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.
I hope they are wrong....am not holding my breath
“....sheer stupidity or political brilliance?”
Yes.
These co-conspirators were counting on the sheer stupidity of the vast number of Clint supporters (whose number is legion), and the political brilliance is reflected in the flummoxing of the people who still think that any interpretation of the law still applies.
Paralysis by analysis. Since the evil has already been committed, there is no antidote, no remedy for the great wrong that has been visited upon the law code that nobody seems to want to enforce.
Yes, it is evil. And the only thing that allows evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Trump already said it. The fix is in.
I have heard a few people suggest that Bill does not want to be the next first lady. If true, he may have met with Lynch to give her cover to have charges filed so if the DNC complained that their AG filed charges against their candidate, she could respond that her hands were tied.
It was neither. It was just typical Obama / Clinton happenings.
Seriously, with what the GOP congress has let Obama get away with and with the DNC full support for Hillary and whitewashing her crimes .... they knew nothing would come of it.
It would be nice if the SCOTUS could appoint a special master to handle the Hillary investigation.
Since no one knows what was discussed,everyone is just guessing and speculating.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch needs to clear out her desk this weekend. Her reputation is ruined. Nothing she ever does again can seem credible. She’s not fit to teach, so the best thing for her is to take some classes in law. She seems to have learned nothing about the spirit or letter of the law the first time around. It’s breathtaking to know what kind of people are running the U.S. under Obama.
Whether it was stupidity on the part of Attorney General Loretta Lynch or whether it was cheap collusion, discovered in flagrante delicto, or whether she was threatened, or whether one of them knew what was going to happen and the other did not, she should resign immediately or be fired immediately. Nothing else flies. She cannot continue in her duties.
Recusing oneself because of one’s stupidity just does not fly historically for a case of this magnitude and importance for the status of the rule of law in the U.S.
Obama has padded the Executive Branch with dangerous third rate hacks who have no goals other than distorting law in support of so establishing corruption in the courts of last resort. If Lynch did not instigate this and Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or one of their aides did, Lynch would do best to speak up right now. She’d be no worse off and might even be much better off and still get a job some day. Either way, she needs to quit or announce immediate retirement and find herself another career.
Barack Obama’s gang cherry pick their political appointments to find people just like themselves.
In fact, there’s plenty of reason to believe that the whole Benghazi situation was just one manifestation of a shadow U.S. government — run by corporate and foreign interests — that was operating under the umbrella of the Clinton Foundation.
That is a very good point! You are exactly right.
Neither. It was simply an intimidation tactic, SOP for Bill Clinton ... only this time he got caught.
If he hadn't been caught, I suppose Clinton's move could have been "brilliant," as long as your definition of brilliance comes from a mobster's dictionary.
They may have talked about grandkids, but did Xlinton hand her written notes on that plane telling her to watch her step?
See, this is how the Xlintons get away with their lies, they never tell you the details.
I have found in life that evil is all to often brilliant in its application. The Alinskyites and followers of the Cloward-Piven strategies are masters at manipulation of events and the parsing of words. The Clintons do nothing that is not designed to produce a desired effect.
This was just the klinton’s way of saying, “Go ahead - stop me before I kill again - I DARE YOU”
Horsehockey.
These prosecutors and investigators have absolutely NOTHING TO LOSE by indicting Clinton.
First, it ASCERTAINS Clinton will not be elected. It makes it a certain future fact.
Anyone fired would be reinstated in 7 months, with seniority and back pay. Because Trump would be the new sheriff.
But the downside of non-indictment is the enormous risk of the loss of everything.
FBI and career prosecutors are going to leak every incriminating detail.
Wikileaks will publish all the emails.
The raw politics of non-indictment would create a firestorm throughout the nation and would also make it very, very likely that Clinton loses.
Especially with Trumps proven ability to exploit weakness and kill you with it.
And everyone involved in the "inaction" would potentially be vulnerable to co-conspirator status.
ESPECIALLY in the case of Clinton, not forwarding emails, but transmitting Classified information to foreign nationals and potentially to foreign agents. And other favors.
In exchange for millions in cash.
If you had to choose between being a National Hero or Inmate at Federal Prison, which would YOU choose.
What was discussed is irrelevant. There is the appearance of interfering with the investigation.
It doesn't really matter "what was discussed."
In these intimidation maneuvers, it's not the literal language that is used to convey a threat.
Remember Kathleen Willey's description of the way the message was conveyed to her? One day Willey was out for a walk near her home in Virginia, when a complete stranger came up to her and asked about her children ... mentioning her children by name. And the stranger also said something innocuous about Willey's cat. A few days later, the cat disappeared.
It would have been easier and less risky to communicate through a phone call than risk meeting at an airport. This means they HAD to meet face to face to communicate something sensitive and important. I think they made a calculation to meet with the possibility no one would even know. they got caught. This reinforces notion that they HAD to meet and risk it.
WHAT A CROCK!
You mean Lynch would have to “send a message” to investigators that there could be trouble for them if they recommended Hillary indictment?????????
“Gee Golly, thanks Loreeta, we really, really, appreciate the head, I mean the heads up on this. We woulda never seen that one cummin.
It was a heads up all right, that Hillary WILL BE indicted and “there is nothing I can do for you Bill”.
Time will tell.
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.