Former President Clinton had a private off the record meeting with AG Lynch.
Is it not a little strange that the former president and the AG would be in the same place at the same time in Arizona and have a 30 minute meeting while the AG is investigating his wife and could be a witness in this investigation?
The meeting was not recorded.
Isn't it nice to have the person investigating you and making the final decision on your prosecution as a friend. So much a friend your husband goes out of his way to say "hi, how are your grandkids? Here is a pic of mine" for a half hour. Knowing the AG's boss wants the investigation to go away also helps too.
I hope if I am ever under investigation my friend can have his staff do the investigation and make the final decision know his boss is also rooting for me to have the investigation stopped.
On Friday, Lynch stated flat out, without qualification, that she would accept the recommendations of the FBI and not overrule it concerning whether any laws were possibly violated in Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to store her personal and official emails.
Is anyone actually accusing Loretta Lynch of lying? Not yet, at least in the media.
But the partisan Republicans and some members of the media don’t have the guts to use the word “lying” in making that accusation. The innuendo is that even though no one disputes that President Clinton in his brief visit never once mentioned the email investigation – here comes the pure innuendo – “well, you know, Bill Clinton can schmooze very well,” and the message he intended to send and that Lynch received is “Go easy on Hillary.”
Note that pure innuendo is not only free of any facts. It is plain stupid. The very fact of the visit makes it even more definite – not that it needed to be made more definite – that Loretta Lynch would not interfere or attempt to influence the outcome of the FBI investigation. Now that she has categorically stated exactly that, the day after the meeting, are there any facts left to doubt her? To justify calling her a liar? No.
Does anyone report a single fact – not two, not three, just one – as evidence that she is lying? Or that anyone has influenced or attempted to influence FBI Director James Comey, who will receive the report of his line FBI investigators on this matter? Comey served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush and prior to that had been appointed by Bush as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Is it even plausible that Comey – whose record of political independence, professional integrity, and strength of character is beyond question -- would allow his judgment to be affected by President Clinton briefly visiting with Lynch to talk about his grandchildren and other personal topics?
So what do we have here? We have a media storm created by a media storm – a “controversy,” that is, created by that media storm. It’s a storm fed by partisan attacks from Republicans who are desperate to change the topic from the reckless and dangerous man they are about to nominate, rushing to the microphones with pure innuendo, calls for “recusal,” a “special counsel,” “outrage,” blah blah blah.
All innuendo – no facts.
It is flat out a conflict of interest for the friend of the suspect to be in charge of the investigation as well as the boss of the AG having an interest in and has stated on tape "there will be no evidence found" "not an inkling not a smidgen."
Bill is stupid and doesn't care who it effects.
There should be an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation.
There is no independence in this investigation.
I wouldn't go as far as drawn and quartered but if Trump went out of his way to make his own server and released 1,000s of emails detailing U.S. private info... Trump wouldn't even be running I don't just assume that either.
Please she isn't innocent. Don't worry though she'll never be held accountable because of double standards.
