The current FBI-“recommendations”–quotes not sneer quotes, but because they must have a real name which I don’t know–as to Hillary’s culpability in various criminal matters are to be made to the Attorney General.
- The AG is a lawyer.
1a) are there legal requirements codified by the US
1b) are there professional requirements by the Bar
for recusal?
- The problem for me is, as I understand grounds for recusal, is when prior or current interests may affect or be affected by a decision.
Who doesn’t have an interest, certainly in the WH or Democratic Party, or voters, etc, etc. Naturally, if that were truly the case, no law would ever be adjudicated, and SCOTUS would be out of a job. And provisions are made for Special Prosecutors, who the AG can mess with at will, as we found out at Watergate.
So I’m confused.
IANAL, but my understanding of recusal is when a judge faces a possible conflict of interest, e.g. his sister is charged with a crime and the case is assigned to his court. He would recuse himself because he couldn’t judge fairly if the defendant is someone he has a personal attachment to. So I don’t think recusal is entirely a political matter, but there might be cases where it could be. If a judge were elected, for example, and a defendant or a party to a lawsuit in his court was a major campaign contributor.
On the national front, it gets trickier. I’m not sure what would be involved in Loretta Lynch recusing herself from the Hillary investigation, given that she is really more of an investigator than a judge in this situation. But I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t involve having the DOJ call off the investigation. Besides, I don’t really see a valid reason why she should do so. Because she had a brief meeting with Hillary’s husband? I think you’d have to stretch some to establish a conflict of interest based on one conversation. I’m just not seeing a case here for Lynch’s recusal (whatever that would mean in a case like this).
On the first : well, when the “would” turns into a “must” is the question. I’m guessing that determining an unperformed “would” as a miscarriage of justice is a past tense thing, based on an appeal. Still not clear on the general case, and the AG one in particular.
As to the meeting with a personal intimate (Bill), no, I wasn’t thinking about it.
In fact, my image of innocence (doubtful with Lynch and Bill, but I won’t make a federal case out of it [heh]), is in A Fish Called Wanda, where the preyed upon innocent barrister (at first) is shocked and properly hustles out of his office his seductress/opposing client, citing the Majesty of the Law.