June 16, 2018

"And I remember at that point saying, well, you know, thank you very much kind of thing, and he sort of continued chatting and, and said, and made a comment about his travels he was headed on."

"And I said, well, we’ve got to get going to the hotel. And I said I’m sure you’ve got somewhere to, to go. And he said yes. And I forget where he told me he was going. He was flying somewhere, but...I’ve forgotten where. He said I’m going to wherever I’m off to. And then he made some comment about West Virginia. And I do not know if he was headed to West Virginia. I just don’t know...if that was the reference to it. And he made a...comment about West Virginia and coal issues and how their problems really stem from policies that were set forth in 1932. And he talked about those policies for a while. And, and I said, okay, well."

I have read part of the IG's report. I read pages 202 to 211, about Bill Clinton's weird, extended intrusion onto Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, 2018. Could you please read that section and tell me what you think Bill Clinton was doing and the extent to which Loretta Lynch understood it and when in the 20 minutes or so she realized it was a problem?

The Executive Summary (page v) says "we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the Midyear investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting" but there was "the appearance problem" and Lynch made "an error in judgment" by not "tak[ing] action to cut the visit short."

We could talk about how narrowly the statements in the Executive Summary are framed. There's a lot of talk of finding no evidence, often tied to a particular issue, like whether Lynch and Bill Clinton discussed the Midyear investigation or another topic that they shouldn't have discussed. But I'd like to talk about the evidence that that the IG did find and the inferences that can be made from that evidence. There is a lot of evidence on pages 202 to 211, and I wish you'd read it before I tell you the inference that came through loud and clear for me.

My inference, from the evidence, is that Bill Clinton intended to cause Loretta Lynch to believe that she would be shown favor in a Hillary Clinton administration and to think that she was a front runner for the empty Supreme Court seat. Bill did not need to talk about the Midyear investigation. In fact, he needed to avoid it as he made himself at home on the plane, sitting down and staying far too long. In this interpretation, talking about the grandchildren made sense...
Well, after he was sharing with us his story about how...they introduced the two grandchildren to each other, which involved a toy...and that was green, and just, again, the family issues...
... because it created an aura of friendly closeness — a toy... that was green — and was meant to lodge in her mind that she was indeed a good friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's.
At some point, after two or three minutes, President Clinton turned around. I had my tote bags on the bench seat of the plane, because I had put them there when he came on board. I had been holding them. I put them down. He picked up my tote bags and moved them, and then he sat down. So he sat down, and my husband and I were still standing in front of him having the discussion. And...he sort of sat heavily, and...I didn’t know...how he felt, so I can’t say one way or the other. But he sat down and started talking about, you know, the grandkids and how they introduced them to each other. And so, and ultimately, because this went on for a little but, my husband and I sat down also, and, you know, had that discussion about his family and the kids[.]
He moved her tote bags! He used bodily movements to convey the idea that this is a sit-down session that is going to last, to draw her close and give her time to feel that something will come her way if she returns the good, warm, close feelings. I don't know if she ever got the idea: He's trying to say without saying that I will get the Supreme Court nomination. Or at least: Is he trying to make me think I'll get the Supreme Court nomination? And then, if she thought that, what next? Of course the IG has no evidence of what she thought, but I assume that the idea of getting the nomination flashed through her head. And when it did, what did she think?

I imagine that Lynch thought he's trying to make me think I've got a lot to gain if I treat Hillary Clinton well and that Lynch wanted what Bill Clinton was implicitly offering but also knew what he was doing was horribly wrong and had more potential to hurt her reputation than to get her the prize he was dangling.

ADDED: Bill moved the tote bags to create room "on the bench seat." Here, Loretta. Here's a seat on the bench. Won't you sit down?

ALSO: Did Lynch have reason to think she was a major contender for the empty Supreme Court seat?  Yes. She was enough of a contender at the time when Barack Obama was trying to be the one to fill the seat that she publicly withdraw her name for consideration (in early March of 2016):
“While [Lynch] is deeply grateful for the support and good wishes of all those who suggested her as a potential nominee, she is honored to serve as Attorney General, and she is fully committed to carrying out the work of the Department of Justice for the remainder of her term,” [said a  Justice Department spokeswoman].

There is speculation that Lynch did not want a long, drawn-out confirmation battle, which is almost assured given that congressional Republicans have said that they will not confirm any nominee put forth by the president—but especially one who might tip the court to the “left.”
It's easy to infer that she knew the odds were much better to wait for Hillary Clinton to win. Of course, Bill Clinton knew all this when he approached Lynch in June on that tarmac.

And here's an article in The Washington Times from about a month before the election about Hillary Clinton's possible nominees:
Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, hasn’t released a list of names she would recommend to the court, saying only that Congress should confirm President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. That’s the politically correct thing to say right now — but if Mrs. Clinton wins in November, there’s no doubt she’ll name her own, more liberal choice to the bench. There’s been some speculation that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general of the Department of Justice, could be on Mrs. Clinton’s short-list....

213 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213
Derve Swanson said...

Ann Althouse said...

"If you find all your comments are getting deleted, you are on notice that your continuing to post here is harassment."

If you find that nearly all of your comments are getting deleted, but occasionally one of your comments gets by, that means that our method of deleting your comments fails to catch every single one. But if you imagine that somehow sometimes you write something that we think is acceptable and choose not to delete, YOU ARE 100% WRONG. We delete ALL YOUR COMMENTS WITHOUT READING THEM. There is nothing you can write that will be acceptable. You should understand that we regard your continuing to post here as HARASSMENT.

Your continuing to post here, in light of this notice to you, WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AS HARASSMENT. Your intention to harass me is clear if you ever post here again. You must stop NOW.
---------------------



No shouting please...

My intent was not to harass you.
My intent was to post, on topic, under the commenting parameters. In some threads, my comments -- all of them, not a stray -- are kept up, and responded to. So I asked a clarifying question about who you were addressing since I was not always deleted, and was following the comment policy stated.

By the way:
how are you answering my question if you summarily delete without reading?? I suggest you do read them, and choose to leave many up, then respond in a SNIT when you or your commenters are disagreed with, on critical factors, in other comments.

Do keep reading though...
You seem to respond well when you think.

Derve Swanson said...

(and I'm not going to accuse you, but by leaving some comments up and deleting others, it certainly does smack of viewpoint discrimination: how do you choose who to delete and who is left up? It seems critical comments on on-topic threads are deleted, which suggests they are read and someone had their feelings hurt?)

Derve Swanson said...

PS. It's ok if everyone doesn't think like you do, ann, just like your opinions need not match those of your husband.

You seem to think there is only one way of seeing, which limits your perception.

Hopefully, President Trump will change the law very soon, and you'll get your wish to expand your mind through artificial substances, if you're not getting there naturally or with the legal chemicals now.

I recommend staying natural myself.
Your body will thank you in 20.

Achilles said...

There is nothing left to discuss.

The intents and actions taken are obvious.

The only thing left is for decent people to decide what to do about it.

Rory said...

I read it. Are we sure that was Bill Clinton, and not Inspector Luger?

Yancey Ward said...

LoL, Rory. Took me about 20 seconds to get the reference!

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

This is Althouse's turf. If I was not welcome in someone's house, I would not keep barging in though the front door and insisting that I should have a place at the dinner table too and how DARE the owner kick me out.

Go find some other place you're welcome.

Ken B said...

I agree with your inference. Just taking a long time, when it's obvious you are doing so, is itself a signal. What could such a signal be? Quid pro quo. Her advisor seems to have drawn exactly that inference.

Ken B said...

If one agrees, as I do, with Althouse’s inference, is there a second inference to be drawn? I think so. A politician doesn’t give away a goodie like a judgeship or especially a USSC seat for no reason. There is too much to be gained from it. So the inference is Bill believes Hillary is guilty. He is I think in a position to know. Inference: Hillary is guilty.

walter said...

Quaestor said...All these circumstances suggest this was a pre-arranged meeting intended to ensure maximum privacy regarding what was said by whom to whom.
--
Yet higher visibility in terms of others discovering the meeting...due to the unusual circumstances.
Otherwise, there is the ole telephone

Derve Swanson said...

exiledonmainstreet said...

This is Althouse's turf. If I was not welcome in someone's house, I would not keep barging in though the front door and insisting that I should have a place at the dinner table too and how DARE the owner kick me out.
----------------

That's cute.
This is not a house; it's a publicly accessible blog that welcomes comments that are on topic and non-abusive. My comments often are left us, and are always on topic.

Today, I disagree with ann's interpretation.
So I am being likened to a homebreaker who is not welcome?

OK. But if ann wanted the power to ban people on her blog, and if she believed she is being "harassed" beyond the limits of her comment policy on an open blog, why not invest in banning tools?

Instead, she makes selective accusations of harassment -- but keeps the blog commenting open... Does that sound like someone who fears a break in at her house? She runs an open blog, leaves comments up selectively, and choses to keep the blog "unlocked" to all commenters who play by the rules...

Why are you afraid of being challenged on your ideas on the blog, such that you need protection from other ideas here?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

I do not care if you comment here or not Mary and the idea that I am "afraid" of your ideas is laughable. I personally consider you less noxious than Ritmo or Inga. Occasionally you say something that makes sense. But it's not my blog and not my call.

pacwest said...

My take is very similar to Owen's. Bill wasn't trying to influence Lynch. All he had to do was compromise her. That would put the ball in Comey's court. Comey has made millions through his Clinton connections, so I figure he is pretty much bought and paid for.

So Bill sets on the tarmac waiting for Lynch, tipping off a reporter in the meantime, and then busts in on her and makes sure he spends long enough on the plane so the reporter has time to observe. Doesn't matter what they talk about, just that she is comprised. Hence the banality of the subject matter. And, he did nothing wrong in a legal sense. It fits what I think of as the Clinton MO. It also explains Bill's lack of rememberance. The trick wasn't what he said, just that the meeting took place. Slick Willie.

This theory assumes the willingness of Comey to handle the server situation, which is not that big of a stretch for me. Follow the money connections, and it is easy suppose Comey owes them big time. I would be suprised if they didn't have some dirt on him as an insurance policy.

I need to look up some dates. What point was the server investigation up to when the meeting took place?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213   Newer› Newest»