Bill And Loretta’s Meeting

Was he plea bargaining?

Probably.

[Update a few minutes later]

Bill and Loretta don’t have an “optics” problem; they have a corruption problem.

And on what legal basis did the FBI ban video or photos of the meeting? That doesn’t inspire confidence. Someone should ask Comey.

[Update a few more minutes later]

More thoughts from Austin Bay. This stinks to high heaven.

[Update a while later]

I wouldn’t do it again.”

Well, no need to. Whatever the reason you did it, I’d assume that it’s mission accomplished now.

[Update a while later]

Hillary will be interviewed by the FBI this weekend. I’m sure that meeting between Loretta and Bill had absolutely nothing to do with this.

[Noon update]

Well, well, well. The plot thickens. If this story is true, Bill completely ambushed her. I can’t think she can be happy about that.

[Saturday-morning update]

Steve Hayward has some theories.

[Afternoon update]

Have you noticed that the left is much more upset by that meeting than anything her Highness is purported to have done?

It’s because they fear the cover on the political fix was blown.

27 thoughts on “Bill And Loretta’s Meeting”

  1. That reeks of impropriety. Can you imagine the MSM feeding freezy had that been a meeting between AG Gonzales and one of the Koch bros?

    Bubba meeting with AG Lynch whilst his wife is under FBI investigation? Crickets…

  2. They could have been speaking on the phone every day this year, and you wouldn’t know, so I don’t see why this meeting should be a concern (except for the optics).

    1. I’m pretty sure they keep track of the calls. If there were several calls to Clinton, the number would be recorded.

      1. You’re saying Bill can’t pick up a friend’s private phone and call Loretta’s friend’s private phone, without that fact being recorded?

        Moreover, I think that if Bill and Loretta wanted to have a private conversation, where no one even knew that they spoke to each other, they could find a way to get that done.

        1. And yet this news did come out. Was Lynch herself the leaker, to get herself off the hook of having to be the one to charge Hillary?

        2. Well, using Hanlon’s razor we could say that while it might not have been malice it certainly was stupidity. These are our “cherished” leaders, the cream of the crop **snicker**, and they didn’t know how bad this all would have looked? Yes, we are in the very best of hands…..

        3. Would anyone have noticed if some local reporter hadn’t noticed something fishy going on?

          This meeting was intended to be but it wasn’t due to fortune, luck, or happenstance.

  3. Whoa. “she will accept the recommendations of non-political subordinates on whether to bring charges”. That’s a whole lot different than what I thought the NYT was saying (in their title!) that she will “accept the FBI recommendations”.

    1. The “non-political” subordinates who have to work with her until the end of the term. And, if the democrats capture another election, a successor in the same mold for at least 4 more years?

  4. I always think comments about “optics” are interesting. Bill Clinton is a really good politician. He doesn’t do innocent things with bad optics. He does non-innocent things and tries to make the optics as good as possible under the circumstances.

  5. I’m wondering whether Lynch is playing games here, and not the sort many on the right are assuming.

    Look at it from her POV; she’s between a rock and a hard place. She’ll be a pariah in her party if she indicts, and complicit in a crime if she does not.

    What’s her out? Compromise herself so she has to recuse herself.

    Alternative theory; Bill Clinton was there to offer state’s evidence in return for immunity. Crime? Trafficking in insider information (the kind of thing that sent Martha Stuart to prison). His son in law was, after all, running a hedge fund that was mostly about speculating on foreign political turmoil, especially Greek debt. And Hillary Clinton was, as SecState, pushing for an getting inside into from the EU regarding their Greek Bailout plans, and then getting it sent (seen in the e-mails) to a person with the initials WJC. So, perhaps Bill Clinton has decided it’s time to throw Hillary under the bus?

    Either way, I think investing in popcorn futures is a good investment.

    1. What’s her out? Compromise herself so she has to recuse herself.

      Jim Quinn here in Pittsburgh has been saying exactly that since the story broke, with the added twist that doing so will free Loretta to become Hillary’s AG without it looking like a quid pro quo.

  6. Bill Clinton ambushed Loretta the Lynch for a grossly improper meeting and it took half an hour of private discussion before he could be persuaded to leave? I don’t buy it. Also, their secret service guards surely had enough legal background to know the meeting was improper. Then again, both probably had persons on their protection squads selected for willingness to overlook misconduct.

  7. The one link from the Observer is fishy. Whenever someone says, “I am/was a lifelong X…” The red flags should go up because this is a common line from people who call into radio shows or make comments on the internet to establish credibility before taking an opposing position. Often times the setup is fake.

  8. If it was truly happenstance that the local ABC affiliate got wind of the meeting, and they were caught unexpectedly, one would conclude that it was probably an attempt on Bill’s part to intimidate. If, as it seems, everyone knew this was going to get out (the FBI forbade photography – what the hell was the FBI doing facilitating a meeting like this in the first place?), then it was staged. And I’ve personally witnessed staged Bill Clinton antics before.

    Lynch’s first statement this morning was that she would abide by the recommendation of the FBI or career prosecutors. That got all the play. Then there was the “correction” that she reserved the right to go against the recommendation of the FBI or career prosecutors, but there was little chance of that. So the original statement was undone without most people noticing, and when the shit hits the fan, Jim will point to the original statement.

    Its done, she won’t be indicted, and we already live in a country in which I’d rather not live.

      1. It is a much more dangerous situation than you imply. During the last American Civil War, communications lagged events by rather a lot; detailed information wouldn’t reach England or France for weeks or months. Today, that is down to milliseconds of lag. A second American Civil War would very quickly become a world war.

        The turmoil in America would trigger the war plans of many other nations. What better time for Russia to reabsorb Poland and the Czech Republic and Slovakia and Hungary and Romania? The diamond mines and oil fields of Canada’s far north are within striking distance of the three new bases Russia just built north of the 80th parallel, too. What better time for North Korea to attack the South? Or for ISIS to try a takeover of France? Or for China to flex its muscle – who is defending Hawaii during a civil war?

        Interesting times.

        1. Indeed, the US being distracted by an internal war would be bad news for international security. And I suspect the dunderhead democrats pushing us in that direction aren’t sufficiently bothered by that likelihood.

          1. Bothered? They think they’ll get front row seats in the new caliphate (they’ll be shocked those are reserved for beheadings.) Being patriotic is justification for them using the red button. The good news is it took 240 years for America to become this corrupt.

        2. I don’t think we’re headed for a new Civil War, or anything close to it. At least, I certainly hope not. That’s the last thing anyone should want, and thanks to the freedoms we still have, we can get this country back on track. It’s just going to take a lot of work,

          The Second Amendment keeps the tyrants at bay, just through fear of what the great unwashed masses could do to them. It’s like the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the Cold War, without the “mutual” part. That gives us plenty of latitude to work within the system to restore individual liberty. A Civil War might not – and probably wouldn’t – have the same outcome. It is something to be avoided at almost any cost. Fortunately, we have time.

Comments are closed.