Posted on 07/01/2016 6:48:12 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Not only is she not taking her department out of the loop and appointing a special prosecutor, but she’s not 100% accepting the call of the FBI either. There are no “career prosecutors” on James Comey’s team. Those prosecutors all work for Lynch in the Justice Department. From the beginning she’s been saying that it would be those “professionals” who would decide the merits of the case, so this may be nothing other than window dressing to appease the voters outraged by the meeting with Bill Clinton while sticking with business as usual.
But there’s a second possibility as well and I’m just going to toss it out there. It’s been leaked from multiple sources that the FBI investigation is winding down and Comey is close to wrapping this thing up. Very likely the final decision has already been made and he’s just making sure all the I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed before handing over his work.
What are the chances that Lynch doesn’t know what the decision is at this point? In fact, I wouldn’t be terribly shocked if that was part of the conversation she had with Bill Clinton. (Yes… I’m basically saying that they’re lying about the meeting. If you can ever prove me wrong I’ll be happy to apologize.) What if Comey has already decided to pull the rip cord and recommend no formal charges against Hillary Clinton because the firestorm resulting from a call to prosecute would just be too hot for him? Then Lynch and the President are in the clear. She can simply claim that she was leaving it up to Comey all along and the entire unpleasant affair drops down the memory hole.
Conspiracy theory? Sure. But as far as I’m concerned it certainly passes the smell test,
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
It affects the public perception, and facilitates misleading the public. Whether or not that is a practical difference depends on whether one is measuring the political outcome or the legal outcome.
The FBI has no reason to render a report unless its investigation produces evidence that supports finding probable cause that a crime has been committed.
The public is being conditioned to view an FBI report that does not recommend indictment, as clearing the target of the investigation.
I haven't looked hard, but I don't think the FBI issues reports on investigations that clear targets, that lay out facts and then say "but these facts don't amount to probable cause a crime has been committed."
Does anyone have a foto of Bill Clinton’s expression as he left the airplane meeting with Lynch? That would probably answer the questions raised in this article.
Loretta is a gangster.
"Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said." (Emphasis supplied).
My scenario is, of course, conditioned on the assumption that there will be a "recommendation" for proceeding against Hillary.
I quite agree with you that if the report does not recommend prosecution, Hillary will cite it just as she has cited the Benghazi report claiming it as an exoneration.
My point is that there is no such thing as an FBI report that recommends prosecution. Even a report that has slam dunk evidence in triplicate that a crime has been committed does not include a recommendation to prosecute.
One more thought, this one on the prosecutor's decision. A procesutor could decide to forego proceeding on all manner of rationale, not just including probablity of success. See, e.g., the plea bargain with Petraeus.
Yaelle pointed out that the fact that Hillary is a viable candidate for the office of president is a factor in the decision. Ponder that. Political popularity yields immunity.
I think the matter is gone beyond that at this point, everyone is talking about a "recommendation," but you might be right.
I still think it is too risky on a public tarmac with their jets idling in the background or whatever. They can’t get safe secret messages between the Clintons and Lynch somehow without a face to face? Maybe, OK, the NSA/data swap with the British or whatever. But why a public airport, why not somewhere where only FBI and SS could ever possibly know of it? Or at least nowhere in public they are seen together.
Freegards
You have just insulted both black and white trash in one comment.
Well, first it needs to be in the USA since the AG has no business outside of the USA, and presume they can’t wait for her to have a vacation, and they don’t have complete control of the authorities to help boss civilians around outside the USA. Second, it can’t be at a secret installation such as a military air base since BC is just a civilian nowadays and that would raise questions as to why he is allowed on a military air base. Third, an airport runway has in theory more restrictions than (say) a DC parking lot, so it actually is a logical place for them to meet.
One question that a Fox news lady asked which was not asked by Capehart was how many times has BC met with Lynch in the past? Someone should pop that question to Lynch soon IMHO. A question to pop BC is what golf course he visited.
I agree with another poster that this looks desperate probably because it is desperate.
Fox News is doing a rather good job on all this imho, with reporters poking into some of the corner questions.
You can bet Lynch “knows what the shot is.”
You would have to be nuts to believe that a man who looks as worn out and weak as Bill Clinton does now actually went to Arizona at this time of year to play golf. It makes as much sense as going to Anchorage in January to swim in the surf. There are plenty of places with lower temperatures he could have gone to and then Lynch just happens to be there at the same time and they get together to talk small talk about grandkids etc? Anyone who believes that should be writing letters to the Great Pumpkin or just sitting in the corner blowing spit bubbles. To believe that would mean a whole new definition for the word gullible. Actually she should be impeached and removed from office just for telling such a whopper.
She should be in prison for obstructing justice.
Daily Caller announcing FBI to interview Hillary this Saturday.
Now, doesn’t that make you go “Hmmmm”?
LOL - happens...
“if Comey has already decided to pull the rip cord and recommend no formal charges against Hillary Clinton because the firestorm resulting from a call to prosecute would just be too hot for him? Then Lynch and the President are in the clear. She can simply claim that she was leaving it up to Comey all along and the entire unpleasant affair drops down the memory hole.”
If that was true there was no reason for them to meet.
That is so genteel. (;>)
One ore quick note was that the Fox reporterettes noted that Capehart and Lynch were acting very nervously at the Aspen interview,— the tell being that both were giggling about what should be a very serious interview topic.
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.