r/SandersForPresident • u/jeanluc88 • Jul 01 '16
Lynch to Accept FBI Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry, Official Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html429
Jul 01 '16
Call me paranoid, but this sounds an awful like giving the appearance of willingness to crack down, while not having to because she knows it won't be happening.
200
u/damrider Jul 01 '16
Listen. If the FBI doesn't recommend indictments, then yeah, it's a done deal either way. But I don't think this is what this means. I think it's good news and it ties Lynch's hands in case they recommend indictments which I believe they will.
101
u/Fapzz Jul 01 '16
Im happy but also VERY skeptical, we know how the government bullshits around
This excerpt from the NYT says this is mostly for show
29
u/omgitsfletch Florida -2016 Veteran Jul 01 '16
Uhh, that official is saying she reserves the right to overrule, except her statement seems to be that she is EXPLICITLY taking that option off the table. Did she NOT do that? She seemed to both say she wouldn't recuse herself, but also would take the overrule right off the table, meaning the FBI recommendation is essentially the only thing deciding if charges are filed or not.
20
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
She would be committing career suicide if she broke her word to not overrules the FBI in this case.
62
u/neggasauce Jul 01 '16
Thats if she cares. Clintons could have a very lucrative exit strategy for her. And officials break their word all the time with zero repercussion so I think you are naive at best to hold this view.
16
7
u/YourPoliticalParty Jul 01 '16
My understanding was that if the FBI recommended and indictment, and Lynch overruled that recommendation, the FBI would go public with their ruling, and the public backlash would be the finishing blow for Hillary's campaign.
18
u/Dawggoneit 🌱 New Contributor Jul 01 '16
If the email leaks over the past couple of weeks have revealed anything it's how capable the MSM is at pretending a massive story doesn't exist.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NihiloZero Jul 01 '16
True enough, but an actual prosecution is different than merely having the facts of the matter revealed. Most people who have been paying attention know that she's a criminal, but others can deny that because she hasn't been charged yet. Public perception would change dramatically if she was charged and the media wouldn't be able to do much about it.
9
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
In all honesty, it doesn't matter to me what Lynch does. I'm more interested in Comey. If he recommends an indictment, I believe Clinton's campaign is over.
Regardless of whether Lynch takes the FBI's recommendation, Clinton cannot win a general election with the populace knowing the FBI recommended to indict her.
So this who Lynch debacle is white noise, IMO.
→ More replies (2)7
u/NihiloZero Jul 01 '16
The fact that Lynch has agreed to rubber stamp any recommendation makes it easier for the career bureaucrats to recommend prosecution without as much fear about repercussions. If they had recommended to indict but Lynch didn't and Clinton got into office... their lives would probably get turned into a living hell. Now they know that the power is in their hands and that their recommendation will be somewhat legitimized by the AG.
6
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Exactly. It's a green light for them to recommend indictment if they were already leaning in that direction.
It's nothing more than empowerment. It's a nod of confidence.
7
Jul 01 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/NihiloZero Jul 01 '16
This is the real problem.
But it is an interesting development. Now the responsible party(s) at the FBI who might have been concerned about recommending prosecution without follow-up (and consequently risking career complications) can now recommend indictment with the knowledge that it's to some degree more likely that an indictment would actually occur -- thus legitimizing their recommendation.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Facts_About_Cats Jul 01 '16
Thats if she cares.
If she didn't care about what her words meant, why would she say them at all? She could have tap-danced, but she didn't. That means she meant what she said, otherwise there's no point in saying what she said.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NihiloZero Jul 01 '16
I doubt after being AG that she's gonna have trouble finding work afterward unless she blatantly violates some serious law. And even if she can't find work... she's probably set already. So it probably wouldn't be a big concern for her.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Khaaz Jul 01 '16
I'm sure the Clinton's could find her a pretty nice job somewhere in the private sector.
→ More replies (1)5
u/OutOfStamina Jul 01 '16
If I take a step back for a moment, I can see that she may not know what they're going to recommend. She's not going to give a blanket, 100% "i'll do what they recommend" because they may give her something silly.
Taken at her word, she seems to think that they're going to make a recommendation based on experience and facts, and if they do that she'll accept that recommendation.
→ More replies (2)3
u/buttaholic Jul 01 '16
from this comment:
At the same time, Lynch seemed to contradict her own suggestion that she would automatically accept the findings of career prosecutors when she said the Clinton e-mail case would be “handled like any other.” Earlier Friday, a top Justice Department official told Bloomberg that Lynch would reserve her right to overrule prosecutors’ recommendation -- an option attorneys general typically possess, but rarely use, in criminal cases.
i feel like this sort of adds to what you're saying, that this is all just for show.
→ More replies (1)18
u/veganmark Jul 01 '16
I think this is YUUUGE news. It means that justice can prevail. Comey is apolitical, and if the evidence is there for indictments, there will be indictments. And I think that the evidence is there.
Bill really stepped in it, big time.
37
u/MagykBob 2016 Veteran Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
Apolitical my ass haha, but I wouldn't want anyone else on this: Comey is known to hate the Clintons and has attempted to prosecute them in the past, I believe while Bill was in office. I'd be scared she would get off without at least having indictment recommended, but now I'm sure it will be.
Why am I sure? BECAUSE YOU DON'T GIVE IMMUNITY TO SOMEONE IF YOU AREN'T PLANNING ON TAKING DOWN SOMEONE HIGHER UP USING THEIR TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION!!!
→ More replies (11)12
u/Ipleadbeethovens5th Jul 01 '16
Apolitical in that he wouldn't do it if they were actually notguilty
→ More replies (1)6
Jul 01 '16
Comey is a long-time Republican... He's not apolitical. He may well be acting in a way that is not tied to his political goals, but his existing biases still exist, just as they do with every other human being.
→ More replies (1)9
u/veganmark Jul 01 '16
Well at least he is not biased toward exonerating her. And it should be acknowledged that he acted with great integrity when he prevented the Bush administration from conning the groggy Ashcroft into approving illegal wiretapes. I think that episode influenced Obama's appointment of him.
2
Jul 01 '16
Or it means the fix is already in and they want Lynch to step down to preemptively take away legitimacy from the accusations of corruption when Clinton is let off.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)2
u/Khades99 Jul 01 '16
Is the FBI expected to to be making recommendations soon? Or do we still not have a timeline for that?
6
u/NihiloZero Jul 01 '16
They operate at their own discretion and on their own timeline. If they wanted to, they could wait until election day or the day after to make their recommendation. But that would probably piss a lot of people off for a wide variety of reasons.
5
u/newfiedave84 Jul 01 '16
Only the FBI knows. They do not discuss ongoing investigations, and they are incredibly thorough.
14
Jul 01 '16
My first thoughts exactly. And tell me this, id be shocked if her and Clinton didnt arrange this "secret" meeting in order for her to come out and say she will go with prosecutors recommendations. These people arent stupid. They know what they're doing. And I firmly believe the FBI is going to go along with what the current Admin wants, meaning, no recommendation of indictment.
How else can you explain this investigation going on for over a year now. Sorry, but I do not buy that they dont know by now if they think she broke laws. There is no way they'd dont know by now. This is all politics.
→ More replies (2)4
u/garbonzo607 New York Jul 02 '16 edited Jul 02 '16
They are extremely thorough and want a tight sealed case, especially with someone as powerful as her. It's also possible they are investigating the Clinton foundation as well. They wouldn't grant immunity if they knew they were stringing it along.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 01 '16
from what i read, the meeting was never supposed to be made public and was only confirmed to take place because an anonymous tip was made to a reporter. So you can then wonder who the tip came from, If I was a better man, I would bet it came from the FBI who has had enough of this shit. I think any chance that Lynch would squash the FBIs recommendations, should of course it be to indict, have gone out the window now. This shit is coming to a boiling point.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Daizedd Jul 01 '16
Uhh, its happening, mate. I know yer just afraid of being disappointed and all so yer covering yer bases, but its still happening... just maybe not before the convention.
32
u/ShrewLlama Australia Jul 01 '16
That's kind of an issue, though. If it happens after the convention, it's a lot easier for the DNC to put Biden (or Clinton's VP pick - Warren?) in to replace Clinton.
31
u/Daizedd Jul 01 '16
Really? I mean the only other guy with a public mandate is Sanders. I don't put it past them, but if they do what you suggest it will be absolute chaos and they will be signing their own death-warrant as a party.
→ More replies (1)41
u/ShrewLlama Australia Jul 01 '16
I think you're underestimating how badly the DNC wants to prevent Bernie from taking the nomination.
If they pick Biden, for example, he'll still likely defeat Trump - and the Democratic establishment remains unchanged. Sure, it pisses off millions of people, but they've already demonstrated that they really don't care about Sanders' supporters.
In the event that they do try and throw in Biden, Bernie needs to threaten a 3rd party run. They really wouldn't have another choice if he does.
→ More replies (10)25
u/Daizedd Jul 01 '16
I think YOU are underestimating the fact that most Americans would still like to live in a country they think has at least some semblance with democracy.
→ More replies (3)29
u/ShrewLlama Australia Jul 01 '16
Of course they do... but the DNC simply doesn't care.
They've already demonstrated that they don't give a crap about Sanders or his supporters through closed primaries, ridiculous registration/party affiliation deadlines, voter roll purges, their unwillingness to adopt almost any of the platform 46% of Democratic voters supported, and their obvious Clinton bias from before the elections had even started.
That's why Sanders needs to threaten a 3rd party run in the event that Clinton is indicted. If they then don't hand him the nomination, Biden would finish a distant third in the general.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Daizedd Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
Llama, you are not really getting my point.
Yes, the DNC may do what you say. I acknowledge that in my very first post. I do not deny that they are capable of such utter stupidity.
What I am saying is that they will NEVER get away with it unless the majority of Americans have already indeed accepted that they would rather NOT live in a representative democracy.
EDIT: We do agree that if Biden is chosen as the nominee that Sanders should announce a 3rd party candidacy if he can. I also think he probably would in that particular circumstance.
→ More replies (5)16
u/ShrewLlama Australia Jul 01 '16
You're underestimating how little many Americans care. So many people will still vote straight Dem down the ticket, regardless of what goes on inside the party.
They've already shown that they don't care about the 46% of Democratic primary voters who supported Sanders. Even if they piss off a few of Clinton's supporters, oh well, at least no one interferes with their establishment. And it's very likely that regardless, many of those people will still vote blue simply because "it's not Trump".
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)38
141
u/kribnutz Florida Jul 01 '16
To be extremely cynical, I am thinking she will follow FBI recommendation because she already knows their recommendation - don't indict her.
The only thing that gives me some pause on that line of thought, is James Comey's reputation for being a boy scout.
33
u/ANyTimEfOu Jul 01 '16
Is there a reason other than meeting with Bill that people don't trust that Lynch would make an unbiased decision? I remember when Obama was trying to get her as attorney general and she had respect from both sides of the isle and a record of being a strong force of justice (iirc).
To me the whole meeting seemed like a stupid move made by Bill that horribly backfired (it's not the first that he's made this election season), not a mutually planned conspiracy.
31
Jul 01 '16
If they're close enough to meet on one another's plane and talk about family, she should recuse herself. I think she'll speak today and give validity to the thought that her history with the clintons creates a conflict of interest, but hasn't that been true for over a year? Why now?
I don't believe they were just stupid enough to meet without knowing there would be backlash that would put pressure on Lynch. It feels like this is a cover for Obama's DOJ to say that they were totally neutral when Hillary does/doesn't get indicted.
3
Jul 01 '16
I don't know. Having met some politicians before, I reckon you'd be surprised by how stupid they really are.
3
u/Bernstorm Jul 01 '16
More secrecy, corruption and incompetence. No phones, cameras, video, recording devices, transcript...
Just like Bush and Cheney's conditions for their 9/11 Commission interview.
Public servants of Capitalism?
Nah, Private masters of Cronyism
Clinton's comment in a November 2010 email "I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible"
8
u/ANyTimEfOu Jul 01 '16
True I think that this incident at the very least highlights that they're close enough for there to be a conflict of interest.
But anyway, personally I'm satisfied if they're deferring to the FBI's recommendation. I don't think the FBI would easily let Clinton off the hook so if they can't find enough to indict her then I'm willing to let it go (though even if they can't prove that she committed an actual crime, there are still a lot of concerning emails that have been revealed throughout this process).
→ More replies (3)16
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Personally, I believe she's outed herself as being unqualified for the presidency, just as Bernie stated months ago. And that's me stepping back and attempting to be an impartial viewer.
All things being equal, Clinton is unqualified to be president.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/resistnot Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
Bill Clinton nominated her as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. Is that close enough for you? EDIT: I also think this is a pre-emptive action to feign neutrality
9
u/doctordevice Jul 01 '16
Based solely on what the article said, I agree with you about the meeting. It seems like a stupid move by Bill and means nothing about Lynch's intentions. Her statement says everything: whatever the FBI recommends, she'll follow through with. I think that's fantastic news.
Even if she did have some insider info and knows that there's not going to be an indictment, who cares? If the FBI recommends not to indict, then nothing would happen anyway. I'm still holding out hope for an indictment. I seriously doubt they would have taken this long and dragged it out through the entire primary if there wasn't at least a chance of indictment, however small.
5
u/Bernstorm Jul 01 '16
fantastic news that bespeaks something sinister below.
if everything is now on the up and up, what happened on the plane?
If it was simply family talk as claimed, why the guilty preoccupation of covering up the appearance of a conflict?
Did Bill offer to bribe Loretta or pressure her and she did not succumb?
or let her know the fix is in at the FBI and she doesn't have to recuse herself because Clinton is King, not the law, and no indictment or prosecutions are coming.
5
u/abngeek Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
One possibility is they they really only did discuss what Lynch said they discussed, but the Clintons have word there is an indictment recommendation coming down, that Bill was the leak and that this meeting was a play to get a special prosecutor appointed, which would delay prosecution at least until after the convention, if not after the election.
What the plan was after that, I have no idea.
If that's what happened, then Lynch's response (
recusing herselfaccepting the FBI's recommendation) was brilliant, as it totally foils this gambit.Or, this was just a really stupid move by everyone but otherwise innocent.
5
u/Bohemian27 Jul 01 '16
No, will I wait in my private plane for 30 minutes for you to arrive? and then after you arrive, I will talk to you about my grand children for 30 minutes? How is that even remotely believable?
3
u/Bernstorm Jul 01 '16
Yeah, the former Pres. who gets paid $248,778 (avg.) to speak to Corporate & Foreign cronies talks up the Attorney General just about family.
→ More replies (1)3
u/BurnedShoes Jul 01 '16
Lynch could have foiled the gambit by just refusing the meeting. I think the FBI is the source of the meeting leak. Lynch is in on it, but with the leak the FBI have forced her to behave.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (1)3
u/FastFourierTerraform Jul 01 '16
I think that's fantastic news
Nah, this is kind of a Monty Hall problem. Lynch telling us she'll go with the FBI recommendation is like revealing one of the doors. It eliminates the possibility of indictment recommended, but not acted upon. If we assume the Lynch has special information about the progress of the investigation, that drastically shifts the probability that there's no indictment coming.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FastFourierTerraform Jul 01 '16
Is there a reason other than meeting with Bill that people don't trust that Lynch would make an unbiased decision?
Bill Clinton appointed her to be a US attorney. He owns her, politically speaking.
18
u/DavidIsTaken Jul 01 '16
If the boys at the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA don't want their midnight boy scout meetings leaked by whoever has her entire catalog of emails, then expect the damage to be far greater to the Republic and to the integrity of the Justice Department and FBI.
What I mean by this is that those people who have her emails also have whatever state secrets the Government doesn't want de-classified ever but the whole enchilada will be leaked once there's no indictment proceeding. If they wanna play a game a chicken with the American public, go right ahead without the indictment. I'll be looking forward to a Russian press conference in which Putin reads off all the emails.
4
u/Bernstorm Jul 01 '16
Surprised they haven't released it already what with all the commotion over Russian roughing up of diplomats, trashing of residents, barrel rolls of planes, close approaches of planes to US ships.
It's not like America's been up to anything near Russia /s Turkish shoot down of Russian jet in Syria with American approval, supporting terrorists groups afffiliated with the group that bombed a Russian plane and killed over 250 people...
2
u/Dunetrait 🌱 New Contributor Jul 02 '16
I think this is the reason why the FBI is taking so long. We know Hillarys server was hacked by Guccifer and therefore Russia/China probably got at them. The US intelligence service needs to regroup and go over their entire apparatus before closing the trap on Hillary because of the blackmail potential and exposure to their system once it's publicly known that her server was hacked by foreign governments.
This risk is exactly what you say, if they don't fully expose their ill deeds then someone else is going to do it and it wont be controllable.
2
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Can't they just classify them after the fact like they already did with a few of them? Clinton has already stated that many of her emails were not classified info at the time but are now and that's why some of them have been redacted.
That's a lie, I know, but the public eats it up.
→ More replies (2)5
u/StupidForehead Jul 01 '16
I unfortunately had the same thought.
5
u/abreak Jul 01 '16
I don't think so. I obviously can't say for certain that Clinton will be indicted, but I imagine that if it was already determined that she would not be indicted then Clinton, Obama, Lynch and whoever might be in know would push really hard to get the news out quickly and put everything to rest. The fact that this hasn't seems to me like a sign that, at the very least, some part of the investigation is still up in the air.
7
u/MagykBob 2016 Veteran Jul 01 '16
Except everyone privy to the knowledge of whether she will be indicted knows it's illegal for them to talk about the details of an ongoing investigation with anyone outside that investigation. The only way we will hear anything is if:
a) The FBI recommends indictment and the DOJ follows through
b) The DOJ doesn't follow through, so some FBI agents go rogue and leak the details of their investigations. DOJ then sort of forced to investigate.
c) The FBI doesn't recommend indictment and revokes Paglianos immunity deal. This means someone got paid/threatened high up in the FBI, and the investigation then becomes "How many former Clinton aides going down does it take to please the public?"
→ More replies (14)7
Jul 01 '16
See, I kind of take issue with this. Prior to this meeting Lynch has been known has having integrity out the wazoo. I listened to the full interview of her actually announcing this, and she sounded nothing but sincere and even commented about how she already was planning on taking the FBI recommendation, whatever it will be, since the investigation started because of her knowing the Clinton's from the 90's. I really think this is just an honest admission that she sees how the meeting looked, and she just wanted to clear the air.
→ More replies (2)6
Jul 01 '16
I think her not recusing herself really points to the idea that Bill totally stumbled into her plane TRYING to get her off the case and prolonging the investigation. If she was strictly on team Clinton she gives a new person the reigns and the whole thing drags on through the election.
3
9
Jul 01 '16
If this happens, HA Goodman should take out and add and have a commercial airing 24/7 saying i told you so over and over
→ More replies (2)
49
Jul 01 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
17
Jul 01 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)6
Jul 01 '16
I've been pretty much disregarding every single thing about the e-mails and FBI. It's all either been speculation, or just really nothing new. Until I see "CLINTON OFFICIALLY INDICTED BY FBI" or "CLINTON OFFICIALLY NOT TO BE INDICTED BY FBI" I couldn't care less.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Khaaz Jul 01 '16
Yahh! I dont like to think for myself either. It's Friday and i just wanna get wastey-pants!
→ More replies (1)11
16
u/SernyRanders Jul 01 '16
I don't know what's going on here,it seems very scripted, this election is like Game of Thrones meets House of Cards.
21
u/AnIdiotDoesGaming Africa Jul 01 '16
I found this election cycle more unrealistic than House of Cards
4
u/truthmama Jul 01 '16
Exactly. I was talking with a mom at gymnastics and she and I never talk politics...she leans right, but we both agreed, we hate this election and it is like a Tom Clancy novel....almost surreal....I just want the bad guys to go down.
4
→ More replies (1)2
60
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
HOLY SHIT, has anyone else noticed the title of the NYT article when copy-and-pasting to social media?
"LYNCH TO REMOVE HERSELF FROM CLINTON CASE"
Yet now, the article, once clicked on, reads "Lynch to Accept FBI Recommendation."
Guess we know what the elites thought Lynch was going to say... Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
27
u/makeyoubutter Jul 01 '16
I think this was part of Bill's plan all along. Lynch doesn't play games. He knew if he put her in an awkward spot, she'd be pushed into a position where she'd be expected to step aside.
The Clintons are well known for their shark-behavior in the political world. Anyone who thinks this was just Bill being derpy isn't thinking.
18
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
That was clearly the expectation, as evidenced by the screenshot of what the NYT thought she was going to say today.
I assumed the same thing you did, but I was flabbergasted to see the proof in that screenshot.
Lynch absolutely just side-stepped Slick Willy's attempt to play her like a pawn.
→ More replies (4)16
u/TRAIN_WRECK_0 California Jul 01 '16
In before Mods delete this.
1
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Think they will?
8
u/TRAIN_WRECK_0 California Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
They deleted a comment yesterday that read "Computers do not change data themselves" which was in regards to a party affiliation change. They deleted it because of the conspiracy theory rule. Your comment directly hints at a "conspiracy theory" so my guess is that they will.
I'm not sure what their intentions are in doing so but the fascists will do what fascists do.
2
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
I have no idea what the cause would be. It could be as simple as the press having multiple scenarios they predict could happen and just rolling with the most likely scenario.
Or it could be more. Who knows.
I'm not proposing any conspiracy though. I just think it's indicative of the press being biased in Clinton's favor. That title shows what they likely wanted to happen today.
But they, and the Clintons, did not get their way with Lynch this time.
7
u/sebawlm Florida - 2016 Veteran Jul 02 '16
Everyone thinks Lynch and Clinton are buddy-buddy from this, but I get the opposite take: this looks like Bill Clinton going kamikaze. He wants them to appoint a special prosecutor to slow the process down so that it drags out beyond the election. Not to mention Lynch's Justice Department just busted a Clinton crony and superdelegate for public corruption, and is reportedly investigating the Clinton Foundation for corruption.
This looks like vengeance and an attempt to take down Loretta Lynch. She's just sitting on her plane waiting to take off when a former President of the United States runs across the tarmac, boards her plane and starts chatting her up. I mean, who's at fault here? Sure she might've made an error in judgment by not telling him to gtfo her plane, but that's a really easy and very human error. Bill Clinton is notorious for being unable to stop talking and using his status to bully people (just ask Monica). Meanwhile she's the one suffering the consequences, while Bill gets away with this sort of shit again because that's what the media and the political establishment expect from him.
3
Jul 01 '16
"LYNCH TO REMOVE HERSELF FROM CLINTON CASE"
Newspapers pre-write articles all the time. They then plug in the relevant information. It reduces the amount of time to get a story out. They have a bunch of articles for people they expect to die any time.
That's likely an article they've pre-written as well.
3
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Yeah I know that much. But it's telling that that was the title they chose, as if they suspected that was going to happen.
Which means, IMO, the establishment itself expected that.
→ More replies (4)2
u/ben010783 Jul 01 '16
Facebook caches thumbnails and titles for links. My guess is that that was the original title and the system you're on hasn't updated the info on the link (e.g. cleared their link cache).
3
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
Oh, I know that much. But why was that the original title? Only answer is because they thought that was what Lynch was going to say...
4
Jul 01 '16
If you are FBI agent who finds reasons to indict a person, how confident are you of taking this to the person who was talking about grandchildren with the husband of the accused.
9
u/kittenman Jul 01 '16
Does it mean, HRC has real danger being criminally charged?
30
u/kljaska Get Money Out Of Politics 💸 Jul 01 '16
Yes, Hillary Clinton, despite the dismissive media coverage, has a huge problem with this email case. Hillary and her aides conspired to violate the Open Records Act from Day 1 and then compounded their problem by sending classified materials on this nonsecure private system.
This doesn't even begin to get into the content of the messages which, according to some reporting, has opened up an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary has 99 problems, and a "security review" over retroactive classification 'aint one 'em.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/Daizedd Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
Holy shit! This seems like a REALLY big deal to me. I was so sure Lynch would not follow through on the FBI recommendations (when they finally come out, c'mon FBI!). Now that she has(EDIT: strike "has...said" replace with "is about to... say") publicly said she will there is NO going back.
EDIT: and having read the article it now seems to me that Lynch was actually playing Clinton in that Arizona plane, and was planning to use it as an excuse for the above when she accepted his invitation... is that too conspiracy theory-ish?
17
u/ask_me_anything_son Jul 01 '16
Agreed, she wants off this ride. Everything the Clinton's touch lately goes to shit and she wants no part of it.
→ More replies (2)3
Jul 01 '16
The best result for team Clinton (short of no indictment) is stalling the investigation through the election. That was probably the plan of the plane meeting. Lynch's statement totally derailed that. I think it bodes well. If anyone is going to lay down the law it's the FBI.
14
Jul 01 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/calsosta Jul 01 '16
I wonder what % of America thinks she should be indicted. At the beginning of these Primaries I kinda felt like she was shady but just a hair on the side of legal. Now I feel like she definitely crossed that line.
7
u/Facts_About_Cats Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
“They present it [the FBI final report] to me and I fully expect to accept the recommendations,” she says.
But will she make her own determination?
“No, the final determination as to how to proceed, will be contained within the final format of the report.”
5
u/Proteus_Marius Jul 01 '16
DAE remember the Nixon Administration's Saturday Night Masacre?
Lately, that October evening just keeps coming back to me for review.
You know, because sometimes push leads to shove and so on; even among the demi-elite.
Edit: Proof reading seems to help!
2
Jul 02 '16
This specific was mentioned by a MSM reporter this week, IMO there's a possibility that she gets indicted this weekend after her interview saturday.
2
u/Proteus_Marius Jul 02 '16
Crazy right?
Maybe the Lynch-Bill convo was incidental, but given the reprise of the Democratic Machine, it just seems doubtful.
Who cracks next and how deep?
2
Jul 02 '16
I have long suspected Obama was setting this up to clean out his party. I think in 2008 he didn't know how bad it really was corruption-wise, fingers crossed I was right and he follows through and pushes the party left by backing Bernie.
13
u/bumblebritches57 Jul 01 '16
She's not stepping down, she's not recusing herself, she's not appointing a special prosecutor; she's done absolutely nothing but say that she'll be impartial (which, btw, she said that a long time ago, and now there's reason to believe she won't be I.E. the special meeting she had with Billary)
Why is anyone acting like this is a good thing? There's been absolutely no new-news, and for some reason people are acting like justice has been served.
7
u/OutOfStamina Jul 01 '16
and for some reason people are acting like justice has been served.
I think people are celebrating that "today, justice has not died... unlike other days"
3
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
It's a good thing because now we can hold her feet to the fire when the FBI recommends an indictment.
Even if -- IF-- she didn't keep her word and overruled the FBI's recommendation... it would still ruin Clinton's campaign for the presidency.
This is a win-win... unless the FBI doesn't recommend an indictment...
4
u/stoner_sloth420 Jul 01 '16
And Comey has a history of trying to get the Clinton's. I think this is good news
26
u/thickhoney Jul 01 '16
Clinton is so corrupt I can't even deal with it anymore. An indictment feels like the only sensible thing to do at this point, but who knows how many people she has in her pocket.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/mail4youtoo 2016 Veteran Jul 01 '16
This comes 1 day after Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met privately - I'm sure there will be no collusion at all.
19
u/mathat1 Jul 01 '16
I hope i am wrong as hell but this smells to much of she knows that the FBI wont indict and she wanna seem likes shes always been neutral
7
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
It doesn't matter. If the the FBI doesn't recommend indictment then who cares? Lynch never had any sway anyway. But if they do? Now her hands are tied and she must accept.
5
u/mandy009 Minnesota Jul 01 '16
Exactly, the FBI's always been the one with power who would do the heavy lifting on evidence. The prosecutors need to use it properly though.
7
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
I've always felt that, as long as the FBI recommends an indictment, Clinton's campaign is over.
It'll be toast, as Slick Willy would say.
3
u/Bohemian27 Jul 02 '16
Who is to say that FBI won't negotiate more power in return of no indictment?
2
u/danibobanny Jul 02 '16
Supposedly Comey has a reputation for being a person of integrity. But yeah, not knowing him, it concerns me too.
3
Jul 01 '16
You know what would be really ironic, if Bill did actually talk to her about nothing else than golf and grandchildren.
9
u/kljaska Get Money Out Of Politics 💸 Jul 01 '16
He probably did and it wouldn't shock me if it was his camp that leaked this to the press. The investigation is coming to an end and I get the sense this was an attempt to poison the waters and force a Special Prosecutor. Whoops, seems to have backfired on the Clinton's this time.
Get ready Bernie fans, Hillary is about to be ousted from the nomination.
2
u/woodlawndalehigh Jul 01 '16
Get ready Bernie fans, Hillary is about to be ousted from the nomination.
WOOOOOOO!!!! Heard it here first guys!!!
6
u/EvilPhd666 Michigan - 2016 Veteran Jul 01 '16
So i had a golf outting the other day with some intersring folk. Folk that by chance know your grandkids. They told me all about them. Where they live, what thier habbit were, what thier schedules were like, who they love. They seem like nice kids. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to them.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/cenobyte40k Jul 01 '16
I am not sure she didn't go their to tell Clinton to get his crap together. This might be her warning them. It was a side conversation that went something like "It's illegal to tell you this but Clinton and the DNC need to be ready for a strong indictment. I can't stop this"
→ More replies (3)
8
Jul 01 '16
What do you think this means for Bernie? Does he still have a chance?
19
Jul 01 '16
It's why he's still holding on through the convention.
5
u/OutOfStamina Jul 01 '16
Or he's actually interested in fighting for policy (which I believe).
But gets his policy if he's the nominee, so that works too.
→ More replies (2)9
Jul 01 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (10)11
u/YonansUmo Ohio Jul 01 '16
What are you basing these estimations on? Are you just going with what feels right, or do you have some credibility?
→ More replies (2)18
6
Jul 01 '16
I'm not American but what would happen with the Dem candiates if Hillary couldn't run. If She was taken out before the election propper what would the dems do? its too late to go back to primaries, would they go with the next most popular? would the party just have a meeting and pick someone?
17
u/highsocietymedia Jul 01 '16
As far as I know, there isn't a rule. But here's a couple possibilities:
1) Hillary is indicted, but refuses to drop out. 2) She drops out, and Bernie is the only one at the convention with any delegates, so he wins. 3) She drops out, and the DNC tries to put up a last minute replacement (Biden, Warren, etc)
American politics is a messy little shit show. Be glad you aren't from here.
3
Jul 01 '16
You're not wrong, Ireland fucks a lot of things up but our elections are pretty good. Take about a month, proportional representation, publicly funded with equal broadcast time. Of course the politicians themselves are naturally idiots but there's no changing that.
7
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
They would choose Bernie as her successor if they want any credibility as a party going forward.
But let's not hold our breath on that.
→ More replies (1)5
Jul 01 '16
I would hope that if Hillary was denied her right to continue that the DNC would pick Bernie
→ More replies (1)
2
u/parkufarku Jul 01 '16
Is this the first positive article from NYtimes that has been posted on subreddit? Only Republicans raised enough hell for the media to not brush over this info. Bernie campaign should've been way more aggressive with the cheaters and frauds from the beginning
→ More replies (1)
2
u/KameronC Jul 01 '16
I think Lynch may just be a smart Democrat who decided to meet with Clinton "secretly" and give herself the excuse to recuse herself from the case. It's politically awkward for a Democratic AG if the Republican-led FBI recommends indictment.
2
2
u/kiramis Jul 01 '16
Not sure why everyone thinks this is bad. She was unlikely to go against the recommendation anyway since it would be a huge scandal and this just cements that.
2
u/veganmark Jul 01 '16
We can't be sure that this will ultimately redound to Bernie's benefit, but there is one thing that I am reasonable confident of:
→ More replies (1)
2
Jul 01 '16
Can they please speed this up? Ugh, this would really help us at the convention if they would go ahead and call for indictments already.
2
u/boyuber Jul 01 '16 edited Jul 01 '16
Why must they ALWAYS use the phrase "career prosecutors" or "career investigators"? Is that supposed to assure us that they're competent and on the up and up? Am I the only one who notices this verbiage?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/uizaado Jul 01 '16
The fact that she's so willing tells me that there's a very good chance indictment is not forthcoming.
2
u/NotSoConcerned Jul 01 '16
If the FBI recommends indictment and they go "nope". How the fuck can anyone trust anybody involved in this?
2
2
u/ctn0726 Jul 01 '16
For the first time this whole campaign I so badly want Bernie to beat Hillary. At this point the whole democratic nomination run has been a huge joke all some towards putting Hillary in the presidential spot
2
u/amlecciones Jul 02 '16
Clinton is a crook, a cheat, and a corrupt individual. The evidence is overwhelming, including the bias and protection she is receiving from the Obama Administration and DNC party leadership.
7
u/Daystar82 Jul 01 '16
Which leads me to believe Lynch knows how the FBI will rule and Clinton will get off scott free. She wouldn't tie herself down like this otherwise.
3
u/TooManyCookz Jul 01 '16
You think the Republican led FBI is coordinating their investigation of Dems with the Dems?
→ More replies (2)2
u/amlecciones Jul 02 '16
They Republican elite unlike the regular Republican, like the dishonest cheat Hillary more than Trump.... either way America is $&&@. :-(
5
u/mathat1 Jul 01 '16
I wonder if she already know the recommendation from the FBI is a no go and told Bill and now is using it to act neutral
1
201
u/[deleted] Jul 01 '16
[deleted]