2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-bill-clinton-met-with-loretta-lynch/2016/07/02/a7807adc-3ff4-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.htmlHow everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
By Dan Balz
Chief correspondent July 2 at 7:58 AM
snip//
For a politician long praised for his political smarts, it was a striking error of judgment on Clintons part to walk to Lynchs plane for any kind of conversation. It was a similarly huge lapse on the part of the attorney general, who was appointed by Clinton as a U.S. attorney in 1999, to allow him to come aboard for any kind of conversation.
snip//
But this is anything but a routine matter, and there is a difference between political interference and a case involving politics. This is a case with dramatic political ramifications, as everyone knows. The outcome could reshape the presidential campaign.
Lynch isnt the only one whose actions raise questions. Think of this: The president has endorsed and is actively campaigning for Clinton at a time when his Justice Department is still in the process of deciding whether she should be prosecuted. Although that has drawn little comment, it shocks some who have been in senior positions in previous governments and who believe that no White House can be truly indifferent or disinterested in such an important case.
Obama has made mistakes on this before. He seemingly sided with Clinton earlier, saying she was careless but that he didnt think she had intentionally put national security in jeopardy. Does the fact of his endorsement mean that he thinks, as do any number of legal experts, that she will be in some way exonerated by the Justice Department?
Finally there is the question of when the investigation will end and the findings made public. The prosecutors are trying to be careful and thorough, which is laudable. But a clock is ticking. The Democrats are now weeks away from likely nominating Clinton for president. The longer the investigation goes, the more any decision has major political impact.
Hillary Clinton wants and needs a clean resolution of the long investigation. Bill Clinton and the attorney general managed to muddy all this with their private chat in Phoenix, no doubt to the consternation of both Hillary Clintons campaign and the Justice Department officials trying to bring this to a resolution soon. No one looks good in this transaction.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)then I would assume one could consider his stunt a success.
emulatorloo
(44,200 posts)Unsupported claim. Only the FBI knows what the investigation is about, and they aren't leaking.
I understand the media's desire to create a "Tarmac-gate" scandal. They are driven by increasing their clicks and ratings.
babylonsister
(171,102 posts)their boneheadedness? If this hadn't happened, they no doubt wouldn't be talking about it. And fyi, got this article from Robert Reich with this:
He was wrong, of course. And the visit (which I assume was innocent) has only served to undermine public confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of the Justice Departments probe as Lynch herself recognized. The fact that the meeting that I had is now casting a shadow over how people are going to view that work is something that I take seriously, and deeply and painfully, she said later.
Bill Clinton is one of the most talented politicians of our generation, and I feel privileged to have served with him in Washington. But I find his sense of entitlement deeply frustrating.
What do you think?
emulatorloo
(44,200 posts)Or credible links that indicate WJC and Lynch have not had a relationship for 20 years?
Insinuations or assertions in Op-Eds don't count, as that is SPIN.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)babylonsister
(171,102 posts)rooting for her to be prosecuted. After all, I am a Dem and would not look forward to the circus that would surround that.
However, this article is about the stupidity of that meet-up, and with that I do agree.
emulatorloo
(44,200 posts)I did not say you are "rooting" for Clinton to be prosecuted. I never said that and I am not implying it either.
I said Balz's assertion that the JD is trying to decide whether she is going to be prosecuted is fact-free baseless speculation.
I am sticking to my assertion that "Tarmac-gate" is a failed creation of right-wingers that the ad-supported media has taken up in hopes of increasing clicks and ratings. Horse-race coverage and fake melodrama.
monmouth4
(9,711 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)like most rational people, is aware that this is not a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.
This investigation can not wrap up soon enough. Too many worried and misinformed minds need to be eased.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sorry guys.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Dear media, dont turn the next 8 years into a TMZ episode.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)pnwmom
(109,001 posts)And has zero to do with Obama.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #10)
Post removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)and talk to each other. Also they are not looking to prosecute. No this does not re-shape everything. Will they bother to dig into Trump's past in the media, ever?
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Doing that negates the horse race they want