Loretta Lynch to accept DOJ, FBI recommendations on Clinton emails

[Anonymous]

If in fact the meeting was as some have alleged it apparently may have had the opposite effect.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If in fact the meeting was as some have alleged it apparently may have had the opposite effect.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29

Wow! She really boxed herself in with that meeting on the plane, didn't she? There was NO way she could fail to indict (if the FBI recommends it) without looking like she was bought and paid for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If in fact the meeting was as some have alleged it apparently may have had the opposite effect.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/lynch-to-accept-guidance-from-fbi-on-clinton-email-probe/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29

Wow! She really boxed herself in with that meeting on the plane, didn't she? There was NO way she could fail to indict (if the FBI recommends it) without looking like she was bought and paid for.

Probably was not a way for her to do that anyway.

[Anonymous]

She had to do this anyway so hardly news.

[Anonymous]

*yawn*

If Loretta Lynch is really as corrupt as the right would like to believe she is, I think this means an indictment is even less likely than previously thought. If she's corrupt enough to have not-so-secret meetings with Bill Clinton to discuss the investigation, isn't she also corrupt enough to find out which way the wind is blowing with this investigation and whether the FBI is likely to recommend an indictment? If she'd learned that it was likely, she wouldn't have taken this course, she probably would have appointed an "independent" prosecutor to review it, who would end up being someone inclined toward Clinton. The only way she'd take this course if she is corrupt is if she knew an indictment wasn't coming, so it would be safe to give up her discretion.

Or, it could be that she's not corrupt, the conversation was completely innocuous, and this is her acting appropriately based on the appearance of it. No conspiracies.

The thing I take from this is that Bill Clinton needs some serious handlers. Since he initiated this meeting, either his judgment is seriously declining and he needs more supervision, or there's a part of him that (perhaps subconsciously) wants to sabotage his wife's campaign. This is far from his first misstep in this campaign, just a particularly egregious one where he should have known better, and I don't recall the Bill Clinton of of the 90s screwing up this much.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the funny thing about the Bill thing is this:

If Lynch thought Clinton was going to get indicted before the election and she wanted to help Clinton out, her best move would actually be to agree with her critics that her meeting with Bill was a mistake and request that special counsel be appointed. That would push the indictment well past the election. Hillary would have to deal with the fallout, but she'd already be president.

Lynch either doesn't think the recommendation will be to indict or isn't trying to help Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the funny thing about the Bill thing is this:

If Lynch thought Clinton was going to get indicted before the election and she wanted to help Clinton out, her best move would actually be to agree with her critics that her meeting with Bill was a mistake and request that special counsel be appointed. That would push the indictment well past the election. Hillary would have to deal with the fallout, but she'd already be president.

Lynch either doesn't think the recommendation will be to indict or isn't trying to help Clinton.

OP here.

Some good points!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:*yawn*

If Loretta Lynch is really as corrupt as the right would like to believe she is, I think this means an indictment is even less likely than previously thought. If she's corrupt enough to have not-so-secret meetings with Bill Clinton to discuss the investigation, isn't she also corrupt enough to find out which way the wind is blowing with this investigation and whether the FBI is likely to recommend an indictment? If she'd learned that it was likely, she wouldn't have taken this course, she probably would have appointed an "independent" prosecutor to review it, who would end up being someone inclined toward Clinton. The only way she'd take this course if she is corrupt is if she knew an indictment wasn't coming, so it would be safe to give up her discretion.

Or, it could be that she's not corrupt, the conversation was completely innocuous, and this is her acting appropriately based on the appearance of it. No conspiracies.

The thing I take from this is that Bill Clinton needs some serious handlers. Since he initiated this meeting, either his judgment is seriously declining and he needs more supervision, or there's a part of him that (perhaps subconsciously) wants to sabotage his wife's campaign. This is far from his first misstep in this campaign, just a particularly egregious one where he should have known better, and I don't recall the Bill Clinton of of the 90s screwing up this much.

I have a hard time believing LL is corrupt, but no one is above leaning one way or another. Fair-minded people often disagree, because they see things through different lenses. AG Lynch may tend not toward charging someone who shares her general worldview (HRC), versus a conservative AG who might tend toward charging, even if the two AGs act in good faith. Human nature. But this latest Bill Clinton episode -- so typical of that family's minor, petty corruptions -- has now put LL in the bind she should have been in from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Its appalling that she actually had to make this statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its appalling that she actually had to make this statement.

This outcome would be the same regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its appalling that she actually had to make this statement.

Which statement?

That she won't decide based on political factors? She's said that before.

Or that she'll treat the FBI recommendation as binding? That's probably appropriate here, but there's not something untoward about her taking a different approach. Its a recommendation for a reason; she's the head of the agency and has the final call.

[Anonymous]

Or that she'll treat the FBI recommendation as binding? That's probably appropriate here, but there's not something untoward about her taking a different approach. Its a recommendation for a reason; she's the head of the agency and has the final call.

That's not what she said. Big difference.