Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,096 posts)
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:06 PM Jul 2016

How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-bill-clinton-met-with-loretta-lynch/2016/07/02/a7807adc-3ff4-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html


How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
By Dan Balz
Chief correspondent July 2 at 7:58 AM


snip//

For a politician long praised for his political smarts, it was a striking error of judgment on Clinton’s part to walk to Lynch’s plane for any kind of conversation. It was a similarly huge lapse on the part of the attorney general, who was appointed by Clinton as a U.S. attorney in 1999, to allow him to come aboard for any kind of conversation.

snip//


But this is anything but a routine matter, and there is a difference between political interference and a case involving politics. This is a case with dramatic political ramifications, as everyone knows. The outcome could reshape the presidential campaign.

Lynch isn’t the only one whose actions raise questions. Think of this: The president has endorsed and is actively campaigning for Clinton at a time when his Justice Department is still in the process of deciding whether she should be prosecuted. Although that has drawn little comment, it shocks some who have been in senior positions in previous governments and who believe that no White House can be truly indifferent or disinterested in such an important case.

Obama has made mistakes on this before. He seemingly sided with Clinton earlier, saying she was careless but that he didn’t think she had intentionally put national security in jeopardy. Does the fact of his endorsement mean that he thinks, as do any number of legal experts, that she will be in some way exonerated by the Justice Department?

Finally there is the question of when the investigation will end and the findings made public. The prosecutors are trying to be careful and thorough, which is laudable. But a clock is ticking. The Democrats are now weeks away from likely nominating Clinton for president. The longer the investigation goes, the more any decision has major political impact.

Hillary Clinton wants and needs a clean resolution of the long investigation. Bill Clinton and the attorney general managed to muddy all this with their private chat in Phoenix, no doubt to the consternation of both Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department officials trying to bring this to a resolution soon. No one looks good in this transaction.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
1. It's possible he set up for her recusal by doing the bum's rush onto her plane. If that happens
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:09 PM
Jul 2016

then I would assume one could consider his stunt a success.

emulatorloo

(44,188 posts)
2. " is still in the process of deciding whether she should be prosecuted."
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:13 PM
Jul 2016

Unsupported claim. Only the FBI knows what the investigation is about, and they aren't leaking.

I understand the media's desire to create a "Tarmac-gate" scandal. They are driven by increasing their clicks and ratings.

babylonsister

(171,096 posts)
6. So, blame the media for
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:22 PM
Jul 2016

their boneheadedness? If this hadn't happened, they no doubt wouldn't be talking about it. And fyi, got this article from Robert Reich with this:

Why did Bill Clinton have a private meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport last week, just when the Justice Department is likely nearing completion of its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails as Secretary of State? Washington Post Columnist Dan Balz (below) blames it on Bill Clinton’s “foolish indifference or plain foolishness.” I don’t think it’s either. Bill Clinton wasn’t indifferent, and he’s hardly foolish. I attribute it to a sense of entitlement. Bill Clinton simply felt he was entitled to visit Lynch on his own, when the plane he was riding in touched down on the tarmac near Lynch’s government plane.

He was wrong, of course. And the visit (which I assume was innocent) has only served to undermine public confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of the Justice Department’s probe – as Lynch herself recognized. “The fact that the meeting that I had is now casting a shadow over how people are going to view that work is something that I take seriously, and deeply and painfully,” she said later.

Bill Clinton is one of the most talented politicians of our generation, and I feel privileged to have served with him in Washington. But I find his sense of entitlement deeply frustrating.

What do you think?

emulatorloo

(44,188 posts)
9. Do you have credible links that indicate HRC is in danger of 'prosecution.'?
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:47 PM
Jul 2016

Or credible links that indicate WJC and Lynch have not had a relationship for 20 years?

Insinuations or assertions in Op-Eds don't count, as that is SPIN.

babylonsister

(171,096 posts)
12. Actually, I am not
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jul 2016

rooting for her to be prosecuted. After all, I am a Dem and would not look forward to the circus that would surround that.

However, this article is about the stupidity of that meet-up, and with that I do agree.

emulatorloo

(44,188 posts)
15. 1. I didn't say yr 'rooting'. 2. Meeting stupid maybe, nefarious no.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jul 2016

I did not say you are "rooting" for Clinton to be prosecuted. I never said that and I am not implying it either.

I said Balz's assertion that the JD is trying to decide whether she is going to be prosecuted is fact-free baseless speculation.

I am sticking to my assertion that "Tarmac-gate" is a failed creation of right-wingers that the ad-supported media has taken up in hopes of increasing clicks and ratings. Horse-race coverage and fake melodrama.

 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
4. That's because President Obama,
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:20 PM
Jul 2016

like most rational people, is aware that this is not a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.

This investigation can not wrap up soon enough. Too many worried and misinformed minds need to be eased.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
7. Oh god please dont start whining about insignificant things already.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:23 PM
Jul 2016

Dear media, dont turn the next 8 years into a TMZ episode.

pnwmom

(108,997 posts)
10. No. Bill did a thoughtless, friendly thing, but it makes no one else look bad.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:51 PM
Jul 2016

And has zero to do with Obama.

Response to pnwmom (Reply #10)

treestar

(82,383 posts)
14. oh bull, people can be friends
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:04 PM
Jul 2016

and talk to each other. Also they are not looking to prosecute. No this does not re-shape everything. Will they bother to dig into Trump's past in the media, ever?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»How everyone looks bad be...