• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bill Clinton met with AG Loretta Lynch privately in Phoenix

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,787
67
91
And if they had passed up the chance to meet despite there being an obvious and convenient chance to it would have meant they were given over even sooner and were just trying to put on the appearance of propriety.

HRC has been the most consistently scrutinized person on this planet over the past 25 years, you'd think if she was a hundredth as devious as she's treated as there would be something, anything, concrete on her instead of endless innuendo. But haters gonna hate and news is gonna "news."
When you are at some level above the law, things actually don't stick - Even when you are dirty.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,587
2,630
126
Word on the street is that there will be no DOJ indictment.

/you may return to your long lasting non-stop Clinton outrage..
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
Word on the street is that there will be no DOJ indictment.

/you may return to your long lasting non-stop Clinton outrage..
That's because Bill used Kenyan voodoo mind meld thought control on Loretta Lynch in that airplane. Gzzzerrrt! Fried the poor woman's brains. Once he got her alone she never had a chance.

You know it's true. He learned it from the evil Kenyan usurper himself. All the nefarious Democrats are using it. Jade Helm was a training exercise for their operatives. It'll be Fema camps & Sharia Law for everybody right after they come for your guns in the war on Christmas.

The great Limbaugh came to me in a dream & told me many secrets....
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
12,840
1,358
126
So if the FBI comes back and says there was no criminal wrongdoing will that just be further proof of how deep the corruption goes?

doo-wee-doo-wee-doo-dooo

The truth is out there!
I was willing to accept the FBI's decision regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, but the events of the last few days have made me even more skeptical of the entire affair. The media leak of the tarmac encounter and its timing cast a shadow of corruption over the closing proceedings of the whole email fiasco.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
I was willing to accept the FBI's decision regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, but the events of the last few days have made me even more skeptical of the entire affair. The media leak of the tarmac encounter and its timing cast a shadow of corruption over the closing proceedings of the whole email fiasco.
Spoken like a true Birther/ Benghazi believer. If the truth isn't as you want it to be, that just means the conspiracy is bigger than you thought.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Maybe the reason I never speculate is that I don't have the talent for it.
Once you realize there is no factual answer to a question you are free to conjure up what ever you want and postulate it to be probably factual. In time, it don't much matter what the truth of a question is because it will be your conjured version that becomes your truth.
Look at this and other threads and you'll see what I mean. And if you ever develop the talent for speculation and postulation you'll no longer see the truth even if it should smack you in the head... You become the servant of the pink fuzzy moonbeams scurrying about in your mind... :D
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
12,840
1,358
126
Spoken like a true Birther/ Benghazi believer. If the truth isn't as you want it to be, that just means the conspiracy is bigger than you thought.
You do realize it is possible to be dismissive of the birther/Benghazi BS but still remain skeptical of the a bit too convenient to dismiss series of events around Clinton's emails. Also, not everyone who is critical of Clinton automatically supports Trump.

My preferred scenario is a Clinton indictment that leads to a Biden/Warren ticket or the adults in the Republican Party overthrow Trump for maybe a Ryan led ticket.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
82
91
You do realize it is possible to be dismissive of the birther/Benghazi BS but still remain skeptical of the a bit too convenient to dismiss series of events around Clinton's emails. Also, not everyone who is critical of Clinton automatically supports Trump.
That's only because of your belief in Area 51 and the grays.:sneaky:
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,021
698
126
Went and seen THE PURGE:ELECTION YEAR, and I realized something.
A caparison of sorts between that fabricated movie and this real life presidential election.

I think we do need a president that stirs things up a bit.
Gets in the hot water from time to time.
Doesn't always follow the rules, and is non-apologetic about that.
Someone really tough as nails.
And I speak of...... Hillary Clinton.

If she were all namby pamby, always politically correct, never seen things differently and never dare go about things in her own way, Hillary would be labeled as weak.
Too female.
Too soft for the presidency.
However... that Hillary is not.

She makes her own path, makes her own rules outside of the box when so desired, and that only expresses her true strength.
And we all know how republicans feel about any women who dare follow their own path, do not fit into that mold, republicans absolutely HATE THAT in a woman.
And some democrats too.
And so they hate Hillary Clinton.

Trump calls her a crook. Crooked Hillary. Why?
Because she was investigated???
Because she was questioned???
Because she dare do things her own way while remaining within the law???
No...
Donald really doesn't hate Hillary for any of that....
Trump doesn't call Hillary names and a crook because of that.

Donald calls Hillary names because.... "she" is a strong woman in her own right.
Just like any white fat republican male, Hillary too is able to function outside of the box.
And that illustrates her power and her strong willed instinct.
And that drives Donald insanely CRAZY!
Plus, a lot of republicans as well, if not all republicans.
And yes, even a lot of democrats.

Why did they hate Obama so?
Because Obama dare not stay in his place. Stay in his box.
Stay within the box they set for him.
Well, the same goes for Hillary Clinton.
And add the words "presidential candidate" to the name Hillary Clinton, and we can see what is really going on here.
Why they go so totally insane over Hillary just exactly as they have done for the past eight years over that how dare he be president of the United States, president Obama.

I'm glad Hillary is a pain their republican ass.
I'm glad she entices all that name calling.
I'm glad they cannot accept she is her own woman, with a brain, and able to function beyond the box.
And that makes Hillary a strong willed woman. And will make her a strong world leader.
Too strong for some of THEM, obviously....

Hillary is not a crook. She has broken no law. Hillary has her own home server. Hillary runs her own private email account. Republicans have proven not one single corrupt thing over Hillary, try hard as they may.
Hillary is grandmother, a wife, a female, doesn't care to bake cookies, and THAT drives a lot of people both republican and democrat absolutely nutz.
And possibly driving most insane, that father of insanity himself, that republican candidate better known as... Donald Trump.
And that I have very much enjoyed.
Hillary could just be the smartest, strongest, intelligent fat white male republican out there.
She has proven she can beat them at their own game. And we're not talking golf.
But I'd wager she could beat Donald at a game of golf on any day. And on his own grassy ass course.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
I was willing to accept the FBI's decision regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, but the events of the last few days have made me even more skeptical of the entire affair. The media leak of the tarmac encounter and its timing cast a shadow of corruption over the closing proceedings of the whole email fiasco.
What do you think could have taken place at the meeting between AG Lynch & Clinton here as the FBI investigation is winding down to corrupt the outcome? And why do you think it would have happened this way and not more covertly, perhaps even with someone acting on behalf of the Clintons, instead of someone as high profile as Bill himself?
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
12,840
1,358
126
What do you think could have taken place at the meeting between AG Lynch & Clinton here as the FBI investigation is winding down to corrupt the outcome? And why do you think it would have happened this way and not more covertly, perhaps even with someone acting on behalf of the Clintons, instead of someone as high profile as Bill himself?
It did happen covertly until it leaked, and at least Lynch has the decency and ethics to admit the implications of the meeting even happening in the first place. Who knows what they discussed. Sometimes no words are even said when it comes to influence and intimidation. Just seems like a lot of lies and 5th amendment shielding and political maneuvering for something that was "legal at the time". My guess is that nothing explicitly illegal occurred relative to the security review, but there are emails on the "personal side" that politically frame the Clinton Foundation in a way that would have a similar impact as Romney's 47% comment. Something is being hidden. We will never know.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
It did happen covertly until it leaked, and at least Lynch has the decency and ethics to admit the implications of the meeting even happening in the first place. Who knows what they discussed. Sometimes no words are even said when it comes to influence and intimidation. Just seems like a lot of lies and 5th amendment shielding and political maneuvering for something that was "legal at the time". My guess is that nothing explicitly illegal occurred relative to the security review, but there are emails on the "personal side" that politically frame the Clinton Foundation in a way that would have a similar impact as Romney's 47% comment. Something is being hidden. We will never know.
"Covert" only in the sense that there was no press release. It happened openly in a public space. Bill walked down the steps from his plane, across the tarmac & up the steps to Lynch's plane with nobody to stop him. There were probably more than a few witnesses. Hell, their security details work for entirely different departments.

So far as we know, only Pagliani asserted his fifth amendment rights. It's reasonable for him to do that considering that his apparent role was only technical, a side job for the boss that turned out to have implications he never dreamed of. I'm sure he never realized it might turn into a minefield. He followed the first rule of dealing with the police- say nothing until you've consulted an attorney.

Believing that to be mostly true, the FBI puts him in a position where he'll speak freely about the technical & chronological installation of the server & its software because he's the only one who knows the story. If the real issue is security rather than a witch hunt that's information they need.

If email such as you suggest actually exists I'm sure you can produce them, right?

Or, when the conspiracy theory doesn't cover the facts, just make the conspiracy bigger to make it feel like it might.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporter-fbi-ordered-no-photos-no-pictures-of-lynchclinton-meeting/

the Phoenix journalist who broke the story of the private meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former president Bill Clinton said that his sources tell him the FBI was on the scene telling bystanders they weren’t allowed to take photos. “The former president steps into her plane. They then speak for 30 minutes privately. The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’ He then gets off the plane, gets on his own plane, he departs, she continues on with her planned visit,” recounted ABC15’s Christopher Sign.
This was on Fox though, so it's probably part of the vast right wing conspiracy. That being said, if you can afford an airplane you can probably afford a long distance phone call to chat about the grandkids and your golf game or whatever innocent topic they were actually discussing.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporter-fbi-ordered-no-photos-no-pictures-of-lynchclinton-meeting/

This was on Fox though, so it's probably part of the vast right wing conspiracy. That being said, if you can afford an airplane you can probably afford a long distance phone call to chat about the grandkids and your golf game or whatever innocent topic they were actually discussing.
Mmmm... "Sources!" & "Outrage!" leading down the conspiracy theory path.

The assertion that multiple witnesses were present tells us it wasn't supposed to be a secret at all.

Why is the simple answer unacceptable?
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Jhhnn, since you're on ignore, but I'm assuming you're asking what the definition of obtuse is, here you go:

1. mentally slow or emotionally insensitive
In your case the first probably applies.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
The notion that Lynch did anything wrong is scurrilous. I just try to put myself in her place. Before she has a chance to think about it, the ever affable Bill Clinton is boarding her plane to say hello. Right out of the blue. Even if it occurs to her that he shouldn't be there it's already too late.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
Jhhnn, since you're on ignore, but I'm assuming you're asking what the definition of obtuse is, here you go:



In your case the first probably applies.
I'll grant that you're being deliberately obtuse in answering a question directed to another poster with a personal insult towards me.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
12,840
1,358
126
Support it here or don't. I don't really care.

I think the optics were bad, beyond that, its all random conspiracy bs.

I'm sure we'll spend another $10M to investigate if Clinton wins in November.
I do enjoy how every time there is a political scandal we have to invent new words to sanitize things. We can't just call it for what it is. Conflict of interest and unethical. No, the optics were bad. I wonder if my HR department should include optics in our corporate code of conduct.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
What conspiracy theory? All I posted is what the man who broke the story said. It conflicts with what you claimed. Do you have evidence to support your position that the airport tarmac was a public place and the journalist is lying about not being able to take photographs? A phone call is simple, why didn't they do that?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY