Bill Clinton met with AG Loretta Lynch privately in Phoenix

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
I think you're all missing the boat. Lynch wanted to meet with Bill because he is going to testify against his wife. He wants out of the Clinton family and has been wearing a wire for 2 years now.

I totally didn't expect humor from you on this subject Buck

Since I started it earlier have you done stupid things for poon also?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Serious question, if his goal was to somehow influence her decision in regards to that why on earth would he meet her in such an obvious fashion? Do you really think Bill Clinton is that stupid?

The one thing I am really not looking forward to with a Clinton presidency is the revival of the insane and ridiculous conspiracy theories. This is just the start.

Bill did an intern in the Oval office.

To him, doing this on a plane is being discrete.

Bills small talk 'Hows the job? like it?' done.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Considering that Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch for Judge in New York, there is a relationship there, which in the public eye, will not bode well and will appear that there is bias. She needs to recuse herself from this investigation and any potential decision making. It's just a bad look.

The drums are beating for her to be removed and I don't think this is going away. I'm all for getting an unbiased special prosecutor involved.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
No, I think Bill is actually brilliant. Best President in my lifetime. I'd vote for him in 2000 if given another chance and we didn't have term limits. That said I think he is that brazen.



Of course those theories would have a harder time having any basis if the Clintons didnt do things like run personal email servers while being Secretary of State that spark an investigation and then meet with the person doing the investigating. It is all a giant smear campaign made up out of thin air with this couple.
Which begs the circular argument, did she do this because of her lack of ethics, or did she do it because she knew that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DECISION would be combed over by Republic operatives looking for an angle? She'd gone through this with whitewater, Paula what her face, and Lewinsky. She knew exactly how this would play out, and hence why she opted to be in charge of the narrative, especially when it was clearly accepted SOP. She'd be insane not to. And if you don't know why she's right, it starts with a "b" and and ends with "-enghazi"
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,175
9,159
136
Considering that Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch for Judge in New York, there is a relationship there, which in the public eye, will not bode well and will appear that there is bias. She needs to recuse herself from this investigation and any potential decision making. It's just a bad look.

The drums are beating for her to be removed and I don't think this is going away. I'm all for getting an unbiased special prosecutor involved.

Kenneth Starr to the rescue.
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Considering that Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch for Judge in New York, there is a relationship there, which in the public eye, will not bode well and will appear that there is bias. She needs to recuse herself from this investigation and any potential decision making. It's just a bad look.

The drums are beating for her to be removed and I don't think this is going away. I'm all for getting an unbiased special prosecutor involved.
Just had a thought, what if Lynch wants out of this decision and she agreed to this meeting knowing there would be cries for a special prosecutor. She gets to wash her hands of this and by proxy, Obama himself.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,300
32,806
136
So nonsense that she edited out all references to islam/isis etc from the Orlando terrorist.

Strategic. Why give ISIS additional credit in published reports. The fact you know what was said, is proof.

Again if both parties were up to something phone call would have been way better then meeting in public.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Just had a thought, what if Lynch wants out of this decision and she agreed to this meeting knowing there would be cries for a special prosecutor. She gets to wash her hands of this and by proxy, Obama himself.

What if Bill & Loretta don't care what right ravers say & they're having fun twisting your tails?

That'd be some form of persecution, obviously.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Strategic. Why give ISIS additional credit in published reports. The fact you know what was said, is proof.

Again if both parties were up to something phone call would have been way better then meeting in public.

Yes lets edit public records because she is so nonsense, except on matters of Political correctness, and you know the simple fact that her boss likes to whitewash Muslim terrorism.

ISIS will take credit with or without 'official' reports.

-Bill did an intern in the oval office, and lied about it. Like I said before, to him this meeting was private.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
What if Bill & Loretta don't care what right ravers say & they're having fun twisting your tails?

That'd be some form of persecution, obviously.

What is the Dems knew that no matter what they did you'd still think their shit smells like roses?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,300
32,806
136
Yes lets edit public records because she is so nonsense, except on matters of Political correctness, and you know the simple fact that her boss likes to whitewash Muslim terrorism.

ISIS will take credit with or without 'official' reports.

-Bill did an intern in the oval office, and lied about it. Like I said before, to him this meeting was private.

You mean like they took credit for the downing of Egypt Air?

Like they take credit for attacks on Turkey?

Oh that's right in those cases they didn't.

They take credit when it is in their interest. Why play their game?

Its that simple mindedness that got us into this mess in the first place.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
And you would have thought the same about the Monica Lewenski scandal, but he was stupid then as well.

I knew someone would bring this up.

All I can say is, who hasn't done some stupid stuff for nookie?
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,125
792
126
It's poon in this thread. We had one guy earlier saying he's never done anything stupid for poon.

Yeah, just saw that. All I can say to that poster is:

Ufbr5ej.gif
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
Nothing will come of this unless there was a video with audio recording of it that shows up. There is certainly an appearance problem here even if nothing related to the investigation was discussed, but again, there's zero chance anything will come of this without a recording though there's little doubt the Republicans will try to make something of this -- up to and including a congressional investigation into the investigators.

OTH, did it really take them 30 minutes to talk about there kids? If the reported time of 30 minutes pans out I'd not be without cause to suspect something beyond there kids or BREXIT was being talked about.


Brian
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Nothing will come of this unless there was a video with audio recording of it that shows up. There is certainly an appearance problem here even if nothing related to the investigation was discussed, but again, there's zero chance anything will come of this without a recording though there's little doubt the Republicans will try to make something of this -- up to and including a congressional investigation into the investigators.

OTH, did it really take them 30 minutes to talk about there kids? If the reported time of 30 minutes pans out I'd not be without cause to suspect something beyond there kids or BREXIT was being talked about.


Brian
Appearance is all it takes. She should recuse herself.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,600
6,084
136
Unlikely to be actual impropriety, but anyone in the public eye should know better than to even give the appearance of impropriety.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
Appearance is all it takes. She should recuse herself.


Lets pretend that she and he walked past each other at the airport and had no foreknowledge of there meeting and that the only thing they did in passing was say "hi" -- would that require her to recuse herself? Would the R's demand some investigation if all that happened was for them to pass each other in the terminal?

Baring some revelation such as a video or audio recording that suggests something nefarious she should not have to recuse herself to satiate the insatiable need to accuse of the right...

There are things that might suggest something beyond "high, how ya doin" but without something more I'd suggest moving along...


Brian
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I think you're all missing the boat. Lynch wanted to meet with Bill because he is going to testify against his wife. He wants out of the Clinton family and has been wearing a wire for 2 years now.
lol +1

Considering that Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch for Judge in New York, there is a relationship there, which in the public eye, will not bode well and will appear that there is bias. She needs to recuse herself from this investigation and any potential decision making. It's just a bad look.

The drums are beating for her to be removed and I don't think this is going away. I'm all for getting an unbiased special prosecutor involved.
Meh. Everyone knows that Lynch is Obama's cat's paw. That's the nature of the position, and if anyone doubted it, that editing of the Orlando shooter's words put it to rest. I can't see this changing her reputation one way or the other.

As for a special prosecutor, I don't see that as workable. Neither Obama nor Congress could nominate someone without political taint attaching, he or she would probably be conducting the bulk of the investigation on a sitting President, and there is always immense pressure on a special prosecutor to indict SOMEONE, for SOMETHING. In this case we already know exactly what she did and why she did it, we know that the Bushies did the same thing to a much limited degree, and we know that some of her illegal behavior was honestly required to effectively do her job. (Admittedly not required the way she did it, but laws were going to be broken regardless if on her private server or State's server.) What's left to investigate?

Which begs the circular argument, did she do this because of her lack of ethics, or did she do it because she knew that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DECISION would be combed over by Republic operatives looking for an angle? She'd gone through this with whitewater, Paula what her face, and Lewinsky. She knew exactly how this would play out, and hence why she opted to be in charge of the narrative, especially when it was clearly accepted SOP. She'd be insane not to. And if you don't know why she's right, it starts with a "b" and and ends with "-enghazi"
Nice that you've already provided her with a ready-made excuse for anything she gets caught doing. Why, she'd be insane not to break the law! Luckily Mrs. Clinton is the only politician in history to be investigated for anything or this really might get out of hand. Of course, we would be insane to elect as President someone who would be insane not to break the law for her own convenience.
 
Last edited: