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.