Posted on 07/03/2016 11:17:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
A good guideline in politics is that we should never explain as conspiracy an action that can be satisfactorily explained as mere stupidity. But the highly questionable meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport last week tests the limits of that maxim, because it is hard to believe that two seasoned politicians could be that stupid.
Lynch now admits that the meeting with Bill Clinton while his wife is the target of a major FBI investigation has “cast a shadow” over public perception of the independence of that investigation. But both Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton are smart enough to know that their meeting would only trigger a wave of public outrage. So why did they take the risk, especially given Lynch’s insistence that their conversation was limited to personal pleasantries and that they avoided any discussion of the investigation? Was mere chitchat about grandchildren worth the predictable political fallout, including calls for Lynch’s resignation or impeachment?
Lynch’s assurance that she would follow the lead of the professional prosecutors investigating Hillary’s use of a nonsecure, homebrew server may be intended to give the impression that all is now as it should be and that there is nothing to see here. But the question remains: Why would two seasoned politicians walk into a publicity storm that was fully predictable and easily avoided?
Given that stupidity is not a satisfactory answer to that question, we are left with the more plausible answer that Lynch and Clinton knew exactly what would happen and that they planned it that way. In fact, Lynch’s assurance that she will support the recommendation of the professional prosecutors and investigators handling the Clinton case begins to look more like a coldly calculated bet than an amateurish blunder.
What bet are Lynch and the Clintons making? How could this meeting and the resulting political storm actually serve the agenda of the Clintons and Loretta Lynch?
Comments about the meeting by legal expert J. Christian Adams to Megyn Kelly on The Kelly File can help to answer those questions. First, Adams noted that, given what is known so far, “a county D.A. could probably win the case” against Hillary Clinton. Second, he pointed out that Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton sends a clear message to the professional prosecutors investigating the case.
Adams’ bold contention about the clarity of the case against Hillary Clinton is supported by the writing of other legal experts. Judge Andrew Napolitano has written a series of articles detailing both the established facts – approximately 66,000 emails on Clinton’s homebrew server with around 2,200 of those containing state secrets – and the relevant points of espionage law. Napolitano’s conclusion was that Clinton’s legal status is “grave or worse than grave.”
Just from the published facts, it is not only likely that truly independent prosecutors would recommend indictment and create problems for Clinton’s presidential campaign, but also that loss of the White House would be the least of Hillary’s worries. Furthermore, given the concerns about the connections between Hillary’s influence as Secretary of State and money flowing into the Clinton Foundation, there could be uncomfortable questions for Bill Clinton himself.
In light of the legal case and likely consequences for the Clintons, a political firestorm over a brief meeting is a small price to pay if, as Adams contends, that meeting sends the right message to the professional prosecutors.
The message is that Lynch and the Clintons are on the same team, and Lynch is betting that the prosecutors know which recommendation she expects to receive.
It is also a reasonable bet that those prosecutors know what is at stake. The prosecutors and investigators working under Loretta Lynch have mortgages to pay and kids who are planning to go to college. They have reputations to protect, and could ill afford the kind of smear campaign and retribution for which the Clintons are known.
Those prosecutors also know that Barack Obama himself has publicly downplayed the security risks of Clinton’s use of a homebrew server. They also know that the Obama administration is populated with hardened Alinskyites who know how to isolate and target individuals who threaten their agenda. The lessons of the IRS’s targeting of those who merely disagreed with Obama’s policies cannot have been lost on those prosecutors. One can only imagine what would happen to someone who pushed to indict the Democrat’s frontrunner, regardless of the weight of the evidence.
Has the long arm of the law finally caught up with the Clintons? A betting person would have to weigh the fact that there are highly professional and ethical individuals working on the Clinton case against the willingness of the Clintons and the Obama administration to pursue their agenda, as the Alinskyites are fond of saying, by any means necessary.
It appears that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton are betting that the long arm of the law still isn’t long enough to catch a Clinton.
It was aid and comfort to the enemy.
Here is what I think happened. Until now the strategy was to delay the investigation until after the election. Apparently recent polls panicked the Clintons and so Bill needed to tell Lynch to wrap up the investigation now. Hence a few days later Coamey meets with Hillary for 3-1/2 hours. No way you could do a thorough investigation with only a 3-1/2 hour interview of Hillary but they certainly had to do some kind of interview and so they did what they needed to do to justify wrapping it up.
I believe that Bill and Lynch believed they had their tracks covered and that news of their clandestine rendezvous would not be made public.
Whatever the objective for Bill or Lynch it sure wasn’t the accidental crossing of two paths as it was first portrayed.
Various accounts make it clear that Bill went to extraordinary measures to set the meeting up and Lynch did nothing to avoid the meeting.
Lynch knew darn well that it was a breach of trust and ethics to meet privately with the spouse of the target of an ongoing investigation.
Yet she didn’t politely refuse to speak with Bill in private.
So it is obvious that Bill had a purpose in mind and Lynch demonstrated that she was open and willing to hear his arguments or proposals.
I caught their interview with J. Christian Adams on NewsMax on Friday, I think.
Thinking about his scenario, it makes sense. No orders written or spoken to come back and haunt them, ala Richard Nixon but the career prosecutors and investigators all get the message.
The normal American people also get it, but we do not matter. Hillary supporters and independents will only hear that Hillary is vindicated.
This in my opinion could be the turning point in this election. The character of the American people will decide which way they want to turn. Either of which may just determine the entire future of this experiment in self governance.
THE FIX IS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Obama should just pardon both Clintons and be done with it.
Then this morning, while weeding my cannas it hit me.
She resembles a manatee. Sheesh!!
1. Who would benefit the most? Hillary
2. Who would have the most to lose? Lynch
I am starting believe it was a brillant, but failed, attempt to neutralize Lynch in an attempt to put the brakes on the entire investigation (long term) and stop the planned FBI “interview” of Hillary (short term). Knowing if the source was a plant by bubba would cenent that belief. If the source was not—never mind. :)
This might be the updated version of drag a 100 dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you might find.
What is Tampering with Evidence?
A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
any record, document, or tangible object
with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.
(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.
Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.
Would Bill Clinton try to take advantage of Lynch by reminding her of the good old days?
He’d do it in a heartbeat.
How would that make Lynch feel?
I reckon she’d tell the FBI to grill Hillary.
Nobody likes a dirty snot reminding them of favors.
First, there is the title. There is nothing “brilliant” about the meeting.
Secondly, the “meeting sends the right message to the professional prosecutors”, is garbage.
The meeting irrevocable destroys the credibility of any non-indictment. That is the message that is sent by the meeting.
Obama has been punking her from day one.
I hear more secrets at the VFW than that.
Still she blew it big time, where is the blue dress with the Obie on it?
I don’t see Comey going up against the machine to indict Hillary. He would be smeared and vilified 5 ways to Sunday. His career would be damaged or ruined. I still have my money on findings that suggest Hillary exhibited poor judgment that did not rise to the level of criminality.
I don’t see Comey going up against the machine to indict Hillary. He would be smeared and vilified 5 ways to Sunday. His career would be damaged or ruined. I still have my money on findings that suggest Hillary exhibited poor judgment that did not rise to the level of criminality.
... and we know they’ve already successful intimidates the chief justice of the USSC over what we can only speculate.
That meeting was pro forma. Just to get her on record answering, or not, questions regarding the specifications for the charges (if any).
The interview HAD to happen and I expect Slick was told as much, as a favor. But I also think it gives Lynch an ‘out’. If there are any nasty surprises in the next couple of weeks, she can alway cite this meeting an recuse herself.
You must have missed the question mark at the end of the title. Of course there was nothing brilliant of the meeting. If the author thought there was he would have omitted it.
Anyway thanks for your reply.
We have been hearing the moron left preach to the uninformed voters for years that the right wing are sleezy Nazi like people who care only for their own rich friends and circumnavigate the law by rubbing elbows with the old boys club. Well here is proof that the socialist left are the actual culprits and Trump and all Republicans need to hammer this home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.