Just how stupid do democrats think Americans are?
Loretta Lynch, who just happened to be in Phoenix, held a private meeting on her aircraft with none other than Bill Clinton, who also just happened to be in Phoenix at the very same time.
PHOENIX – Amid an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of email and hours before the public release of the Benghazi report, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton.
The private meeting took place on the west side of Sky Harbor International Airport on board a parked private plane.
Former President Clinton was visiting the Phoenix area and arrived to Sky Harbor Monday evening to depart.
Sources tell ABC15 Clinton was notified Lynch would be arriving at the airport soon and waited for her arrival.
Lynch was arriving in Phoenix for a planned visit as part of her national tour to promote community policing.
ABC15 asked Lynch about the meeting during her news conference at the Phoenix Police Department.
It was a social meeting, she said:
“Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels.” She continued:
“We talked about former Attorney General Janet Reno, for example, whom we both know, but there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of the State Department emails, by way of example.”
Right. And he “didn’t have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” either. And you’ll save $2500 per year. I don’t believe her for one second. This wasn’t just a bad choice on the part of democrats. It was galactically stupid.
The impression this 30 minute chit-chat left with the masses is… “It looks like the fix is in,” said Steve Doocy on “Fox and Friends” Thursday morning. CBS News Justice Reporter Paul Reid calls this meeting “shocking, absolutely shocking.”
The event did cause some agitation among more sober democrats:
“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”
Doesn’t send the right signal? DUH! Lynch should have refused the meeting or held it in public or in the presence of reporters, since they were only talking of grandchildren and travels. Hillary Clinton claimed the emails she deleted were about yoga routines and wedding plans, but she is, for some reason, immeasurably desperate to keep those frivolities from becoming public.
On the one hand, this is an astonishing lapse in judgment for the Attorney General of the United States and all of us should be highly alarmed. On the other hand, Lynch’s stupidity has handed the GOP a potent weapon. Lynch should recuse herself from the Clinton email scandal and a special prosecutor should be named. If not, and Clinton is not indicted, it will be forever tainted. It could easily be argued that Bill Clinton could have promised Lynch a seat on the Clinton Foundation board or some other financial “incentive” in return for a favorable decision.
Lynch will appear to have been bought off and this will scream that the fix was in.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The fix was in
FBI Director James B. Comey explained clearly why the criteria for prosecution are not met.
The problem republicans have with this isn’t that it doesn’t make complete sense in light of the legal criteria that must all be met for an actual criminal violation to exist. It’s that the straightforward logic of Comey’s explanation isn’t compatible with their increasingly irrational and angry narrative concerning Hillary Clinton.
Here’s Donald Trump, reading you the words that you want to hear. He now has speech writers, carefully triangulating on the hottest anger memes of the moment. Around the words he’s been given to read, he gets to ad lib. You can see him switching back and forth.
The FBI responsibility is to develop the evidence of the case. It is the responsibility of the Attorney General to determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute the case. After the Clinton-Lynch meeting, the Attorney General could not do her job without bias.
@Greg: Plus, he probably didn’t want to wind up dead on a park bench.
What are your thoughts, Greg, on Comey clearly stating that Hillary has been lying extensively? Did that shake your dog-like worship of Hillary and he ability to govern? She clearly lied about classified documents being emailed, showed gross negligence in handling classified information and lied about every aspect of her actions. Saint?
After conducting a full and very lengthy investigation, the FBI has concluded that there’s no evidence supporting a finding of either either intentional mishandling of classified information or gross negligence. Without one of those elements, there’s no basis for criminal prosecution. That’s what the law says. You can’t prosecute people simply because you don’t like them.
@Bill, #55:
Fantasies, conspiracy theories, and hate memes are not admissible as evidence in court.
Speaking of partisan efforts pressure public servants…
Comey to testify on Clinton email probe Thursday
They should all be made to sign an agreement that any further politically motivated investigations costing the taxpayers more than $7 million will at least have a Summary, Conclusions, or Findings section at the end of the official report.
@Greg:
You can’t? I thought that was a liberal mainstay, as was shown by the prosecutions of Gingrich. DeLay, McConnell, Pertaeus and Perry. Or, do you mean only the left is allowed to use the legal system as a weapon and liberals cannot be prosecuted no matter how guilty they are (Sharpton, Hillary, Lerner, Rangle, Holder, etc).
For prosecution to proceed, a prosecutor must be convinced there’s credible evidence proving ALL criteria are met that are necessary for conviction. James Comey is certainly in a far position to know that than you, or me, or Donald Trump, who is by no possible stretch of the imagination an impartial observer. All indications are that Comey is highly competent. There’s no reason to think he’d allow himself to be intimidated or unduly influenced by politicians on either side of the issue.
@Greg: So Greg, next time you get a ticket for speeding, go to court and tell the judge you didn’t ‘intend’ to speed. I’m sure he will understand and immediately dismiss the charges. After all, he wouldn’t be able to prove you did ‘intend’ to. Just because you were pressing the accelerator didn’t mean you wanted it to go faster.
@Redteam, #61:
If a statute says that a criminal violation has been committed when conditions A, B, C, and D are all met, and it cannot be established with evidence that condition D has been met, then no criminal violation has occurred.
That’s the way the the applicable statute works. It’s a lot more complicated than a speed limit law. Speed limits are simple. You’re in violation of the speed limit if you’re driving faster than the limit allows.
I hope Mr. Comey can explain this in a simple enough fashion for republican Congressmen to comprehend it. Given the fact that most of these elected bozos are lawyers, they really ought to be able to.
@Greg:
That is only being said by the libs on the left. When the top law man in the country enumerates a list of crimes someone has committed, then says he’s not giving that info to the Attorney General to prosecute, then I would question ‘highly competent’.
@Greg:
simple? you think speed limit laws are simple? Do you know you can be charged with speeding if you’re going 40 in a 65? All they have to say is that the weather and highways were not safe enough to go over 35. Wouldn’t that be a matter of discretion on the part of the arresting officer? So then an arrest would be a matter of judgment, just as the arrest on mishandling classified materials. That’s why we have trials by jury. Let them decide.
@Redteam, #63:
He didn’t enumerate a list of crimes. A criminal violation—commonly known as a crime—has been committed only when all the necessary criteria in a statute that legally defines the violation are met. He enumerated the criteria that evidence shows were met. And then he explained the ones that were not met.
@Greg: when he said that Clinton had classified emails on a non-classified private server. That is a crime. When he said that she said she had given him all the emails, that was a lie and a lie to a federal officer investing a crime is a crime. Is there a threshold for you? Is one crime ok, but two is too many, or does she have to have committed ‘several’ crimes before you are interested. No one can legitimately argue that her using her private server for classified material was not a crime. It is very clearly a crime. Is her being such a liar important to you or do you think that is one of the qualities you think she needs to be president? Some people value honesty, some don’t.
Crimes are not whatever people want them to be. Crimes are defined by law in a very specific, detailed fashion. If it can’t be proved with evidence that the definition is fully met, a criminal act doesn’t exist for which a person can be successfully prosecuted. That’s how the law works. That what “the rule of law means.” Ask any lawyer. Nobody living under the rule of law gets to make it up as they go along.
@Greg:
That’s correct and the fact that you ‘don’t want it to be a crime’ publishing classified material on an unsecured server is a crime. Mishandling classified material is a crime. Lying to a federal investigator is a crime. It’s not up to the investigator to decide what is a crime, it’s up to the grand jury. Whether a definition is fully met is up to a jury during the trial. When it’s clear that criminal acts have occurred, the only way to resolve it is to present it to a jury during a trial and let them rule. Every prosecutor, current or former, on tv, that has been interviewed have clearly stated the case should go to a trial according to the known facts.
@Redteam, #68:
What do you think FBI Director James Comey did, before his appointment as a U.S. District Attorney by George W Bush? The guy’s legal opinion is as expert as legal opinions get, and he undoubtedly knows far more about the facts of the investigation than any of the paid television talking heads or elected republican Congressional chair warmers that are attacking his recommendation and personal reputation.
@Greg:
Then why did he display an amazing lack of knowledge on so many points while talking with the House committee for the last 3 hours. While stating several times he didn’t want to give an opinion on some of the things Hillary did or said, he has no problem stating that if someone had done the same thing while working for the Bureau, they would definitely have had disciplinary action. His whole job was to state if Hillary deserved disciplinary action, he passed. Double standard. Summary, he determined she was guilty of several things, but she was so stupid he couldn’t determine if she did the illegal act out of intent or stupidity. Comey went with stupidity. Which do you choose?
@Redteam, #70:
He didn’t display a lack of knowledge. This guy knows the law forward, backwards, and inside out, both as a highly experienced federal prosecutor and as a federal criminal investigator. He fully understands the workings of the entire legal process. He’s smarter and likely far more honest and straightforward than anyone questioning him today. He’s not allowing himself to be politically used by anybody.
By the way, an editorial comment: You people have elected a pack of transparently politically opportunistic, deceitful idiots, who will attack the reputation of a far better and more honest man than themselves to further their own motley careers and agendas. Such people should all be run out of office at the earliest possible opportunity. They’re unworthy of the trust their constituents have placed in them. They’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You should also dump this idiot as quickly as possible and find a credible person to nominate, because he’s going to lead the entire GOP over a cliff. No thoughtful person can watch that video and think this guy is fit for the presidency. You’re going to find out that there are a lot more thoughtful voters than you might imagine.
@Greg: And I suppose you think those Dimocrats that are ‘praising’ Comey (certainly not questioning him) are displaying their brilliance?
So when Comey was asked: Did Hillary’s lawyer’s have security clearances? he said ‘no’. Then he was asked did Hillary give those lawyers access to her servers with classified material on them? He said ‘yes’. Then he was asked if he thought she intended for them to read the emails? And he said he didn’t know if she ‘intended’ for them to read them? So he said he couldn’t judge her ‘intent’. He thought they were just supposed to read them to determine if they were to be turned over. So there he is, admitting she intended for them to read them to see if they needed to be turned over. So she clearly had intent to give someone without a clearance access to classified material. That is a CRIME. Comey is clearly in the tank for the Clintons. When he was in the Whitewater investigation, everyone EXCEPT THE CLINTONS were guilty. He’s been well rewarded. When people are talking about his integrity, they’re comparing him to other Washingtonians. Is anyone there not ‘in on it’?
@Greg: funny, he was asked nearly the same question I asked you. “if you were driving 45 and didn’t see the sign that reduced it to 35 but were stopped by the police, would they still be guilty of speeding even though they clearly didn’t ‘intend’ to speed. Comey said ‘yes’ because it was a minor crime and intent didn’t play a part in minor crimes. And you think he ‘knows’ the law inside and out? So if you are playing with a gun and shoot someone, as long as you didn’t ‘intend’ to shoot them, there is no basis for you to be guilty of anything. Would you agree that they should at least have their hand slapped?
@Greg: If the Republicans do not do everything in their power to run the corrupt, lying, incompetent criminal Hillary out of Washington on a rail, they should indeed be fired.
Liberals such as yourself can see the light at the end of the tunnel where Hillary “Rolo Tomassi” gets away with her crimes, but some people tenaciously hang onto the hope of actual justice, denying her that free pass, and it just drives you nuts.
This pleases me.
Correct. And it was no more of a valid a comparison when a House representative made it than when you made it. The laws deal with two completely different things. It’s an illogical analogy. I’m not entirely certain if the representative who asked the question is smart enough to understand that. Most likely he is, since it doesn’t actually take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but thinks it’s a politically useful meme anyway.
@Greg: Let me see now. If I have classified material, that can only, by law, be given to someone with a classified clearance but I give it to my lawyer(whom I know is not cleared) and tell him to read it, then there is no intent on my part for him to read that classified material. Then why would I tell him to read it if I didn’t intend for him to read it? But if I don’t see the 35 MPH sign and I’m still going 45, then I still am guilty -for some reason? But I didn’t intend to speed, I only intended to go 45, which was the last posted sign I saw. So explain that again.