Lynch to Remove Herself From Decision Over Clinton Emails, Official Says [W:225] (2 Viewers)

[Frank Apisa]

If hillary wins there will be 30 conservative state seceding and province alberta will secede from canada and join them .. WELCOME TO THE CONSERVATIVE STATES OF AMERICA.. and this will make liberalism end in misery world wide

That calls for a chorus of the Loonie Tunes theme:

 

[Risky Thicket]

I agree - you can't complain about government if you don't complain about this situation.

I don't know if anything nefarious happened here, but that's not the point. The appearance of special treatment, special access, is so strong that it calls into question the integrity of the Justice Department. The integrity of the Justice Department, in my view, is more important than the Attorney General herself. I don't fault Bill Clinton, at least not for this. I fault Loretta Lynch for utter stupidity and allowing herself and her department to be so compromised.

Yes, the appearance of special treatment. In that she did meet with him I would submit Clinton did receive special treatment. Sadly, for decades the US Office of Attorney General has been plagued by questions of integrity. Either you do the correct thing as AG or you don't. At the very least it was unbelievably bad judgement for Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton just as it was bad judgement for her not to recuse herself, just as it was bad judgement to announce that the outcome of the investigation will be left to subordinates. She has put herself in a position where even the most objective of people must seriously question Lynch's competency or honesty.

As for Bill Clinton. We've always known that Bill is slicker than snot on a doorknob. Bill's going to do whatever is best for Bill. He always has. Everyone else be damned. Of course Clinton took the opportunity to meet with Lynch. It couldn't hurt him nor could it hurt Hillary to have Bill meet with Lynch in the middle of an unprecedented investigation of presidential candidate. We might well assume Bill believed the meeting would be helpful to him.

Lynch, being the working legal professional in a highly visible position where impartiality and integrity should be paramount, could have refused at the outset to meet with Bill Clinton. Their meeting is all on Lynch. Bill is going to sneak and worm and aww-shucks his way into and out of whatever. Loretta didn't know that? I think she did and I think most people expect better from their government.

 

[eohrnberger]

That calls for a chorus of the Loonie Tunes theme:

Careful. Those in glass houses and all.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Careful. Those in glass houses and all.

I am always careful.

And, I attempt never to pass by an opportunity to have a bit of fun.

There are folk here in this forum who ought to have a bit more fun...and ought to stop taking themselves so seriously.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, the appearance of special treatment. In that she did meet with him I would submit Clinton did receive special treatment. Sadly, for decades the US Office of Attorney General has been plagued by questions of integrity. Either you do the correct thing as AG or you don't. At the very least it was unbelievably bad judgement for Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton just as it was bad judgement for her not to recuse herself, just as it was bad judgement to announce that the outcome of the investigation will be left to subordinates. She has put herself in a position where even the most objective of people must seriously question Lynch's competency or honesty.

As for Bill Clinton. We've always known that Bill is slicker than snot on a doorknob. Bill's going to do whatever is best for Bill. He always has. Everyone else be damned. Of course Clinton took the opportunity to meet with Lynch. It couldn't hurt him nor could it hurt Hillary to have Bill meet with Lynch in the middle of an unprecedented investigation of presidential candidate. We might well assume Bill believed the meeting would be helpful to him.

Those are good points. It calls to question what Bill would be most concerned about, and in this, given his ecocentric nature as you called out, makes one think that the topic may not have been Hillary at all (you think he'd throw her under the bus?), and may very well have been centered around the Clinton Foundation slush fund and his dealings with it and for it. Multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars are speaking fees, after all.

Lynch, being the working legal professional in a highly visible position where impartiality and integrity should be paramount, could have refused at the outset to meet with Bill Clinton. Their meeting is all on Lynch. Bill is going to sneak and worm and aww-shucks his way into and out of whatever. Loretta didn't know that? I think she did and I think most people expect better from their government.

It is rather surprising that Lynch didn't turn Bill down flat. With such a meeting that's come to be public knowledge she's doing nothing but getting the losing end of the deal. What on God's green Earth did she gain? I can't see it, and I can't see why she would have agreed to meet with him under any circumstances. All she'd do is lose. Lose her image of integrity in the public eye. Lose her image of impartiality in the public eye.

The only thing I can think of is that she's playing for a nice juicy, 'do nothing' appointment in the Clinton Foundation after her term as AG comes to an end, and that's about it.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am always careful.

And, I attempt never to pass by an opportunity to have a bit of fun.

There are folk here in this forum who ought to have a bit more fun...and ought to stop taking themselves so seriously.

Having fun and being serious are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be stepping in it more often than what could be warranted as 'being careful'. Perhaps a touch more seriousness would do you some good.

 

[matchlight]

Only by the thinnest of possible veils. The motives for this move appear to be overly transparent, and, well, Obama has promised / claimed to have the most transparent government in history, but I don't think he meant transparent motives.



I'd say that some voters would claim this and others would claim what you just outlined.



The other possibility would be that the most damming of the FBI investigation evidence would be leaked, perhaps to WikiLeaks?

Regardless, should the Hillary presidency come to pass, it'll be a disaster. All of these pre-election scandals, her long standing track record of corruption, bad decisions, and bad judgement, and her very high negatives, they all have the impact of watering down, if not eliminating, her political capital, political capital that presidents use to actually govern and accomplish anything. So the course is already pretty much set that hers will be a disastrous presidency, ineffectual in the extreme, due to this lack of political capital. I doubt that she'd be able to overcome that.

Anyone who imagines federal prosecutions can't be rigged should read some time about the Amerasia scandal of 1944-45. A U.S. foreign service officer had been living in Chungking with two housemates we now know were Soviet agents, all three of them doing all they could to influence U.S. policy against Chiang Kai-Shek and in favor of Mao Tse-Tung. When this FSO returned to the U.S., he plugged into a network of Communists and Communist sympathizers in both private institutions and various federal agencies who wanted to advance the interests of the Chinese Reds. Several of these federal officials were also Soviet agents.

Through contacts in this network, the FSO was introduced to a well-off Communist who published an obscure academic journal on the Far East called Amerasia. The FBI already had this man under surveillance because of other suspicious activity by him, and it recorded his meetings with the FSO. It also searched his offices soon after those meetings, where FBI agents photographed about fifty secret military documents as well as photographic equipment of the type then used to copy documents.

FBI agents then observed the head of the Communist Party USA and a senior Red Chinese official enter the publisher's home and remain there several hours, during which time they obviously could have been given copies of the documents and been told other relevant information. Meantime, the FSO had been busy making the social rounds in New York with the publisher's assistant, a young woman whose uncle was a wealthy Buffalo lawyer, and several of her fellow Reds, one of them now known to be a Soviet agent.

The FBI took its evidence of all this to Justice Dept. prosecutors, who agreed it would support prosecutions for serious crimes. The FBI then arrested the FSO, the publisher, his assistant, and three other people. And that's when the fix began. There is no doubt about it, because President Truman, for entirely unrelated reasons, had an influential New Deal official who was at the center of it under surveillance. So there are this official, senior Justice Dept. officials--even the Attorney General himself--directly revealing, in phone conversations, the skulduggery they were engaging in to prevent a grand jury from indicting the FSO and his comrades.

A private lawyer, Hitchcock, was called in to manage the thing, and he worked with another lawyer with connections to the Attorney General that the assistant publisher's uncle had gotten to represent her. Among them, they made sure the grand jury never heard the most damning evidence. The documents were misleadingly portrayed as not involving military secrets, and their transmission portrayed as nothing more than the ill-advised act of an over-eager young diplomat who was just trying to help a fellow China enthusiast by sharing his firsthand knowledge of what was going on over there. In the end, the grand jury no-billed the FSO, another man, and the assistant publisher of Amerasis--and Hitchcock later was given a plum job in the uncle's Buffalo law firm.

FBI Director Hoover was flabbergasted, because he knew the evidence in detail. Several years later, when under pressure from Sen. Joe McCarthy and others the Amerasia coverup threatened to be made public and become a full-blown scandal, Hoover panicked the administration by implying at several points that he might tell everything he knew. But in the end he did not feel he could go that far, and so the original lies were covered up with even more lies, and the furor quietly died away.

 

[Gill]

Personally, I think this whole exercise was to provide cover for Lynch. The FBI recommends indictment, the DOJ declines to do so. Lynch claims she had nothing to do with it because she proclaimed she would leave the decision to others.

If Hillary is elected, Lynch gets a lifetime job on the Supreme Court. If Hillary loses, Lynch gets a cushy job at the Clinton Foundation pulling down a couple hundred thousand a year doing nothing like Blumenthal did.

 

[Frank Apisa]

First: A comment on the topic: My guess is that whatever Lynch decided to do...there are people complaining about this...that would complain about any other option. Even if she resigned...some people would find a way to pick fault with that.

With that out of the way:

Having fun and being serious are not mutually exclusive.

Nor have I suggested they are. In fact, MANY serious pursuits are the source of lots of fun. I've engaged in extremely serious philosophical discussions that have been a source of delight.

But there are people here who seem to take themselves so seriously...it looks to be agony rather than fun.

Maybe I am wrong.

You seem to be stepping in it more often than what could be warranted as 'being careful'.

I guess that must be an "eye's of the beholder" kind of thing.

I am very careful...and I seldom "step in it."

Perhaps a touch more seriousness would do you some good.

Perhaps a bit less would do YOU some good, Eo.

I can always be serious...especially if a colleague or discussion opponent is deserving of it.

 

[Moot]

What would be wrong if you are wrong? All you have to do is take a look at the damage Obama has done to our economy, the debt generated and then look at Hillary's past and incompetence to see that problem doubled or worse. Look at her relationship with our foreign allies and the world Obama is leaving us. guess I have a lot higher standards than you do. tell me how much debt is enough for you? How many people dependent on the taxpayers is enough for you? Who pays for all those social programs Hillary wants and Obama has created?

I find it interesting how you signal out Bush and Reagan, both of whom understand the private sector unlike you. Reagan doubled GDP and Bush increased it 4.5 trillion dollars. to you apparently that is a failure but then again actual results are trumped by your feelings.

I'm looking at the Obama economy and it looks a helluva a lot better and more stable than the one that he inherited from his predecessor.

Obama and Hillary have a much better relationship with foreign allies than Bush or Trump.

Your standards are built on sand.

 

[Conservative]

IF I...or anyone else is wrong...and we end up with an ineffective president...WE WILL SURVIVE.

Like I said, we've survived people like Reagan and Bush...we certainly can survive the likes of Clinton or Trump.

We're going to choose a president...and I will wish the winner the best of luck in moving the country forward. If it is Donald Trump, I will wish him the best of luck in moving our country forward; if it is Hillary Clinton I will wish her the best of luck in moving our country forward.

You will do the same...right?

You ignored all the questions raised, now answer them? How much debt is enough for you and what does this massive debt do to the value of your dollar especially when Hillary keeps piling it on? There are consequences for poor choices and we are at the point now with a 19.2 trillion dollar debt that the tipping point isn't far away. You can only kick the can down the road so far. You don't seem to understand consequences and you keep bringing up Bush and Reagan because that is what you have been indoctrinated into believing. Reagan and Bush never had debt exceeding our GDP. Reagan won the Cold war, created a peace dividend and whether you like it or not Bush won the Iraq War. All those dividends have been destroyed by Obama and Hillary lacks the leadership skill to rebuild relationships and keep us safe

Being safe is the only thing that matters to me for without national security nothing else matters.

 

[sanman]

The fact that BJ Clinton had the audacity to meet privately with the AG like that shows what a corrupt crime family the Clintons are. The fact that Lynch didn't have alarm bells going off in her head when BJ tried to meet her, shows the rampant incompetence and unprofessionalism in the Obama administration. Bernie should stay in the race, because Hillary is headed for indictment.

 

[Gill]

I'm looking at the Obama economy and it looks a helluva a lot better and more stable than the one that he inherited from his predecessor.

Obama and Hillary have a much better relationship with foreign allies than Bush or Trump.

Your standards are built on sand.

Don't know where you're looking, but the numbers don't back you up.

 

[eohrnberger]

First: A comment on the topic: My guess is that whatever Lynch decided to do...there are people complaining about this...that would complain about any other option. Even if she resigned...some people would find a way to pick fault with that.

Well, as I learn more about this, from both the news and from the forum, I'm gaining a greater understanding of where Lynch is at, and I believe I can see the 'why' as to her handling this the way she has. Not sure if at present I'm actually complaining about it, with this better understanding than before. I acknowledge that she's in a very tough position right now, but would also say that Hillary shouldn't have done what she done to put her into that position.

With that out of the way:



Nor have I suggested they are. In fact, MANY serious pursuits are the source of lots of fun. I've engaged in extremely serious philosophical discussions that have been a source of delight.

But there are people here who seem to take themselves so seriously...it looks to be agony rather than fun.

Maybe I am wrong.

I dunno. It's quite often that I'm chuckling about what some post here. So I guess I'm OK on that count.

I guess that must be an "eye's of the beholder" kind of thing.

Fair enough.

I am very careful...and I seldom "step in it."

Well, not from my eye, but as you said, that in the 'Eye of the beholder'.

Perhaps a bit less would do YOU some good, Eo.

Naaa. I'm OK. If it weren't fun for me, I'd do something else with the time I spend here.

For the matter of fact, that I'm still here and am still having fun, I have to thank the members of the forum as well as the moderators, who don't get enough credit, if you ask me. After all, they have to put up with us lot, right? :mrgreen:

I can always be serious...especially if a colleague or discussion opponent is deserving of it.

The over all feedback that I'd respectfully submit is that it would really be nice if once in awhile your reasoning behind your position would be laid out for all to see. It seems to me, eye of the beholder again, that far too often an opinion is rendered without a lead into a further discussion, and that IS, after all, why we are all here, and dedicate as much time to this as we all do.

Besides which, it is genuinely interesting to hear of other perspectives, opinion, and thought processes, and when denied this, I kinda feel a bit cheated. I've never been one to accept 'just believe me', I want the steps behind that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You ignored all the questions raised, now answer them?

You do not get to order me to do things.

How much debt is enough for you and what does this massive debt do to the value of your dollar especially when Hillary keeps piling it on? There are consequences for poor choices and we are at the point now with a 19.2 trillion dollar debt that the tipping point isn't far away. You can only kick the can down the road so far. You don't seem to understand consequences and you keep bringing up Bush and Reagan because that is what you have been indoctrinated into believing. Reagan and Bush never had debt exceeding our GDP. Reagan won the Cold war, created a peace dividend and whether you like it or not Bush won the Iraq War. All those dividends have been destroyed by Obama and Hillary lacks the leadership skill to rebuild relationships and keep us safe

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Being safe is the only thing that matters to me for without national security nothing else matters.

Some people do run scared. I have no problem with that...I have relatives who are that way.

If, however, I could respectfully ASK you for an answer to a question, I'd ask the question I asked in that post of mine you quoted:

We're going to choose a president...and I will wish the winner the best of luck in moving the country forward. If it is Donald Trump, I will wish him the best of luck in moving our country forward; if it is Hillary Clinton I will wish her the best of luck in moving our country forward.

You will do the same...right?

 

[sanman]

Clinton only had good economic growth numbers because of the internet boom - which they can't really take credit for, no matter what Al Gore says he invented. I do however see that it was during Clinton's reign that Wall Street decided to latch onto him.

 

[SailaWay]

Clinton only had good economic growth numbers because of the internet boom - which they can't really take credit for, no matter what Al Gore says he invented. I do however see that it was during Clinton's reign that Wall Street decided to latch onto him.

also because of reagans conservatism.. success comes delayed after made

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well, as I learn more about this, from both the news and from the forum, I'm gaining a greater understanding of where Lynch is at, and I believe I can see the 'why' as to her handling this the way she has. Not sure if at present I'm actually complaining about it, with this better understanding than before. I acknowledge that she's in a very tough position right now, but would also say that Hillary shouldn't have done what she done to put her into that position.



I dunno. It's quite often that I'm chuckling about what some post here. So I guess I'm OK on that count.



Fair enough.



Well, not from my eye, but as you said, that in the 'Eye of the beholder'.



Naaa. I'm OK. If it weren't fun for me, I'd do something else with the time I spend here.

For the matter of fact, that I'm still here and am still having fun, I have to thank the members of the forum as well as the moderators, who don't get enough credit, if you ask me. After all, they have to put up with us lot, right? :mrgreen:



The over all feedback that I'd respectfully submit is that it would really be nice if once in awhile your reasoning behind your position would be laid out for all to see. It seems to me, eye of the beholder again, that far too often an opinion is rendered without a lead into a further discussion, and that IS, after all, why we are all here, and dedicate as much time to this as we all do.

Besides which, it is genuinely interesting to hear of other perspectives, opinion, and thought processes, and when denied this, I kinda feel a bit cheated. I've never been one to accept 'just believe me', I want the steps behind that.

This is without a doubt the nicest post I've ever seen come from you, Eo.

I thank you for your reasonable tone...and I apologize for any harshness in mine.

I truly hate the "yes, she did" "no, she didn't" kind of thing that often passes for "debate" here. (I agree that the management and moderators deserve accolades for dealing with some of our nonsense!)

So...if the "reasoning" is a given...I just let requests for it pass. I've been asked for "reasoning" for why I think Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, capable, competent person.

Well...the reason I, and many others here, feel that way has been documented dozens of times...and considered nonsense by people who HATE her. Presenting her credentials one more time is not only a waste of time...it is setting up one of those "yes, she did" "no, she didn't" kinds of thing that go nowhere.

So...I don't.

We'll see how I feel about the next time I am asked for back-up...but for the most part, I am sharing an opinion...and a great deal of the "back-up" is a recitation of the factors that got me to where I am in life...how I got here; who influenced me; why I feel as I do about political or philosophical considerations.

I have been called stupid, ill-informed, ignorant, a liar...and I am none of those things. I'm a guy having a bit of fun discussing contentious issues with strangers on the Internet.

BTW...I am happy you have as much fun in the forum as I am having. With my golfing buddies (guys I love) we have managed to get past the deep political/political philosophy divide there is between us...and we treat each other with respect...and more.

I hope we can manage that between us.

 

[Moot]

Don't know where you're looking, but the numbers don't back you up.

View attachment 67203556

I think they do... especially if you consider that no other president besides FDR had inherited such a bad economy to start with.

But we are getting way off topic here.

 

[SailaWay]

lynch changed the transcript of the orlando killer to STOP the nation FROM LEARNING that demands a long prison sentence to stop high officials from changing things to stop the nation from learning

 

[eohrnberger]

This is without a doubt the nicest post I've ever seen come from you, Eo.

Well thanks. It was pretty easy, actually.

I thank you for your reasonable tone...and I apologize for any harshness in mine.

No worries. I've got a pretty thick skin.

I truly hate the "yes, she did" "no, she didn't" kind of thing that often passes for "debate" here. (I agree that the management and moderators deserve accolades for dealing with some of our nonsense!)

So...if the "reasoning" is a given...I just let requests for it pass.

I've been asked for "reasoning" for why I think Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, capable, competent person.

Well...the reason I, and many others here, feel that way has been documented dozens of times...and considered nonsense by people who HATE her. Presenting her credentials one more time is not only a waste of time...it is setting up one of those "yes, she did" "no, she didn't" kinds of thing that go nowhere.

So...I don't.

Yes, that's been noticed by me and the forum. I think that it would do you some good to delve into expressing that part of your position. It could only strengthen your position through the process of defending it.

My experience has been that defending your position really causes you to closely examine the why you hold it, which is often most revealing, even if it's just to yourself. A position well defended solidifies it, a weak position with a weak defense may lead to changing that position. All I can say that it's well worth while to go through the exercise of verbalizing it and defending it.

We'll see how I feel about the next time I am asked for back-up...but for the most part, I am sharing an opinion...and a great deal of the "back-up" is a recitation of the factors that got me to where I am in life...how I got here; who influenced me; why I feel as I do about political or philosophical considerations.

I have been called stupid, ill-informed, ignorant, a liar...and I am none of those things. I'm a guy having a bit of fun discussing contentious issues with strangers on the Internet.

BTW...I am happy you have as much fun in the forum as I am having. With my golfing buddies (guys I love) we have managed to get past the deep political/political philosophy divide there is between us...and we treat each other with respect...and more.

I hope we can manage that between us.

Sure. Let the forum into the reasoning behind your position.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well thanks. It was pretty easy, actually.



No worries. I've got a pretty thick skin.



Yes, that's been noticed by me and the forum. I think that it would do you some good to delve into expressing that part of your position. It could only strengthen your position through the process of defending it.

My experience has been that defending your position really causes you to closely examine the why you hold it, which is often most revealing, even if it's just to yourself. A position well defended solidifies it, a weak position with a weak defense may lead to changing that position. All I can say that it's well worth while to go through the exercise of verbalizing it and defending it.



Sure. Let the forum into the reasoning behind your position.

We'll see.

 

[Gill]

I think they do... especially if you consider that no other president besides FDR had inherited such a bad economy to start with.


But we are getting way off topic here.

I could post an equal number of graphs showing the opposite, but as you said, it is off topic.

 

[Gill]

This just in:

Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with the FBI, a source close to the investigation into her private email server tells The Daily Caller.

The source went on to suggest the interview may take place at her Washington, D.C. home.

The bureau’s interview with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is believed to be the final step in its investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information on Clinton’s private email server.

Read more: Source: Hillary Clinton To Meet With FBI On Saturday | The Daily Caller

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

People. Let's stop with the incivility in this thread or bad things will happen to you.