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

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
You're conveniently misreading it. If the actual substance isn't in question then the appearance otherwise is moot.



And why is everyone acting like Bill Clinton of all people wouldn't know how to meet a woman for some naughty purpose in secret and actually keep it secret?
LOL, try all you want, you can't spin out of it... I wouldn't be surprised to see Lynch gone.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
I like the idea of a massive train wreck, Nixon style. Mid term, baby, it's just the way she's wired.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Same kinda bullshit was spewed out before obama's 1st term. Conservatives dreams, nothing more.
You know, I never felt Obama was/is corrupt, I've disagreed with a few of his decisions, but I voted for him twice. I'm a Hillary hating Democrat.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
You know, I never felt Obama was/is corrupt, I've disagreed with a few of his decisions, but I voted for him twice. I'm a Hillary hating Democrat.
And Obama will be out campaigning with Hillary tomorrow, July 5. Does that tell you anything?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
99,999
13,987
136
Man, this whole thing was served up on a platter for the repubs and Donald, but then of course Donald just had to be The Donald and Tweet out some more white supremacist shit on the day where he should have been drawing blood.

:D

What a fucking idiot.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I can't help that you're literally too daft to accept what you don't know.
What you "know" is nothing more than what you need to be true politically.

Here's a direct quote of what I said...

"But, unless some recording pops up that suggests something nefarious the most that's likely to happen is for LL to recuse, but I doubt even that will happen."

So, unless something pops up to say that the conversation involved the case the only thing that was likely, and LL has suggested this herself, is that she may have to recuse herself. I followed that up by saying Idoubt that will happen.

You are a blithering troll!


Brian
Nah, he's just a buggy piece of code that recognizes words in your post and regurgitates the tabulated left wing response to those words. Even a troll recognizes meanings, but code is notoriously unable to do so.

Late to the party... But I will leave this here.

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/06/30/lynchs-surreptitious-meeting-clinton-violates-doj-ethics-regs/

and

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics-handbook

She is in violation of the DOJ's own ethics handbook/code of conduct. She would know this. For those defending this meeting as simply two old friends talking about their kids and life I might point out that the conversation they had doesn't matter. She created an appearance of being unethical. It is convenient that it happened on a private jet, parked on the tarmac where a very private conversation could be ensured.

Those defending her are defending either corruption or stupidity. Please take your pick.
I offer a third choice: Those who are defending her honestly prefer her form of government. They see laws as merely hampering the greatness that the far left could otherwise achieve. It's part and parcel of seeing no problem with, say, Algore demanding that ordinary Americans give up automobiles whilst his own limos idle throughout his events as he criss-crosses the country by private jet. It's a desire to establish an unaccountable royalty who will do what's best.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
21,972
6,566
136
And Obama will be out campaigning with Hillary tomorrow, July 5. Does that tell you anything?
I'm in sync with Artdeco.

What it tells me its a rescheduled event postponed in the wake of Orlando. I expect Obama to support Hillary unless she is indicted.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,040
445
126
Told you this was all a red herring as most Republican scandals are. The FBI made the decision. Never went to the DOJ.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,040
445
126
I don't think you understand the process.
Please enlighten me then.

Comey said that he would not recommend charges. That he's never seen a case in history similar to this that has been prosecuted. Also said, no prosecutor would take this case.

Again, enlighten me on the process.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Please enlighten me then.

Comey said that he would not recommend charges. That he's never seen a case in history similar to this that has been prosecuted. Also said, no prosecutor would take this case.

Again, enlighten me on the process.
You're saying the case never went to the AG, it's going to the AG/DOJ with the recommendation charges not be filed. Up to the AG/DOJ to agree or disagree, of course they'll agree, but that's the process.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,040
445
126
You're saying the case never went to the AG, it's going to the AG/DOJ with the recommendation charges not be filed. Up to the AG/DOJ to agree or disagree, of course they'll agree, but that's the process.
Just stop. You know exactly what I meant. Be Honorable and eat your crow.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,040
445
126
Um, no, failure to understand process or communicate in writing confirmed.
I'm not doing this back and forth with you. The fact you are really wasting your time this way is clearly endemic of you being so wrong in this thread.

I've been consistent in this thread that this was a meaningless scandal. It was clear the decision had already been made (probably why Lynch met with Bill). The fact the president was campaigning today with Clinton should have tipped you and told you everything you needed to know.

You should be more concerned with why you think trumping up this semi-scandal is an acceptable means to remove Clinton from the ticket.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
I'm not doing this back and forth with you. The fact you are really wasting your time this way is clearly endemic of you being so wrong in this thread.

I've been consistent in this thread that this was a meaningless scandal. It was clear the decision had already been made (probably why Lynch met with Bill). The fact the president was campaigning today with Clinton should have tipped you and told you everything you needed to know.

You should be more concerned with why you think trumping up this semi-scandal is an acceptable means to remove Clinton from the ticket.
Because I don't want someone the FBI calls "extremely irresponsible" as my president?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,047
3,704
126
If this Email/IT thing is important to you, you can still vote for Trump. FBI won't be helping you, but you can still vote how you feel about it. For Trump.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
270
136
What you "know" is nothing more than what you need to be true politically.
No, I know quite a bit and the director of the FBI confirmed everything I already knew. Perhaps now that the scandal is officially dead, you'll reassess your partisan outlook next time? Naaahhh.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
If this Email/IT thing is important to you, you can still vote for Trump. FBI won't be helping you, but you can still vote how you feel about it. For Trump.
Not entirely sure which state I'll be voting in, but if it's not close will vote 3rd party...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
No, I know quite a bit and the director of the FBI confirmed everything I already knew. Perhaps now that the scandal is officially dead, you'll reassess your partisan outlook next time? Naaahhh.
Just stop. You know exactly what I meant. Be Honorable and eat your crow.
Ahem:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
He didn't say she didn't break the law. He said there is evidence that she may have broken the law, but we're not going to recommend prosecution. The stupid and incompetent defense has prevailed. (Well, that and the impracticality of prosecuting all the other elites who do the same thing on a lesser scale.)
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,021
698
126
See the announcement by Paul Ryan after the FBI released NO CHARGES?

Ryan statement: "while I respect the FBI, this decision is ridiculous."

For those that need translation for what Ryan meant, Ryan actually meant:
WHILE I RESPECT THE FBI, THEY DROPPED THE BALL.
SO....... NOW MY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL CONDUCT OUR OWN INVESTIGATION.
WE WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD CONCERNING CHARGES OR NO CHARGES.
NATURALLY, WE WILL FIND CHARGES.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY