This is why I don’t.
You, yourself, just provided a quote where Lynch herself totally gets and understands the ethical pickle she is in and yet you go on about how it is all stupid speculation.
Clinton is at the center of a criminal investigation into her email server.
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as influence peddling? Do you want speculation on how WJ Clinton could potentially influence Loretta Lynch?
It is the appearance of impropriety that is at issue here. Even Loretta Lynch admits to understanding why what she did is a problem.
Your quote does not state that she is being investigated; just that her server is. That could be an important distinction.
Do you think the FBI is looking to prosecute the server?
The “criminal investigation” thing is just typical Clinton spinning, meant to deceive. It is possibly officially not a criminal investigation, but that’s just technical terms. If they find evidence of a crime, they will charge her, so whether or not they call it criminal before they make that determination is entirely irrelevant.
Also, c’mon! There’s a bad habit on this board of Democratic partisans defending behavior that the officials in question have already admitted was wrong.
What is it when *you *do it?
The funny part about all this is that Lynch’s boss is openly and actively supporting Clinton for President. :eek: He should resign, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
I’m getting completely sick and tired of the boy who shouted, “SCANDAL!”. I think the next person who shouts, “SCANDAL” without being able to articulate an articulate, clear, convincing, and persuasive argument as to why it is a scandal should be sent to Guantanamo.
Yeah! Clearly the FBI has nothing better to do!
As soon as the Federal Bureau of Investigation pulls the cover off their investigation and lets us know what they have found I am sure someone can articulate to you why this is a scandal.
If you do not understand why Bill Clinton speaking privately with the US Attorney General when his wife is part of an FBI investigation I suggest you take a class in legal ethics.
That’s how civil forfeiture works in some cxases.
Pile of Money vs. Prosecuting State
Yeah not sure why you can’t understand the difference.* No, there was nothing in the WSJ quote that was ethical pickle and “the fuss” was more of a meta-fuss … only the extreme few dedicated Clinton-haters are actually spending any effort “speculating” about what could have been said, or thinking of this as a “covert” meeting, or as “cover” for some secret talks.
No both sides of the aisle are not alleging some nefarious remote meeting, or spending energy speculating on what sort of illicit schemes were being hatched. They merely point out that it, again to quote from the WSJ article as an example, “created an appearance of impropriety because Mr. Clinton could have been seen as garnering goodwill from Ms. Lynch.”
Yes, that was dumb to do and a problem (especially in the context that the Clinton’s have not scored well with the perception of trust in polls) but, again, there is not any there there other than not realizing that usual friendliness can be spun badly in this circumstance.
As Bricker states (and I do trust him on this, and that he has taken classes on legal ethics, and that you have not) there was nothing officially or legally improper about a past boss, WJ Clinton’s sayin’ “Hey, haven’t talked to you in ages! How ya been?” and if the people involved were not the politically significant people they are with the pending investigation being the politically and image sensitive one it is, it would be absolutely positively nothing at all.
*Well I have my suspicions. You know how polarized sunglasses work? They only let light slanted at a particular angle (so to speak) through. You seem to wear politically polarized lenses and experience events with all but one slant filtered out.
The problem here is that the meeting happened in the first place. Maybe they talked about grandkids. Maybe they talked about the FBI investigation. Maybe both.
A clandestine meeting is the issue and few beside you are defending it (even Loretta Lynch admits it looked bad so why can’t you?). You should look in the mirror before talking about polarized sunglasses.
And Bricker can tell us how this is not an ethical problem if he wants to.
At this moment, the FBI isn’t looking to prosecute anyone. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t jump to accusatory conclusions.
Of course they are. That’s what they do. They investigate people they think may have broken the law.
Do you think they investigate things merely out of interest?
You there you go again. Please look at my posts, from post#3 in this thread on, and tell me where you possibly get me saying it didn’t “look bad.” It was stupid to not be cognizant of the optics. It’s your leap from, yeah it was dumb and it looks bad, to the self-flagellating incoherent and irrational fantasies of horrible ethical breaches, illegality, covert secret meetings, deals and such, that is laughable.
Besides, I have no reflection, I’m a Democrat.
Ok…I’m curious…in your opinion why does it look bad?
Also, please point to my post where I asserted “self-flagellating incoherent and irrational fantasies of horrible ethical breaches, illegality, covert secret meetings, deals and such”.
I think what happened here is that I misinterpreted what you were saying. I inferred (even if you didn’t imply) that you were saying that the FBI was investigating her specifically, instead of investigating the entire situation, of which she is a part. I took it to mean that you were suggesting that they were focusing on her, to the point that they were excluding any other explanation.
That made sense in my head. I hope that it makes sense in yours, too.
It could look bad for precisely the reason given by the critics alluded to in WSJ article I cited: it could look like he was trying “to garner goodwill” from someone who theoretically has the power to avert to severity of implementation of a not literally impossible harsh assessment by an FBI investigation. Of course Lynch’s doing so would look just as bad but hey coherence is not required.
Your irrational self-flagellating fantasies? Allegations of possible “influence peddling” during this “covert meeting”, that this meeting “on a remote and private tarmac at a major airport seems great cover”, the implication in being “dubious” that “Clinton just happened to delay his departure in order to wait for Lynch so he could just catch up and talk about grandkids” … and I could go on but if this is your porn not mine.
You realize, of course, that the only reason we know about the meeting is that a news crew just happened to be there, right?
Had the news crew not been there, we wouldn’t know about the meeting and it would have been ‘covert’, right?
In another ‘let’s make this look even worse’ development, the reporter who was there is reporting that the FBI ordered ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones’ to bystanders.
Slee