part as their reasoning since it was so close to her meeting with the FBI , but I'm not so sure about that. He knew exactly what he was doing, IMO, even though she may not have before she met with him - I believe she soon learned the reason for the visit. What a position to be put in! I don't doubt that a few minutes were spent on inquiring about grandchildren etc, since she would likely have brought the subject up herself in case she was queried, which she was, and was not put in a position of lying! However, while we don't know what else was discussed, they do. Whatever the reason, it was important to WJC and perhaps others we don't know about yet. Whatever... :shock:

You stated you had a sailboat again? What happened?

I was forced to abandon any notion of sailing the last time I hurt my back. It has taken some eight years now, but I've improved enough physically that I can handle sailing again. Now I'm a small sail boat guy - no more big sloops and big water. I'm just grateful I can enjoy sailing again, even with a little boat tinkering around on small water. I probably can't hike out for seriously extended periods yet, but WTH. The wind and the water is enough.

 

[Frank Apisa]

So what you are saying is that every leader is dishonest, amoral and unethical? That's a very dim view of things, don't you think?



I never said anything about replacing every politician, but given your view that all politicians are dishonest, amoral and unethical, I can understand why you'd say that.



"do things that benefit them and their families, sometimes at the expense of the general public" is the definition of political corruption.

You accept it. I do not. By accepting political corruption you are only enabling it to continue to the detriment of all.



It's not hard to see that Hill, Bill, Obama and his administration are all corrupt and have compromised Lynch in the process, it spreads like a contagion.

This latest example of the FBI apparently having the grounds to criminally charge Hillary, and yet also the appearance that they are being politically thwarted from doing so. It's pretty plain to see, wouldn't you say?

Government needs to avoid to appear such as this, lest the electorate cease to believe in their government, which, given the present polling results, it seems they already have.

Yes, sometimes the simplest solutions are the best solutions, and yes, I think that honest, moral, ethical and principled leaders would be recognized as such by all of the electorate, and while not agreeing with them all the time, could and would support them and their actions more often than not.



Rather than me coming to the point to accept political corruption, such as you have, I'd much rather that more people would stop accepting it and enabling it to exist by accepting it.

If you see Loretta Lynch (and Bill & Hillary Clinton) as negatively as you do...I would suggest you not vote for the Democratic Party candidate in the next election.

I will...and will do so with pleasure.