The Lynch-Clinton confab is still the dominant theme. A local Arizona reporter claims that the FBI ordered ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones’ during Clinton/Lynch meeting. Since when has Bill Clinton or the Attorney General been camera shy, and what right do they have to order no pictures? If you don't want pictures, stay away from reporters. THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION asks. . .
if the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Phoenix Airplane Chat (a truly opaque PAC) was a plea-bargaining session –with Slick Willie begging on behalf of himself, not Hillary and her national security crimes.Once Security Source Details How Bill Clinton Maneuver to Meet Loretta Lynch."Former president delayed Phoenix takeoff to snare '20-25 minute encounter' with Attorney General." Did he do this to get her off Hillary's case? This is too deep for me. Does he, or does he not want her to be President? The Usual Suspects in the MSM assure us nothing untoward occurred: ABC, NBC Finally Cover Clinton/Lynch Meeting, Only 'Pleasantries', but Loretta Lynch: Come to think of it, my meeting with Bill Clinton has cast a shadow over the e-mail investigation, found an excuse to distance but not recuse herself from the case(s). But when a Clinton is involved, you have to watch use of words very carefully:
Here’s the vastly probable scenario and don’t let mainstream media propagandists scorn it as a right wing plot: The FBI (which works for Attorney General Lynch) discovers evidence of Clinton Foundation corruption, say, the selling of political appointments to donors. At the minimum, rule of law supporting Feebs will solicit Ole Slick’s testimony –if not demand it with a subpoena. He’s the Clinton Foundation’s biggest fish. Fair bet former US Attorney Joseph DiGenova had this scenario in mind or one like when he told the Daily Caller that he believes Slick Willie
“is at least a witness in two criminal investigations, probably a subject in two criminal investigations. He is a person of interest officially to the Department of Justice.”So Bill’s the slick person of interest. SPOI. The oily Mr. Clinton’s new acronym just begs for an L, doesn’t it? An apt L lurks in his past. In 1999 a federal judge fined him $90 grand for LYING.
Could … this be why she won’t give up control?Rush Limbaugh: We're Being Played by the Clintons. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air thinks Lynch’s plan to “remove herself” and “accept the FBI decision” over Clinton’s emails is probably a smokescreen. Ace is suspicious too
“I fully expect to accept their recommendations,” Lynch said Friday at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “The final determination for how to proceed will be contained in the recommendations in the report.”…“A recusal would mean that I wouldn’t even be briefed on what the findings were, or what the actions going forward would be,” Lynch said. “While I don’t have a role in those findings and coming up with those findings or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I’ll be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations.”She’s saying two different things there. “Expecting” to accept the FBI’s findings suggests that she might yet overrule them. Saying that she “will” accept their findings means that she won’t. In the first case, the only way Lynch might realistically overrule them is if they recommend charging Hillary and Lynch refuses, which would send public suspicions of a conspiracy within the DOJ to protect Hillary from lava-hot to thermonuclear. In the second case, if Lynch is honestly planning to do whatever the FBI recommends, then there’s no reason not to recuse herself. She’s telling you upfront that she’ll cede the decision on whether to charge to her underlings. Her refusal to recuse under those circumstances is nonsensical. Either way, we have a problem.
the media is reporting this as if she vowed to accept the FBI's word. No, she hasn't. She's talking about an amorphous blob of people, both the FBIand her own senior employees, and that means she gets to decide who makes the cut on her list of "senior prosecutors," and she can decide what weight to give each person's vote.and then Loretta Lynch: To Protect the Integrity of the Department of Justice, I Vow to Listen to the FBI's Recommendation on Hillary Clinton Before Clearing My Tarmac-Buddy's Wife of All Charges
In other words, she's retaining all power in her own hands -- she's just trying to pretend she's taking herself out of the decision.
That, like everything else this Fun Bunch claims, is a damnable lie.
Note that "accept" has two meanings: 1, to take possession of, as of a parcel or mail delivery. 2, to take as one's own position.The Daily Beast wonders if This Why Hillary Clinton Is Trusted By So Few Americans? Well, yes.
I think it's deliberate that Lynch has chosen a word to suggest she means meaning 2 -- to appease a roiled nation -- when in fact she intends only meaning 1.
She'll take the recomendations in hand. If the recommendation is for no indictment, she'll agree to not indict Clinton.
If the recommendation is for an indictment, she'll merely "accept" that recommendation (take possession of it), then not indict Clinton.
Evidence the end, one way or the other, is near. Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday
On the Benghazi front, Dems circle wagons of lies around Hillary after Benghazi report but a Benghazi widow tells Hillary: How dare you tell me to “move on”
Hillary's plan to make college cheap for the rich: Clinton’s Student Loan Plan: Subsidies for Stanford Graduates
And in the nepotism and corruption watch: Clinton sought secret info on EU bailout plans as son-in-law's doomed hedge fund gambled on Greece
Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.But apparently, the intelligence was wrong, or Chelsea's husband was too stupid to take advantage of it, because his hedge fund lost investors a ton of money.
That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable
From Larwyn's Linx: No, Hillary, It Is Not Time to Move On, Judge Allows Lawsuit to Probe Hillary's Secret Meetings With Donors, Bill Clinton up to his old tricks in meeting with Loretta Lynch, So What Will Loretta Lynch Get?, Benghazi report: It's clear Clinton put her own ambitions above fidelity to the law, Your guide to knowing whether your news outlet is in the tank for Hillary, Mika Rips Media Blackout on Clinton-Lynch Meeting: ‘People Too Afraid to Talk About the Truth’, Levin on Benghazi Anti-Muslim Video: 'Obama Lied... Hillary Lied... They All Lied': CNS