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].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.
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.”
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....
Posts
213 comments:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»"...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."
That creepy feeling. Hmmm...
I read it. My impressions are:
Her husband is on the trip so this is a pleasure cruise where she’ll conduct a little business to make it look like a business trip and not a pleasure cruise.
Too much coincidence that her plane is 3 hours late and Clinton’s plane is just getting ready for takeoff.
Lynch speaks in a “gee willikers” way about her conversation. Just a good-natured person meeting another good-natured person and having a swell conversation.
Typical government investigation. Don’t talk to the Lead Agent because that may compromise him. What the IG doesn’t know, they can’t report on. It’s the Sgt. Schultz ploy.
The interviewer hands Clinto a couple of topics that maybe he talked about and he latched onto them.
Nothing surprising about this. The first rule of government club is not to talk about government club.
The only thing he was trying to convey was "You are now corrupted." Later, they could use her as they wished or needed.
Could anyone ever believe what Bill Clinton said?
Just talking about the grandkids. Except Lynch doesn't have any.
Sessions should recuse himself.
Please, as you comment here, let me know if you have read the flagged pages and given yourself an opportunity to make inferences from the evidence. I'm particularly interested in other people replicating what I have done, just reading those pages and letting yourself understand what was going on.
I haven't read the pages, but remember this BJC is a first class schmoozer. Southern charmer (all that HrC lacks)
Read the flagged pages
I'd like to talk about the evidence that that the IG did find and the inferences that can be made from that evidence.
Thank you. The assertion -- it is hardly a reasoned, valid conclusion -- that there is "no evidence" is almost always complete BS. It is argumentative spin, which tends to cast doubt on the credibility of the person who says it, especially when it is a finder of fact.
The contrast between the IG Report's "we didn't find documentary evidence directly" proving that bias influenced specific FBI/DoJ decisions and the SCOTUS majority opinion in the Wedding Cake case is stark. 7 SCOTUS Justices found that the open hostility to the religious argument made by the baker rendered the whole process tainted, regardless of whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission could've reached the same result under legal precedents.
The IG Report provides abundant evidence of the naked bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton by all the main actors in both the Clinton email and Russian collusion investigation. (Key members of Mueller's team are describing themselves as the "Resistance", admitting their actions as motivated by a desire to prevent a Trump Presidency or create an insurance policy against a Trump Presidency). At every turn, prosecutorial decisions favor Clinton and her accomplices, or land with full punitive force on Trump players. But, miraculously, the deciders leave no documentary evidence that directly proves these decisions were made for politically biased reasons.
The difference between direct evidence and indirect circumstantial evidence -- and the validity of the latter in a case -- should be clear to any second-year law student.
I find it odd that she seems to have recognized it was a mistake immediately in the interview, but insisted it was perfectly proper when it happened in public.
Also... they talk pretty fast for 20 minutes. She remembers a lot of very specific details and then is vague about other things. It's just awkward.
One of the inferences we can make from the evidence submitted is the possibility that Lynch is not telling the truth, or at least the whole truth, with all that hemming and hawing.
It is also interesting how willing Lynch and her team are to throw Clinton under the bus, with phrases like he "engineered" the situation.
It doesn't matter what BJ Clinton said or did on the plane. Loretta Lynch should have never agreed for him to enter the plane in the first place. The fact that she isn't smart enough to understand that, is the story. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts about what they talked about, since the two of them didn't record the conversation.
"Southern charmer (all that HrC lacks)"
-- Fun fact; Lynch being too Southern to be impolite is one of the reasons given for her not telling Clinton no!
Too much coincidence that her plane is 3 hours late and Clinton’s plane is just getting ready for takeoff.
I'd read it, but I must make tracks, as they say... Later, I promise. That said, I wish to point out that there are too many unanswered questions in the IG report on the matter of the "tarmac meeting" to conclude "no evidence".
1) Why was Lynch's plane delayed?
2) Who told Clinton that Lynch's plane was delayed?
3) How did Clinton get permission to cross the flight line from his plane, waiting to take off, to another plane? That's a violation of FAA rules.
4) Why did Clinton's security team try to deter photographers? What authority did they invoke, and whose orders were they following?
All these circumstances suggest this was a pre-arranged meeting intended to ensure maximum privacy regarding what was said by whom to whom.
"[I]f you believe the nature, the circumstance, 500-year flood, if you believe that it’s officially unusual that you can’t participate meaningfully in one of the most important investigations in here, in your organization, then I think your obligation is to find another way to discharge leadership responsibilities." -- Comey on Lynch.
I... I always thought people JOKED about how over the top Comey was. But. No. He really does talk like that.
"I'd be more suspicious if she was giving pat, clean accountings in full."
-- Then you didn't read it. She remembers all sorts of little details, and then is conveniently hazy about the ones that could be damaging to her.
Though, in the IG retelling, as opposed to the ones she gave the public afterwards, Lynch is a stalwart who recognizes the danger and the appearance of impropriety she is in, and heroically strives to end it. An image you did not get if you just looked at what she said and did in the aftermath.
"It’s possible we’d end up in the same place, but it’s hard to relive different, imaginary lives." -- More Comey quotes.
I did the assigned work by Professor Althouse.
1. How does a Black woman change skin color to gray?
2.”I knew what I believed to be the truth of that whole thing. It was after all my server and the FBI knew it was there and the Secret Service approved it coming in and she just used what was mine.” As a result, he said that he never thought the investigation “amounted to much frankly so I didn’t probably take it as seriously as maybe I might have in this unusual period[.”
My server. Just what I thought. The legal fiction that it was Bill’s server was the rationalization as to why Hillary could run her bribery scheme through Bill’s server. But she stupidly used it for State Department business.
Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills or David Kendall planned this sever thing out from the beginning. Trust me on this.
3. Agree with the Professor. Bill didn’t have to directly tell Lynch that she would be the historic first black female on the Supreme Court if Hillary won and she played ball. Maybe that’s why he was talking about golf. Get it? These people aren’t that stupid. It was understood. It was just a nice way to make a point rather than putting a dead horsehead in her bed.
And if any Washington Times reporter steals the above, you must attribute it to me and the Althouse blog.
"It’s absolutely not true. I literally didn’t know she was there until somebody told me she was there." -- Bill Clinton. This... is kind of obvious. The question is WHEN did someone tell him she'd be there, but he just answers he didn't know until he was told.
Well, that was odd. I was struck by Lynch's staff person that went up to the plane to try and get Clinton to leave. She said Lynch looked 'gray' and I realized I could not for the life of me remember what she looked like. I had to google her to see a picture.
You would think that after all the hullabaloo over the last few years, I would remember her.
The parts of the report quoting Lynch were a difficult read. Her conversational style was very disjointed. Does she normally speak that way? Was this a transcript of a recording or someone's recollection of what she said?
She did a very good job of downplaying the conversation, but the impression I was left with was that Clinton was a very big cheese and she had no idea how to deal with him. Like a teenage girl meeting Bobby Sherman.
That's where the inferences come in in memory. If someone lays out something as clearly as this, and then suddenly stumbles when you ask them something else, you don't go: "Ah, that's just the old memory acting up!"
In Lynch's case though, her story now isn't "I don't recall," so much as "I was just too polite to be ethical!"
"He said that he discussed with his Chief of Staff whether he should say hello to Lynch, and that they debated whether he should do it because of “all the hoopla” in the campaign. He stated, “I just wanted to say hello to her and I thought it would look really crazy if we were living in [a] world [where] I couldn’t shake hands with the Attorney General you know when she was right there.”"
"Former President Clinton said that he did not consider that meeting with Lynch might impact the investigation into his wife’s use of a private email server."
-- So, Clinton and staff debate whether he should talk to her due to the "hoopla," meaning the investigation, but didn't consider that talking to her might impact said hoopla?
I'm not buying it, for some crazy reason.
Quoting the report: "Approximately 20 to 30 yards from Lynch’s plane was a private plane with
former President Bill Clinton on it. Former President Clinton had been in Phoenix
for several campaign events, including a roundtable discussion with Latino leaders
and a campaign fundraiser, and his plane was preparing to depart. Former
President Clinton said that he did not know in advance that Lynch was in Phoenix
and was not aware that her plane was close to his until his staff told him."
So former Commander-in Heat Bill Clinton's private jet taxis to within 60-90 feet of Lynch's plane and he did not know that? Yep, I'll buy that. That's credible *cough*.
"It was after all my server and the FBI knew it was there and the Secret Service approved it coming in and she just used what was mine.”"
--- WHOA! Wait! This was Bill Clinton's server? Not Hillary's? This is the first time I've heard it described like that.
after doing the assigned reading; i'm ready for class!
So, Bill just thought: "I thought it would look really crazy if we were living in [a] world [where] I couldn’t shake hands "...
After all; i've been waiting here a Long while for her, and i scheduled this meeting in a place where (i thought) no one would ever know, and it's not like there's any reason why i shouldn't be able to interfere; i'm not Paul Manafort or something!
"Well what I didn’t want to do is to look like I was having some big huddle-up session with her you know.... "
Which is why i picked This place! Damn that local reporter!!! It Almost worked!
And, of course he didn't mention Midyear (or anything else by name). Here's my interpretation:
"Good things happen when good things happen, wouldn't you agree?"
"Former President Clinton said that he recalled walking toward Lynch’s plane with his Chief of Staff, and that Lynch and her staff were “getting off the airplane.” He said that he greeted Lynch, who was on the plane, and Lynch stated, “[L]ook it’s a 100 degrees out there, come up and we’ll talk about our grandkids.”" -- Clinton's description.
Lynch's description does not match that, at all: "[W]e were walking toward the front door, and then...the head of my detail stopped and spoke to someone outside the plane, turned around and said former President Clinton is here, and he wants to say hello to you. And I think my initial reaction was the profound statement, what? Something like that. And he repeated that. And he spoke again to someone outside the plane. And we were, we were about to walk off the plane. We were going to go down the stairs and get into the motorcade and go on, and...the head of my detail said...can he come on and say hello to you? And I said, yes, he can come on the plane and say hello. And he was literally there. So I don’t know if he was talking to President Clinton or somebody else. I don’t know who was on the steps."
One of the two is lying.
Althouse has a good theory.
But she's wrong.
Obviously, WJC is physically threatening Loretta and her family. He's reminding her of all the folks that the Clintons have murdered already. He's letting her know that family is important -- sure would be a shame if something happened.
And, he's calling her the N word, i.e. talking about coal, which is black.
Duh.
"Please, as you comment here, let me know if you have read the flagged pages and given yourself an opportunity to make inferences from the evidence."
-- Given my quotes (and that I've mentioned elsewhere I've read most of the report in detail), I have read this section.
Regardless of Lynch's complicity or not, the fact that Bill Clinton approached her in the first place implies known guilt on HRC's part.
I read the relevant pages.
What struck me is the amount of detail coupled with the lack of specifics: so many things are remembered and described, except the recollections get fuzzier and more opaque when it gets closer to the actual issue.
From a quick search of Google:
"10 Absolute Giveaways That Someone Is Lying To You"
2) Details, Details And More Details
Liars are extremely generous when it comes to giving you details. They’re trying to con you into believing them by overloading you with details.
This shows they’ve put a lot of thought into what they’re going to say and probably even rehearsed it in their head.
Honest people give more succinct answers, because they’re telling the truth and they don’t have to think about it.
Which brings me to this quote from Loretta Lynch:
"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..."
Which struck my ear as oddly specific. Like it's the kind of thing that is said so that a specific memory can be invoked later, as one might do in establishing an alibi.
Further, this line is preceded by "And I forget where he told me he was going. He was flying somewhere, but...I’ve forgotten
where."
So: they meet on a plane at the airport. And she can't remember where he is flying to -- why he is actually there at the airport for him to meet her on her plane -- but remembers the bit about West Virginia coal policies in 1932.
Again: the closer it is to the circumstances at hand the more vague the recollections get. Which gives me the feeling that she is purposefully trying to be bland so as not to contradict any story he might tell in his recollection.
-LWL
Smoking gun:
http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/04/lynchings-still-haunting-reminder-to.html
Ah. After writing my comment and returning to read the comments I see that Matthew Sabian wrote:
"She remembers a lot of very specific details and then is vague about other things. It's just awkward."
Matthew makes the point I made.
Which means Matthew is a very smart guy. Of course.
-LWL
OIG report: "However, Lynch said that public officials often stopped her to say hello when she traveled, and that as a result she was not initially concerned when former President Clinton wanted to say hello."
Yet, looking at Lynch's staff statements and Lynch's own -- it is clear she saw a problem with this.
Also, the OIG report says this: "The OPA Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch." I'd like to know when, exactly, that happened.
"She remembers all sorts of little details, and then is conveniently hazy about the ones that could be damaging to her."
That was my expectation prior to reading it: now I don't know if I'm reading that into it or it's actually there. Regardless, you don't ask a bank robber for evidence that they have robbed a bank.
If you find all your comments are getting deleted, you are on notice that your continuing to post here is harassment.
Obviously Clinton was carry the bags for someone, but how much he hinted about other things, the Supreme Court, requires a literary interpretation and suspension of disbelief.
I read that section.
Bill Clinton just doesn't take "no" for an answer, does he? Lynch's staff person came back on board to end the meeting, Lynch even says she has to go, but Clinton keeps talking.
In the beginning he was talking about how weird it would be to not go see her, yet they weren't friends, so why would it have been weird. She didn't even know he was there until he showed up. It's not like they were both at a party where not talking to her would have been a snub, they were in separate planes at an airport. He comes off looking a lot dodgier than she does except that she didn't end the meeting immediately after saying hello. She shouldn't have sat down, she should have said my motorcade is waiting, and then walked off the plane. That she didn't means she's either more worried about being polite than being ethical or that she knew he was implying there would be future benefits, and she was interested.
Not specific to the report - Some of Bill Clinton's actions and comments throughout the election made me wonder if he was trying to sabotage his wife's campaign. Maybe it's just that he takes big risks that can result in big payoffs but can also create big problems.
I read the pages and find Ann's inferences plausible, though it's also the case that Bill Clinton is an affable guy and primo retail politician who has a natural inclination to chat and cast his spell. As for Attorney General Lynch, let's not forget that she was already carrying water for the candidate of her party, having asked Comey to describe the investigation as merely a "matter." (Comey, so good at intuiting people's motives, can't figure out why she might have made that request.)
Althouse, doesn't all of this prove what most of us drew from media accounts at the time? The list would look something like this:
1. The meeting was a weird, ad hoc affair and was wholly caused by Bill Clinton's weird glad-handing presumptiveness.
2. It's probably safe to think that Bill Clinton had a kind of ill intent. Clinton looks bad in all of it, and he should.
3. No deal was made.
4. The main upshot was that Lynch thereafter recused herself from decisionmaking on the Clinton server investigation, which in turn complicated the activity of Director Comey and ultimately did the Clinton campaign no good.
Oh, and yes I did read the Althouse-suggested section of the IG report. I appreciate Althouse's having read it and having blogged it.
I see some very good comments up above. Matthew Sablan asks a very good question about the public posture of Lynch where she says that the meeting was strange and awkward and felt inappropriate, but then her initial public statement at the time was that it was benign and appropriate, but then she recused herself following media pressure.
At the same time, regarding the questions as to whether the meeting was secretly "scheduled" and arranged... that's a whole lot of people to now still be lying, isn't it?
I like the OIG's habit of putting comments that contradict each other so close together, like Clinton's "we talked about the hoopla" and "we never thought how it would impact the investigation," or Lynch's description of Clinton coming aboard, and Clinton's description of Lynch's personal invitation to come in and talk about grandkids.
anti-de Sitter space said... "Smoking gun."
Lateral move, there. I do not doubt the story. My point was that it is an odd thing for him to bring up and for her to remember specifically, when she is evasive about the more relevant matters.
Again: like it is something said that is meant to be remembered.
Over the years I have known several people who had various periods of drug abuse. I have heard their stories at the time about events that have great details except when it comes down to the issue of their actions. You know: lying.
-LWL
Also, the OIG report says this: "The OPA Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch." I'd like to know when, exactly, that happened.
6/16/18, 7:39 AM
Right? Isn't that a message that you would pass along immediately? How could Lynch have been blindsided? Or, should I say, how could the FBI detail have let her be blindsided and they still have jobs? Who did they think they were working for, Lynch or Clinton?
I read it. Bill was definitely in charge there, which is a big signal.
If anyone else had told a story the way they did, they'd be charged with lying to the FBI.
I read it. I could easily infer him leaning on her without having to say so.
Whitey Bulger used to show up at your house to just say hello. Let himself in, come sit on your couch, gather up your young child. You know just friendly stuff. Small talk. Let the kid wander a bit then gather him back to his lap. Pull a gun out of his pants and place it on the coffee table and let the kid touch it and play with it. You know, friendly stuff. Just a visit...
So Lynch says that they had no prior relationship. They were not friends or even social acquaintances. In that case, any meeting is likely to suggest that the person seeking the meeting (Clinton) has an ulterior motive. Certainly here prior "bump into" "say hello" ten-minute meeting with John Kasich when he was running for president was more than "hello" -- he too, no doubt, was there in full lobbying/campaign mode.
Furthermore, the statements from both clearly show that Clinton was trying to influence Lynch -- they just deny that it was to influence her regarding Hillary.
Clinton admits that at the time of the meeting, he did have the Hillary investigation on his mind -- but that he intentionally avoided it. As for a future position for Lynch in a Hillary administration, again he says that he did not discuss it, not because he had not thought about it, but because he is "very superstitious," suggesting that this too was on his mind at the time.
Honestly, even if there was nefarious intent, I assume both Lynch and Clinton are smart enough not to directly make a quid pro quo exchange. I have two off-the-wall-just-for-my-entertainment theories though, that I have no proof to back up.
1. Bill Clinton did this just to make Hillary's life more miserable. Her campaign marginalized him, ignored his advice, etc., etc., and he went aboard and hung around specifically to be spiteful.
2. Bill Clinton was feeling Lynch out to see if she was corruptible, and either thanks to Lynch's staff being present or the fact she's just a standard left-wing liberal, but ethical, he realized she couldn't be, and left.
Given Clinton contradicts himself about whether he thought about the investigation, that his description of being let aboard differs from Lynch and her staff's, etc., I'm more inclined to believe he's lying to us than she is. I do think though that she downplayed her concerns about the meeting publicly afterwards until it was undeniable (at least, if her and her staff's obvious concerns about it are what they really thought at the time of the meeting, and we've little to no reason to doubt her staff.)
LWL
A Washington Times reporter was on Tucker last night and he stole your OJ analogy. Claimed he was thinking all day and just came up with it.
at LLR (and notorious Liar) said:
doesn't all of this prove what most of us drew from media accounts at the time? The list would look something like this:
1. The meeting was a weird, ad hoc affair and was wholly caused by Bill Clinton's weird glad-handing presumptiveness.
except that it Wasn't ad hoc (BJC waited a Long Time), and was also caused by Lynch letting him on the plane (and BJC wanting to influence her)
2. It's probably safe to think that Bill Clinton had a kind of ill intent. Clinton looks bad in all of it, and he should.
3. No deal was made.
except that we have no way of knowing if or if not (LIAR!)
4. The main upshot was that Lynch thereafter recused herself from decision making on the Clinton server investigation, which in turn complicated the activity of Director Comey and ultimately did the Clinton campaign no good.
The main upshot is that LLR's SURPRISINGLY assume The BEST Intentions from ALL Democrats
"Isn't that a message that you would pass along immediately?"
-- I see a couple possibilities there that are not nefarious. Lynch's staff knew that a meeting like that would be a disaster, and filed it away for later. Or, Lynch's staff was just standard incompetent about passing messages; anyone who has worked in an office knows messages get lost. I mean, the more important the message is, the less likely it is to get lost, and a message from a retired President is probably the most important message that message taker will take in their life, but accidents happen. The other possibility is that it was an informal request, that was never solidified. Lots of meetings die on the vine like that; "President of company X would like to meet Director of Department Y; think that's a good idea?" And then someone comes in with a more important thing, and no one gets back to it.
Still. I'd like to *know* that's what happened instead of having to guess.
Neither one remembers talking about what the other said they talked about, until asked about it. Except for grandchildren. Where he remembers that's what they talked about and she remembers that's what he talked about.
Also, isn't admitting you need to "develop talking points" in response to a question about a conversation you just had indicative that you are about to create an alternate truth?
She said she had a busy schedule, but for whatever reason was "several hours late" when the FBI plane arrived at 7pm. There was obviously no place they were going that evening. The story about why she was hanging around on the plane was very jumbled. That was a lie.
Lynch admits that she immediately had concerns about the meeting. Although she insists that Clinton did not overtly discuss the Hillary matter, she did see the implications that he, in fact, was there to influence her on exactly that -- which would amount to tampering with an investigation and/or attempted obstruction of justice.
What does Lynch do in response? She huddles with her staff. She does not alert anyone outside of her staff to say, "Hey, I just had this very inappropriate contact by Bill Clinton and suspect it was an attempt to influence the Hillary investigation." She does not report him to the appropriate officials. Instead, she essentially covers it up while preparing spin talking points in case she is asked about it.
The obligation was for Lynch herself to come forward, and not wait to be asked about it. And if you were innocent of any wrongdoing, that is what one would do. She did not. That suggests at least a consciousness of guilt (and that something more overt was discussed).
Chuck said...
4. The main upshot was that Lynch thereafter recused herself from decisionmaking on the Clinton server investigation, which in turn complicated the activity of Director Comey and ultimately did the Clinton campaign no good.
Bill Clinton, when not focused on his own career, is something of a liability for everyone else. Obama used him to good effect during the 2012 convention but it was a high wire act that could have gone badly, and Obama had quite a bit of leverage over the Clintons at that point.
When Comey announced the Weiner emails after previously sinking HIllary with his holier than thou commentary I just laughed. Essentially Bill and Weiner together had sunk Hillary's campaign. She has terrible instincts when it comes to men.
David Begley said... "LWL --A Washington Times reporter was on Tucker last night and he stole your OJ analogy. Claimed he was thinking all day and just came up with it."
I need to get a job with the Washington Times.
-LWL
The OIG doesn't say "no evidence" so much as "no written evidence".
Full marks to Matthew Sablan for noticing the two stories don't match on how WJC got on Lynch's plane. A key detail.
Didn't the OIG interview Lynch's husband? He was a witness to the whole conversation, no? Perhaps a participant in it as well: or did he just sit there, tongue-tied in the Presence of Greatness?
I am struck by the duration of this little nothingburger of a friendly chat. Twenty minutes? I couldn't spend 10 minutes trading little nothings about my entire family, let alone a single member and her offspring, however cute. Twenty minutes is a long time. If you speak...slooowly...with pauses that are "friendly silences" rather than "awkward dead air"...I'm guessing you could say about 50-75 words a minute. For 20 minutes? That's about 1000 words, said by the two of them. A thousand words = 10-12 pages, doublespace. All that on...grandchildren?
Lynch seems to be incredibly reckless; Bill, incredibly reckless. He knew exactly what he was doing. He ambushed her, bulldozed his way aboard, and effectively contaminated her. Either his visit would go unreported and Loretta would be wowed or cowed by what he had not needed to say; or it would be reported and he would play dumb, and very contrite for accidentally on purpose putting Loretta in an untenable "appearance of impropriety" position, so that (as she did) she would defer to Comey, whose loyalty and marching orders were IMHO already under control.
Win-win. Except that Comey blew it. Twice.
Clinton doesn't remember talking about Brexit, but if he did, he might have, accidentally, given his standard campaign pitch to Lynch. But, here's another wonderful bit of the OIG putting contradictory statements together.
Page 205: "Former President Clinton told us that he congratulated Lynch on being named Attorney General and mentioned several things that she had done that he thought were good policy, such as continuing with criminal justice reforms that were implemented by former Attorney General Eric Holder."
Page 206: "Former President Clinton said he did not recall telling Lynch that she was
doing a great job..."
Lynch's story, though vague, is at least relatively consistent with itself. Bill Clinton... well, he Bill Clintons it up.
"All that on...grandchildren?"
-- And West VA coal policy, circa 1930s, I think. And maybe or maybe not Brexit.
ARM - It is remarkable, how so many people who come into close contact with Bill Clinton, have their lives diminished if not ruined.
It is even more remarkable to me, how almost everybody who comes into close contact with Donald Trump have their lives diminished if not ruined.
In my comment above, SpellWreck changed Lynch's "feckless" to "reckless." Bill's "reckless" is correct.
"FYI none of your boyfriends 'Seven Sins of Memory' explain, AT ALL, why you'd remember coal law from the 1930's but not remember why you were at the airport."
-- That's actually fairly easy. Sort of like how people zone out when driving home sometimes, odd things stick out more. For example: "I went to the store and they were selling live chickens," but if you ask me what I went to the store for, I might be vague on it like: "Milk and bread, I guess?" Or just: "Groceries." Because that's normal, and less likely to get remembered. The interesting part is that Lynch clearly remembers Brexit, which gets dangerously close to current policies, and Bill Clinton distinctly does not remember it, but if he DID talk about, well, shucks, he just may have accidentally given his stump spleel about it.
"It is even more remarkable to me, how almost everybody who comes into close contact with Donald Trump have their lives diminished if not ruined."
Then thank goodness that those who now have jobs through lower unemployment rates didn't come into close contact with Trump.
-LWL
I read the section about Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting on her plane.
1. I don't live in the rarified political world Lynch does, but for me a former POTUS wanting to chat with me would be something I would find difficult to say no to. I wouldn't know what the etiquette behind that was. Under other circumstances I'm not shy about what I want and don't want, but this would flummox me.
2. People who are higher up in social, economic, or political status seldom make much time for underlings unless they want something. My mind would have been racing about what I had that he wanted. Given the circumstances and Lynch's position, I don't think it would have taken long for it to land on Hillary's "situation".
3. While I would have had a hard time telling him to bug off when he requested the meeting, I doubt I would have been shy about shaking his hand, telling him it was an honor to meet him, and then asking him if there was something specific he wanted since neither one of us wanted even a hint or impropriety.
I don't blame Lynch for taking the meeting, but I think she was naive. While the meeting looks bad for both of them, it's Lynch's reputation taking the hit. Bill is always excused for bad behavior. If Hillary had won, and Lynch had been given a position in the administration, no matter how qualified Lynch might have been, she'd be tainted. I have no idea if Lynch is lying or not. It doesn't really matter. Just spending that long with Slick Willie was enough.
HAH! Even in the OIG report, Bill Clinton can't help but remind Hillary Clinton he warned her the election needed to be taken seriously: "I thought the environment was much more volatile
than a lot of people did."
After reading the suggested pages what stood out to me was the manner in which former President Clinton responded to the OIG investigators questions...in each case (but one) he "didn't recall" speaking about an issue but said he might have mentioned it due to some vague interest he had on the subject.
I suspect this is a useful technique if you know the other party to the conversation has already provided a statement and you don't wish to contradict them but allow for the possibility that of course that's what may have been discussed.
The one area he was sure about was the one that held the most possibility of political damage and most assuredly neither of them where ever to admit that!
Matthew said: "That's actually fairly easy. Sort of like how people zone out when driving home sometimes, odd things stick out more."
Please see my 7: 35 comment:
"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..."
Which struck my ear as oddly specific. Like it's the kind of thing that is said so that a specific memory can be invoked later, as one might do in establishing an alibi.
Further, this line is preceded by "And I forget where he told me he was going. He was flying somewhere, but...I’ve forgotten
where."
So: they meet on a plane at the airport. And she can't remember where he is flying to -- why he is actually there at the airport for him to meet her on her plane -- but remembers the bit about West Virginia coal policies in 1932..."
-LWL
Yeah. I think it is odd, but you can't prove anything from it. Lynch's statement, for all it being vague and counter to her public persona afterwards, is internally consistent. It is Bill Clinton's where the direct contradictions lie.
Eleanor said: " for me a former POTUS wanting to chat with me would be something I would find difficult to say no to.
You and me both! And I'd want people to know about it! I'd want witnesses to the Whole chat! Heck! I'd want to video tape it. Making sure no one else knew Anything about it? Well, not me!
When you’re a former President and about to become a former President and first man first lady it’s easy to project power. You literally project power with a circle of secret service. You don’t have to say what you need. If you’re Loretta doing your job you don’t have to have Bill spell it out for you.
Not finding evidence is hardly the same as no evidence, especially when you're purposely not looking for it.
Indirect, circumstantial evidence is often enough to indict and convict.
Blogger Loren W Laurent said...
"It is even more remarkable to me, how almost everybody who comes into close contact with Donald Trump have their lives diminished if not ruined."
Then thank goodness that those who now have jobs through lower unemployment rates didn't come into close contact with Trump.
That used to be a truism about the Clintons. They went through peoples lives "like a tornado" and both Mcdougalls ended up in prison.
The Travel Office employees found out about that.
The left is doing what it can to punish any Trump supporter but that is not his fault, except for winning the election.
"What struck me is the amount of detail coupled with the lack of specifics: so many things are remembered and described, except the recollections get fuzzier and more opaque when it gets closer to the actual issue."
I think you are on the right track Loren.
In my world, this type of behavior is a surefire tell that mendacity is at play.
"Yeah. I think it is odd, but you can't prove anything from it."
That is indeed true.
But most juries view court cases that do not have written statements and video from the subjects plainly stating their crimes.
At some point you are having to evaluate honesty.
Of course, my theory on why they are so evasive is that they are hiding the details of their hot sweaty plane sex.
-LWL
This will all be made clear when Oliver Stone's movie comes out.
Read it. Ann's take is a reasonable one.
My initial response was that he was trying to determine if she would act or allow herself to be acted upon. If you can push people around on the small stuff, chances are you can push them around on the big stuff.
Within a week or so (and just 3 days) after the HRC interview, Comey announced a result to the investigation. By his own admission, he barely let's L y n c h know he going to speak because he doesn't want her to say "no". If he'd pulled that on me, one of us would have been out of a job.
L y n c h allowed herself to be acted upon quite possibly for the opportunity for a SC seat
"This will all be made clear when Oliver Stone's movie comes out."
Natural Born Liars.
-LWL
"According to Newman, the OPA Supervisor told her that there was no press pool, but that former President Clinton had his own photographer there. Newman said that the OPA Supervisor told her that former President Clinton had asked Lynch’s FBI detail if he could go on Lynch’s plane, and no one had communicated this to her staff. "
-- Hah. Clinton brought along a photographer to document the occasion.
Chuck said...
ARM - It is remarkable, how so many people who come into close contact with Bill Clinton, have their lives diminished if not ruined.
It is even more remarkable to me, how almost everybody who comes into close contact with Donald Trump have their lives diminished if not ruined.
Trump and Bill have some similarities, they are both the kind of lyin' cheatin' bullshit artists that you usually only find in country songs. Still, I don't find them them all that similar. The remarkable intensity of Trump's solipsism puts him in a different category from pretty much everyone else.
I read it. I think Clinton wanted to feel her out as to how receptive she may be to at some future point speaking to him about the investigations, not caring how precarious a position it would put her in. As for Lynch, I think she was surprised and made an error in thinking it wouldn’t be seen as anything nefarious, or not even considering it would become public. I don’t think she met with him in hopes that she would be given preferential treatment when it came to the AG position if Clinton had won. Her error was in part being overly polite and not immediately turning him away and in part being naive about how it would be perceived.
I was also struck by the admitted passivity and apparent cluelessness of Lynch's staff. It took them a quarter of an hour (or more) sitting in a van to summon the wits and grit to try to break up the party? What is it about former Presidents that paralyzes accomplished professional adults in positions of great authority? Admittedly the Lynch staffers had to get past WJC's security detail but after having done so the staffer just stood there; left; returned; stood there some more. Is there a special protocol where you ignore your obvious and urgent duty to SAVE YOUR BOSS WHOSE CAREER IS BURNING DOWN WHILE YOU WATCH, because the guy with the matches and gasoline used to be the President?
Her staff seems as feckless as she.
A fun thing is to read through the next few sections and see how often the investigation is referred to as a "matter."
Wait. Comey didn't even tell the PROSECUTORS he was ending the investigation?
Inga's take at 8:33 is a reasonable explanation.
My exception on that take would be the idea that Lynch was "naive": I think she probably had a 'deer-in-the-headlights' moment, knowing it was a bad idea, but not able to pull the trigger on preventing it from occurring.
Which coincides with Matthew's point about her stories being reasonably consistent.
And could tie into my take that she was being vague so as not to contradict anything Clinton might say in his recollections.
-LWL
We need Scott Adams to weigh in on William Jefferson Clinton's persuasion skills.
And what movie they were seeing.
The persuader as projector operator, or even content provider.
they are both the kind of lyin' cheatin' bullshit artists that you usually only find in country songs
Sure sounds like a presidential job description to me.
The meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton might not have been known if not for a local reporter who received a tip about it.
Christopher Sign, morning anchor at ABC15 in Phoenix, joined Bill O'Reilly to go over his bombshell report.
Sign explained that he received a tip from a "trusted source" about the meeting and then met with management at the station.
"Naturally my jaw dropped," he recalled.
The meeting took place on a private tarmac at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport, near where private aircraft take off and land.
Sign said that a second source confirmed the information and they then asked Lynch about it at a news conference Wednesday.
Lynch maintained that she did not discuss the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server or any other "cases" and that the former president didn't bring it up.
Before leaving the city, Mr. Clinton apparently waited at the airport Monday night for Lynch to arrive, then boarded her plane for a 30-minute conversation.
Story.
Lynch's story has the ring of truth to me. I think she was genuinely surprised by Clinton's appearance. But Clinton had planned it carefully. Her story is largely authentic except for the omission of the talk about the "deal" Clinton offered. Clinton's story is fabricated through and through. He is a proven liar and why the IG accepted his account escapes me.
It seems quite possible to me that Clinton found out from a mole in Lynch's office that she was going to Phoenix. He then decided that would be the best opportunity to see her. Whether he had an authentic business trip or just made one up is not clear but could have been checked by the IG. In either event, Clinton wanted to be sure not to miss her so he arrived early. Then, knowing he could bull his way onto the plane because of who he was, the rest of the story seems authentic to me, except for the actual conversation itself. They might well have had some ice breaker talk but it soon got down to business with Clinton doing most of the talking. Whether he made an explicit offer or not, he communicated clearly enough to her that his trip was not wasted.
The back and forth dialogue between the subordinate staffs, her unease with the length of time and feeling that this could all come back to haunt her... all this seems genuine to me. Clinton clearly did not count on the event being observed by the press.
She worried about this, of course. And that is why she tried to terminate the visit as early as she could.
WJC knew full well that his very presence would corrupt Lynch's potential future credibility even if they really did talk only about grandchildren.
If it were a random meeting, the reporter couldn't have gotten a tip from a trusted source. And the meeting lasted 30 minutes, not 20.
I read the section. Random thoughts:
Green toy. Money is green.
Clinton spent five minutes with the crew and was very gracious. Why?
When people get that high up in the food chain, each and every minute they use is for a purpose for their own reasons or the organization's reasons.
Both are lying, but for different reasons - he can't help himself and has to lie about everything because everything he does has an ulterior motive and he doesn't want the people it negatively impacts (which is most of the world) to know. She because she knows how bad it looks and how bad it is, regardless of if she was going to take a bite of the corrupt apple or not.
Lynch doesn't have grandchildren, as I said. That halves the conversational opportunities.
You don't think they communicated before, nothing is spontaneous. How else to make sure the tarmac is clear?
I am remembering Bush calling islam a religion of peace after consulting Bernard Lewis, putting Lewis in awkward position.
Not to equate Lewis and Lynch morals or intellect.
I've read it. I believe WJC met with Lynch to tell her in Mafia-esque-like code that Lynch had a bright future if she did the right thing. I also believe Lynch made a mistake by allowing WJC to talk to her. She should have "recused" herself. I do not believe Lynch had a "deer in the headlights" moment unless she is really stupid, which she might be. But the fact that Lynch did not recuse herself, knowing the likely result of the Hillary email "matter," might mean Lynch also had a nefarious purpose for allowing WJC to talk to her.
I read the assignment, and Ann’s take is reasonable, but impossible to prove. If true, the message to Lynch is the subtext, not the words spoken. It’s like in a movie about the mob, the mobster visits a guy’s house and chats for a while. The guy is nervous and doesn’t know what to make of it. Then the mobster starts to leave and says, “You have a beautiful wife and nice kids. Take care of them.” And right there, the guy gets the message that his family is being threatened. The message is the identity of the messenger, expressing a polite interest in the safety of your family. In this case, Slick Willie is sending a message by showing up unannounced on the AG’s airplane, and chatting about the grandkids. He didn’t have to say more.
What I really want to know is how long Clinton’s private plane had been sitting on the tarmac. Lynch’s plane was several hours late, which likely was not known to anyone in advance. Did Clinton’s plane sit there waiting for her to arrive? That would shed light on whether the situation was “engineered” by Clinton, but the IG apparently didn’t ask that question. It should be in the airport records. Why didn’t they pursue that?
I think somebody ought to remark that all the blabbering about “policing” is a reference to Obama/Hillary’s use and incitement off BLM to kill cops.And to argue that blacks should be exempt from law enforcement.
In other words, an odd form of corruption in itself. A lethal one.
I’m not buying Lynch’s sweetness and light routine. She was onboard with lighting a match and egging on the Baltimore BLM riots and mayhem.
The gist of Bill’s relentless prattling bout grandkids seems to convey a plea bargaining tone: “She’s just a nice grandma, and you know, she may have made a little mistake... So, what’s the problem?,,, in this minor case of a regrettable mistake, you know...”
Obadiah:
I had a similar take. The common thread is that the Clintons are mobsters. Obama was the same but more subtle. He had VJ and Eric Holder do his dirty work.
The meeting was either arranged with the agreement of both parties, or the Clinton team discovered Lynch’s itinerary via surveillance or informers.
I read the sections that Ann suggested.
My thoughts (which may duplicate some of what others have posted but are different enough that i have included them here).
1. Clinton comes off as the slimy bastard that we know him to be. I keep wondering what the meaning of "is" is.
2. On at least four occasions Clinton uses the "I can't recall" excuse to questions as to what was discussed. Very Clintonesque. Lynch, on the other hand, seems to be more forthright about the incidental stuff, although she may be leaving things out, and may be lying about the obvious stuff that she needs to lie about if she wants to stay out of jail.
3. Amazing coincidence that planes are at Phoenix airport on same evening, at same hour, and 20-30 yards apart.
4. We have to remember that none of this would be known but for a local reporter that happened to stumble across the meeting.
5. Clinton describes the server as "his" (not the Foundation's) and says it was approved by the Secret Service. I didn't know that this was part of the Secret Service's purview.
6. Clinton initiated the meeting. His Secret Service detail asked her Secret Service detail if they could meet for a few minutes.
7. Lynch testified that she did not have a social relationship with Clinton, had never had a "real" conversation with him, and had only spoken with him once briefly at a funeral.
8. Strange that Clinton knew that Lynch was on the plane even though she had not departed the plane and he had not seen her.
9. Clinton was "surprised" when questions came up later about the propriety of the meeting. This does not pass the smell test.
10. Lynch expected a quick how do you do as she deplaned but Clinton obviously expected a much longer conversation. Clinton appears to be unwilling to leave while Lynch seems to be hoping for a polite way to get out of there. Only Clinton, Lynch and Lynch's husband were present for the conversation. Lynch's husband was apparently not questioned. No explanation as to why.
11. Only Lynch's Senior Counselor seems to be worried about the propriety of the meeting. After 20 minutes, she attempts to re-board the plane to get Lynch out of there. She is stopped at the door by Lynch's Head of Security. She persists, and is finally allowed to board. She stands around for a few minutes hoping someone will get the hint, but finally leaves. The meeting continues for another 5 minutes. She states that Lynch looked uncomfortable and later looked "gray" on the ride to the hotel.
Thus concludes my thoughts, Professor.
"Why didn't they pursue that?"
The answer is the whole thing was so obvious, that they knew if they pursued it, they would find abundant evidence that would prove even to democrats that it was "engineered." They could have check airport records, interviewed airport personnel, looked into the reaons Clinton was in Phoenix and how those events got set up and when. They would have found much evidence of design, at least on Clinton's part. I think Lynch was genuinely surprised; Clinton was totally in control.
If it hadn't been outed, surely Lynch would have reported to Obama. Did IG ask about that?
DOJ was never hands off for Democrat.
Basically, I sign on to Jersey's take.
Think about this: the AG, FBI director and the President were all forced to lie because of the Clintons. Barack lied about not knowing about her private email server until the news reports came out but the IG's report PROVES that Barack and Hillary exchanged emails; both on non-government accounts. And, of course, the private server was used to conduct Hillary and Bill's bribery scheme.
There better be a Special Counsel appointed soon. First thing would be to impanel a grand jury and subpoena David Kendall, his law associates and get a copy of Hillary's deleted emails. Kendall kept an insurance copy. He's not a total law breaker.
From the Chicago Tribune,
"Obama’s lie was told in 2015, when Obama was asked by CBS’ Bill Plante when he learned Mrs. Clinton had used an unsecured email server.
“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama said. He was so silky that you couldn’t even hear his tongue rustling along his teeth.
He waxed on about how his administration was all about “transparency.”
But Obama did not learn about Clinton’s home-brew server like “everybody else.”
According to the inspector general’s report, Obama was in fact one of 13 top government officials communicating with Clinton on her private email server, even as Clinton’s server was targeted by foreign intelligence services."
"She states that Lynch looked uncomfortable and later looked "gray" on the ride to the hotel."
Why did Lynch look uncomfortable or grey if she and Clinton just had polite twenty minute conversation about grandchildren?
In Biblical terms Clintons are the leper's touch.
I read it. Reminds me of my original objection to a Hillary Clinton presidency, Bill! He IS “Slick Willie” and he would have been that in spades as the First Lady/Person.
Clearly both Lynch and Clinton knew this conversation was not about the words spoken and it seems Lynch was disturbed by all of this.
If only Lynch had said “Pardon me Mr. President, but what is this all about?”
(And Bill would have probably responded in his best aw shucks manner he just wanted to meet this AG who’s done a great job and has such a bright future ahead of her.)
The meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton might not have been known if not for a local reporter who received a tip about it.
Lynch should have been the one to come forward and disclose the meeting. The fact that she did not, and likely would have kept this quiet if not asked about it, suggests corruption.
Even if the meeting itself was innocuous on her part, her failing to report it and instead going into cover-up and spin mode is damning.
Inga said @8:33: "I think Clinton wanted to feel her out ......"
A genuine laugh out loud moment for me.
typo in the second paragraph - "on the tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, 2018."
Bill Clinton established who was boss right off the bat when he went off to chat with Lynch's plane crew for 5 minutes while leaving Lynch and her husband standing there looking like fools on their own plane.
Extremely rude, but effective.
No reasonable prosecutor would view this meeting as anything but collusion.
Not so much collusion as intimidation.
In scrolling through the Report, I found another interesting section.
We may hear more about this when the Clinton section comes out.
They stated that they hoped to be able to find the full 62,320 emails that were originally
reviewed by Mills and Samuelson to determine whether any additional emails—
beyond those that Clinton’s attorneys provided to the State Department and those
that the FBI found through other sources—contained classified information. They
further stated that they believed the culling process might have been flawed.
Gee, I wonder what made them say that ?
Of course, the laptops were never turned over.
How did Clinton know that Lynch was there? They both had federal protection details (his SS, hers FBI), which, by necessity know about each other. Just part of their daily briefings and situational awareness. Very likely the only federal protection details that night in PHX, and likely AZ. They talk with each other on a routine basis, as apparently the case here, with the SS asking if their primary can come over to visit. Don't want a gunfight (likely with machine guns here) on the Tarmac, esp here with Uncle Sam paying all the pay checks and death benefits, and supplying all the guns and ammo. Don't know if we will ever know if the Big Dog asked his SS detail who else was there at the airport, possibly out of boredom or one of them casually mentioned to him that that the AG was on that govt looking jet over there. Or, maybe, with his delay, planned to be on the Tarmac there in a couple hours. In any case, Clinton's SS detail very likely had Lynch's travel plans, so Clinton could plan accordingly.
Obadiah: "What I really want to know is how long Clinton’s private plane had been sitting on the tarmac. Lynch’s plane was several hours late, which likely was not known to anyone in advance. Did Clinton’s plane sit there waiting for her to arrive? That would shed light on whether the situation was “engineered” by Clinton, but the IG apparently didn’t ask that question. It should be in the airport records. Why didn’t they pursue that?"
Amen. Clinton apparently skulked aboard his plane for several hours. The airport personnel would have logs of aircraft arrival and departure (what was Clinton's plane's tail number? Who was flying it? What happened to the manifest showing names of those aboard?). We're tgese people interviewed, and if not, why not? What did they say about the duration of Clinton's waiting aboard a plane all afternoon in hundred-degree heat? Did he have A/C? Did he keep issuing instructions to the crew to delay and delay again his own travel plans?
As noted by others, Clinton's meeting with Lynch was known to others --the local media got wind of it from somebody at the airport. Was THAT person interviewed? If not, why not?
A very rich mix of corruption here.
Other than the fact that Bill's security detail cleared and apparently arranged the meeting I'll accept that a bullshitter like Bill would want to schmooze the AG. "The OPA Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch."
Here are some more things I found interesting in the cited pages:
Bill testifies "It was after all my server and the FBI knew it was there and the Secret Service approved it coming in and she just used what was mine.” So Hillary like Huma was putting classified info on her husband's server. I have never seen that claim before.
Other witnesses recalled that former President Clinton had additional staff members with him, and that these people did not board the plane. So it's 100 degrees on the tarmac and Bill and Lynch leave their staffs to broil in the heat.
Lynch said that she was very surprised that he wanted to meet with her because they did not have a social relationship, ......Lynch said that she had “never really had a conversation” with former President Clinton before this meeting, or with former Secretary Clinton at any time.
Is this meeting beginning to have a bad aroma for you?
More to come.......
Meeting outed vs not outed .... Effect on blackmail potential?
Influence on subsequent behavior and action?
If meeting had not been outed, would there even be an IG report?
Clinton should have had a Cohen figure get her to sign a NDA immediately after the meeting. Clinton should have a Cohen figure in constant attendance to get NDAs after most of his meetings......What reason could either figure possibly have to lie about their meeting? This is just another example of how Trump has eroded trust in our public figures and institutions......I don't think a Supreme Court opening is especially lucrative. With all her experience and knowledge, Lynch could probably best serve her country as Commerce Secretary.
"Lynch's story has the ring of truth to me. I think she was genuinely surprised by Clinton's appearance. But Clinton had planned it carefully. Her story is largely authentic except for the omission of the talk about the "deal" Clinton offered. Clinton's story is fabricated through and through. He is a proven liar and why the IG accepted his account escapes me."
Agreed.
"It seems quite possible to me that Clinton found out from a mole in Lynch's office that she was going to Phoenix. He then decided that would be the best opportunity to see her. Whether he had an authentic business trip or just made one up is not clear but could have been checked by the IG. In either event, Clinton wanted to be sure not to miss her so he arrived early. Then, knowing he could bull his way onto the plane because of who he was, the rest of the story seems authentic to me, except for the actual conversation itself. They might well have had some ice breaker talk but it soon got down to business with Clinton doing most of the talking. Whether he made an explicit offer or not, he communicated clearly enough to her that his trip was not wasted."
See my comment above. Secret Service knows where the other federal protection details are in the country, as well as the expected travel plans of their primaries. It is part of their job to know. I expect though that his staff could figure out decently well where she was going to be, when. Probably all it takes is Google and access to the DoJ website. It is a BIG THING for local LEOs when the US Attorney General comes into town to meet them. Something that they have to plan for in advance - for one thing, they can't afford to have their top people out of town, or otherwise indisposed at such an event. And, much of the time, the press has been alerted, for, if nothing else, the photo ops.
Narayanan Subramanian: "blackmail potential?" Bingo. A person who was honest and competent would never have taken the meeting. If such a person were ambushed and contaminated by super-friendly Bill Clinton, she would have taken the initiative and called a press conference to explain --politely but unambiguously-- that she had been ambushed and had cut the meeting off ASAP, and would consult with ethics experts to ensure the apparent conflict was properly handled. If that meant WJC was hung out to dry, well, that's life in the fast lane.
Didn't happen. She sealed her fate as much as Hillary did hers.
More from Ann's cited pages
You have to love this from the IG's report "During our review, we found no contemporaneous evidence, such as notes, documenting the substance of the discussion between Lynch and former President Clinton.' Right! These two are going to record their meeting.
"According to Lynch, Clinton discussed West Virginia coal policy as an historical issue, not in connection with the campaign. She said that he discussed Brexit in a similar context, talking about the cultural issues that led to the decision and whether “people in the UK viewed themselves as citizens of the world or the country or whatever.” Just a casual conversation about the grandkids!
Lynch said that when she thought about it later that evening and discussed it with her staff about in the context of the case, she concluded “that it was just too long a conversation to have had. It...went beyond hi, how are you, shake hands, move on sort of thing. It went beyond the discussions I’ve had with other people in public life, even in political life, it went beyond that [in terms of length].” Translation: OMG how can I get anyone to believe that we talked about grandkids for half an hour?
The deputy chief of staff figures it out even while her brain is broiling on the tarmac: "The Deputy Chief of Staff said that they quickly realized that the meeting was problematic, because Clinton was not just the former President but was also the husband of someone who was under investigation"
CAN YOU SMELL THOSE FISH ROTTING IN THE SUN NOW?
More to come....
So on the bottom of page 200 the OIG reports that by April the FBI had “highly classified” reports of political interference into the investigation by Lynch, but that Comey dismissed them because of his personal knowledge of Lynch. Then two pages later we transistion to the tarmac ... I see what the IG is doing here. And who could forget the NYTimes story the weekend after this came out that Hillary would name Lynch as her attorney general. Reporters are a tried and true way to send messages without talking.
Not stated, but I suspect Billy Jeff also happened to mention that his good friend Barack had asked him to remember him to Ms. Lynch when he saw her.
One last thing: Even after the COS tells these guys they need to knock it off Bill continues.
“Oh, she’s mad at me, because I’d been on the plane too long. And she’s come to get you.” Lynch said that she replied to him, “[W]ell, we do have to go. And then he kept talking about something else.” She said that he kept talking for “a good 5 minutes” after the Senior Counselor got back on the plane." Apparently either Lynch was buying what Bill was selling or she's too damn stupid to live and we should be very glad she is no longer in government.
No wonder "she looked gray" on the ride into town.
I infer that Bill Clinton - by merely wrangling some chit-chat, under unusual circumstances, in private, with the AG - deliberately compromised Lynch.
Didn't matter what they discussed; he knew that just the fact that they had a closed-airplane-door meeting (that was "tipped" to a local reporter) would cripple Lynch's credibility.
He was laughing as soon as they let him aboard...mission accomplished.
Sorry page 200 in the pdf, but page 171 by the reports pagination,
“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”.
Never wink on another person’s private jet if you can do so standing next to your own private jet across the tarmac.
“Bill Clinton, when not focused on his own career,“
Objection! Bill Clinton is always focused on his career.
I'm convinced now that the meeting was pre-arranged.
The reason is the use of the word "optics."
This suggests that Lynch's security team was on lookout for media, and hoped to be unobserved.
I'm convinced now that the reason that the meeting had gone on too long was that it was observed by a member of the media.
The substance of the ethical issue didn't seem to disturb anybody. Being observed did.
Don't need to read the blather. Imagine Bill Clinton doing his best Tony Soprano imitation strong-arming a corrupt official while assuming the room is bugged. All the intimidation is communicated via body language, tone and tempo.
“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”.
Never wink when you can discuss West Virginia coal policy as an historical issue.
"A person who was honest and competent would never have taken the meeting." Ha!
I appreciate the close reading by Althouse and the commenters but let's not interpret the relevant passage in isolation.
Lynch was O's henchwoman willing to do whatever it took. Bill's visit made her uncomfortable because it made it more difficult to do what it took, because the planned dismissal of the charges would now appear tainted.
Bill was a scheming sleaze bag. Tainting people is the Clintons' MO, in this case just making sure she knew the score and that there would be something in it for her.
But Bill's statement about "his" server is interesting and I have not seen it reported this way before. Exactly what was the status of "the server"? He seems to be trying to suggest that Secret Server approval exculpates Hill, though of course the SS could never approve her felonious use of it. But the fact that he goes there shows a guilty conscience: they knew what they did was illegal.
I have not read the full passage, but it seems to confirm McCarthy's judgment that the report is half-baked: several relevant items are not pursued (e.g., about the exact circumstances leading up to the tarmac encounter) and several dots are left unconnected.
Yes, I agree Clinton deliberately compromised Lynch.
BUT she also showed great deference to him. How are we supposed to believe she would have felt anything but deferential when investigating his wife? You think a woman who can't tell a man to get off her official airplane would tell him his wife is being charged with a crime?
“I just wanted to say hello to her and I thought it would
look really crazy if we were living in [a] world [where] I couldn’t shake hands with the Attorney General you know when she was right there.”
Jesus. What a BS artist. Yeah, it was just "Coincidence" that the two planes are side by side at the Airport at 7 PM. And isn't it funny, that the FBI and everyone involved tried to keep the meeting a secret, and we only knew about it because a local reporter stumbled on it, and wasn't a secret DNC member - like all the other MSM reporters.
The OIG considered but decided not to interview the head of
Lynch’s FBI security detail because of concerns....we *believed* it was unlikely that the head of the security detail would have been in a position to be able to overhear the conversation between Lynch and former President Clinton.
IOW, the OIG didn't WANT to interview the Lynch's FBI security because he might have reveled Clinton or Lynch to be liars.
"There are no coincidences." Harry Bosch, LA detective in novels written by Michael Connelly.
Lynch remembers all these details about what Bill Clinton talked about.. Brexit, Coal Policy, etc. but Clinton didn't "recall" any of that. Of course, Billy Bob covers his tracks by saying its "possible" he said that.
Y'know when you remember all these details of a 2 year conversation, and the other person doesn't....
Ms Althouse, your impression of the conversation (as that conversation was reported) is the same one I had when I read it the other night, but I don't think the actual conversation is the one reported by the two sides, so I don't want to dwell on the details all that much since I think it is all basically a lie put out by Clinton and Lynch after the fact. I had a lot of other questions about this section that I wished you had raised instead:
(1) In no part of the report could I find any hint as to how Clinton and his staff knew that was Loretta Lynch's plane and motorcade- remember, both reported that Lynch had not yet left the plane itself. Is there a distinguishing marking on Lynch's plane for that day? Is there a sign on the motorcade that says it is the Attorney General? Was the security details of both individuals coordinating with each other- in other words, is there a common link between Clinton's SS detail and Lynch's security detail that informed each that the other was there? This is a huge hole in the investigation that is baffling to me- how did Clinton know that was Lynch's plane?
(2) It is highly curious to me how Clinton is entirely vague in his answers to the leading questions about the topics of the conversation- these are sort of answers you would give if you don't know whether or not the leading question is an intended trap. In other words, Clinton answering these questions shows to me that these were not subjects that were discussed, but he didn't know that the leading questions came directly from Lynch's own testimony, so really neither confirmed nor denied that they were discussed, and I assert he did this because they were not the topics of the conversation.
(3) I find it totally inexcusable that the security of Lynch wasn't questioned about what he might have overheard. The excuse that it might compromise security or that he might not have heard anything because he wasn't close enough to hear is laughable to me.
(4) Whether or not Clinton delayed his departure or not (denied by Clinton), should have been easily ascertained or not- there should be documentary evidence as to when Clinton was supposed to leave and why he did not. Remember, Lynch's plane was 3 hours late. How long was Clinton on his plane that afternoon? No answer was ever given.
When I read it what struck me was that there is no way for any reasonable person to presume Bill's innocence.
I found myself questioning whether Lynch could be telling the truth, that she had been blindsided by this. It strained credibility too, but was just barely possible to believe that version. I could certainly picture her becoming more and more uncomfortable but not knowing how to confront hm and throw him off the plane.
Agree with other commenters who pointed out though, that even if this had been the way it went down she did not react appropriately afterward either.
And the SS notification is hard to ignore.
I found myself wondering also why Bill chose to do this, when there would have been other ways to get the message to Lynch that would have been less risky. Possibly it was typical Clinton behavior, doing something just because they can and they know everyone will cover for them. Another possibility I came up with was that perhaps there was some physical transfer of something that had to take place (would also explain "moving her bags" if he was surreptitiously placing something inside, with a good cover story in case any other witnesses in the plane were interviewed and mentioned Clinton moving her stuff off the bench seat.)
It was a cadre of dirty FBI agents keeping the reporter on the field from photographing the meeting--not Secret Service agents. See the link at my 8:51AM comment.
Slick Willy strikes again. It's not the first time he's "compromised" some woman--although Loretta Lynch isn't really his sort of "dish".
I don't believe a fucking word Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch say so can we please stop defending them or giving them the benefit of the doubt? Their story never made any sense. They went to a lot of trouble to meet up as secretly as possible at a secluded part of an airport tarmac and under normal circumstances it might have worked until it didn't. This is fine as we know damn well they will never be impacted by their sleazy behavior but please can we stop pretending?
They should have met at the Michigan Republican Headquarters. Chuck E. Cheese could have set it up and kept it hush-hush.
"Lynch did not receive any follow up questions from either the reporter who asked the question [about the CLinton-lynch meeting] or from the other reporters in attendance.
Based on the lack of follow up questions, Newman decided not to release a
statement about Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton. However, by the
following afternoon, several media organizations had begun picking up coverage of the meeting."
Wow, those hard-nosed reporters, always trying to dig to the bottom of things. Except when it might hurt the Democrats!
"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.
Michael K wrote:
"In scrolling through the Report, I found another interesting section.
We may hear more about this when the Clinton section comes out."
I noticed that too, but my main takeaway on the matter was this- the threats to issue subpoenas from grand juries never happened at any stage of the entire investigation. This has always been the strongest evidence that the investigation was a charade from the very start.
Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI when his recollection of details of a conversation did not match Tim Russert's recollection of the conversation.
But that, apparently, was very different.
I still think Loretta Lynch did not buy what Clinton was selling, so the White House worked out a compromise; the AG would step aside and let James Comey do the honors.
I just reread the entire section under question (I hadn't remembered the part about Clinton claiming it was his server from my reading the other night). The only person I believe is telling the truth in that section is Lynch's legal counsel. Her testimony is detailed and believable. The play out of the events is suggestive that both parties, Clinton and Lynch, arranged this meeting- it is quite the coincidence that Lynch's staff is on the tarmac in the motorcade long before Clinton walks over to the plane from which Lynch has yet to depart. One could conclude that this was by design.
"the threats to issue subpoenas from grand juries never happened at any stage of the entire investigation. This has always been the strongest evidence that the investigation was a charade from the very start"
Correct. But in spite of the obvious deviation from standard procedure by politically motivated actors the IG claims to find no evidence of bias in the "consistent" handling of the case.
Which makes even this report part of the whitewash.
My inference is that Clinton either didn't know Lynch's husband was on the plane, or expected her to find a way to get rid of him. Bill has likely had a lot of experience with women finding ways to get rid of their husbands so they could talk with him. Of course, we have only their testimony that he was present for the entire conversation.
Place them on "IQ" scale ... Clinton Bill and Hillary, Obama, Holder, Lynch
All the intimidation is communicated via body language, tone and tempo.
Yes by the big time experienced people.
The dwarfs, like Strzok and Page, are not smart enough to realize their exchanges are going to be immortal.
Lynch in my view is a hostage sending desperate signals which nobody is decoding.
Married at age 50, no children.
Why bring up grandkids?
Incurios, fawning media, hostile or complicit and inept political culture ... Poor woman.
Quoting @Bruce, above: "Don't know if we will ever know if the Big Dog asked his SS detail who else was there at the airport, possibly out of boredom or one of them casually mentioned to him that that the AG was on that govt looking jet over there. Or, maybe, with his delay, planned to be on the Tarmac there in a couple hours. In any case, Clinton's SS detail very likely had Lynch's travel plans, so Clinton could plan accordingly."
IG Report 203–04 (footnote omitted): "The Senior Counselor said she asked everyone in the van if they knew that former President Clinton was going to be there, and they all said no. The OPA Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch. Although Lynch’s staff was supposed to receive notice of such requests, witnesses told us that they were not informed of the request from former President Clinton."
I was left wanting to know when that happened?
Is IG report a whitewash?
There is a post on CTH by corporate compliance guy as to how much can be put in a report at what pay grade.
IG is leaving unmodified dangles for other pay grades to pursue or ignore.
The whitewash splashed on Hillary in October as the FBI sitting on the Huma/Weiner laptop got uncovered by a SDNY inquiry.
Page #331: We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department [Main Justice]. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop.
The result was the October Comey statement that the left blames for Hillary's loss.
That section was clearly an interview of Lynch asking general recall questions. There was no follow up or challenge questions demanding a better more acceptible by asking it over and over from different angles.
It is still only being treated as a Matter.
These people were acting in the certain knowledge that Hillary would be President. This might have colored their decisions.
I read it, and I have no idea what Clinton was doing or thought he was doing. The AG's staff totally let her down, unless Lynch and Clinton were talking about something other than they said. The explanation offered makes no sense, although we have all had social occasions where people will not leave and won't take hints.
But they had no social relationship and he did this? My best guess is that he was waiting for Lynch to spill the beans on where the investigation was going.
Jesus. What a BS artist. Yeah, it was just "Coincidence" that the two planes are side by side at the Airport at 7 PM. And isn't it funny, that the FBI and everyone involved tried to keep the meeting a secret, and we only knew about it because a local reporter stumbled on it, and wasn't a secret DNC member - like all the other MSM reporters.
Hmmm, maybe Clinton's team tipped off the reporter because they wanted the meeting to be publicized.
I'm with Jupiter's interpretation (at 11:40). The presence of LL's husband - a potential witness - really complicated things for WJC. Awkward!
Lynch's recusal confuses me ... I have read that she blackmailed EDNY about Wiener's sexting laptop!!!
I infer that Bill Clinton - by merely wrangling some chit-chat, under unusual circumstances, in private, with the AG - deliberately compromised Lynch.
Didn't matter what they discussed; he knew that just the fact that they had a closed-airplane-door meeting (that was "tipped" to a local reporter) would cripple Lynch's credibility.
That's what I was trying to say at 8:53. Thank you for saying it better, tomaig.
DOJ was trying to set sdny against edny, And a laptop was stolen out of an agent's car ,,, decoy or genuine ?
I pick decoy, Lynch recuses and Comey holds bag of shit.
"The meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton might not have been known if not for a local reporter who received a tip about it. "
Interesting: we become ever more like Soviet citizens, attempting to glean truths from inadvertent glimpses of the machinations behind the curtain.
We have the governmental corruption of the Seventies-era USSR without the Communist pageantry.
Time for some show trials.
-LWL
I don't think the IG's report is a whitewash. I believe he did what he is supposed to do and he left unconnected dots because that's the way these things are done. He is not a prosecutor. Somewhere there should be a prosecutor connecting the dots. Huber?
It is pretty clear from this report that the Clinton "investigation" was a white wash. I don't know if we'll ever be able to get satisfaction ( other than her defeat) for Hillary's crimes that are "transparently obvious". Hillary lost; Comey has been crushed; the "collusion" mirage is gone; the investigation into the FBI/DOJ is far from over. I would like to see a few of the FBI assholes be strung up (I can't imagine Strzok not being prosecuted), but so far I feel reasonably victorious.
If we don't believe Loretta Lynch just happened upon Bill Clinton at the airport, why would we believe anything else she told the IG?
Why would Bill want to deliberately taint Lynch
Unless sending signal to Obama?
Isn't it funny that a bunch of amateurs like us can take a few pages of the report that Ann found odd and punch them full of holes? While the MSM remains remarkably incurious?
Imagine what would happen if we went through the whole report like this.
Or if the MSM grew a pair and did their job.
Why would Bill want to deliberately taint Lynch
For insurance purposes.
Well, duh. Here's why we heard about grandchildren, golf, West Virginia, Janet Reno and Brexit;
"During Lynch’s Phoenix press conference, a local reporter asked Lynch about her meeting with former President Clinton and whether Benghazi was discussed. She answered the question based on the talking points and draft statement:
No. Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving, and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix, and he mentioned travels he’d had in West Virginia. We talked about former Attorney General
Janet Reno, for example, whom we both know, but there was no discussion of any matter pending before the Department or any matter pending before any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of the State Department emails, by way of example. I would say the current news of the day was the Brexit decision, and what that might mean. And again, the Department’s not involved in that or implicated in that."
Didn't read it, but why would they risk the bad optics they knew this could create just for such an innocent purpose?
Answer: What actually was discussed was so important it had to be done regardless of the risk, and they expected it to stay undiscovered, but if it was found out, it was still worth it. Hillary must become President and avoid prosecution.
"Isn't it funny that a bunch of amateurs like us can take a few pages of the report that Ann found odd and punch them full of holes?"
-- I just wonder why no one else has taken the couple examples of Bill Clinton's contradictory testimony and put them side-by-side like I did. Or maybe they have and I haven't read it yet.
Don Surber has an interesting take here:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-professional-review-of-ig-report.html
I have to agree with the Professor's analysis. One thing seems likely to me is that Bill Clinton May have set up the reporter to ensure Lynch's compromise. With FBI and Secret Service to secure the perimeter, who is gonna get through? Who exactly says no phones no pictures? Seems FAA records regarding the jets' being there could answer for a lot here. There is also the Utah investigation who'll benefit from the missing links. Great way to set the scene for the prosecutor at the very least.
As has been noted before in the Althouse blog, beastly temperature for an old man in his condition to be golfing.
"Could you please read that section and tell me what you think Bill Clinton was doing..."
I read it and and my conclusion is that Bill is lying his ass off. He wanted to lean on her but the husband, security and flight crew inhibited him. That's why he kept stalling and extending the conversation. He was waiting for a chance to speak to her without anyone else overhearing.
P.S. - You owe me $3.50. My rates are a little lower than yours.
Bill's meeting with Lynch is nothing more than the scene in the Godfather 2 where Frank Pentangeli is supposed to testify and he spots his brother in the gallery. I'll take it at face value ( although it seems rather improbable) that all they discussed was sweetness and light. Bill's presence was the message. And the message was Hillary doesn't go down alone. Tell Barack, its not personal, its just business.
Blogger Khesanh 0802 said...
I don't think the IG's report is a whitewash.
The "Executive Summary" is a whitewash, which is why the lefties are all quoting it.
Jersey Fled said...
Isn't it funny that a bunch of amateurs like us can take a few pages of the report that Ann found odd and punch them full of holes? While the MSM remains remarkably incurious?
Imagine what would happen if we went through the whole report like this."
Did you ever find something that you absolutely did not want to find? Just think of the MSM as Democrats with bylines and you won't go wrong ( courtesy of Glenn Reynolds).
Why was the Chief Legal Officer (AG Lynch) meeting with a rapist (BJ Clinton) n the Tarmac in the first place?
Matthew Sablan said...
"Isn't it funny that a bunch of amateurs like us can take a few pages of the report that Ann found odd and punch them full of holes?"
-- I just wonder why no one else has taken the couple examples of Bill Clinton's contradictory testimony and put them side-by-side like I did. Or maybe they have and I haven't read it yet.
Everyone knows what happened.
People just have different excuses for why they allow it to happen.
Democrats lie.
Republican swamp critters are really just democrats.
The majority of republican voters don’t want to deal with the consequences of accepting the truth.
The democrat party and the people that vote for it have no morals or decency. They know what they are doing is a direct assault on the rule of law.
Most people just don’t want to face what it is going to take to stop them.
"Not finding evidence is hardly the same as no evidence, especially when you're purposely not looking for it.
Indirect, circumstantial evidence is often enough to indict and convict."
Bingo. Many are jumping on the various no evidence statements by the IG. But they are couched in terms like no evidence "in writing or testimony".
For example, here there were no written records except talking points written AFTER the meeting became known publicly and identified as a problem.
Testimony? Heh. Lynch's husband was not interviewed.
So the only way the IG could have found direct evidence is if WJC said, sure I tried to influence the investigation or Ms. Lynch had said WJC offered me a job or threatened me.
Afraid Achilles is right. There really should be outrage across the country, in congress and among the leaders of the nation. Trump of course has expressed himself but gets little support. There should be demands for prosecutions. The swamp played it about right; admit some less than desirable behavior and promise training and new rules. "That outta satisfy 'em." I do think it is going to hurt the blues in the election; we'll have to see. And it is satisfying to know that the Demos crapped in their own nest and cost Hillary the election.
Ok now that I’ve read it, I agree with prior comments that both are lying. They are lying their asses off. They give lots of details on the things that are clearly irrelevant to the investigation or might show innocence. But when it comes to the relevant stuff, or things that would/could point to guilty actions/state of mind, then all of a sudden there’s vagueness and lack of recall.
And Clinton, it’s not his s first rodeo. So all the direct questions (did you discuss X, did you discuss Y), where it seems that Lynch may have already testified that they did or did not discuss those subjects, he punts with phrases like “I don’t recall that specifically, but we may have discussed that, since I discuss that a lot in my speeches, or I don’t recall, but we may have discussed it because I know that’s one of the administration’s/department’s policies now... blah blah blah.
Can’t be perjury to not recall, but he gets his litttle reasons out there as cover to make himself seem more believable.
To me it just begs the question, when asked if they spoke about the Midyear Exam (Hillary’s case), why didn’t he answer the same way? “I don’t recall specifically if we discussed that, but we might have since it’s been in all the papers lately...”
But since he is trying to clear himself, as to that topic all of a sudden he has great recall and he’s SURE they didn’t discuss it.
Sorry, no sale.
Just think about this little incident with Bill and Loretta and compare it with Comey's dinner with Trump and then compare the media reaction to these events. Very interesting.
Post a Comment