Image 01 Image 03

Gross appearance of impropriety in AG Lynch private meeting with Bill Clinton

Gross appearance of impropriety in AG Lynch private meeting with Bill Clinton

Of course Bill Clinton arranged the meeting to influence the investigation of Hillary, even if only grandchildren, travel and golf were discussed.

What do you call an Attorney General who meets privately with the husband of a person under FBI investigation, and only discloses it when asked?

Loretta Lynch.

This is the last straw for me, when it comes to Lynch.

I opposed my former law school classmate’s nomination because her congressional testimony indicated she would be too political. Events have confirmed my fears, from suggestions that “hate speech” might be prosecutable, to the threat to sue people who disagree with the administration on climate change, her political grandstanding on the North Carolina bathroom law, to the attempt to edit out references to Islam and ISIS from the 911 transcript of the Orlando terrorist.

None of that is quite as outrageous as the news today that Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport for 30 minutes, a meeting that was revealed only when a local news crew asked her about it at a press conference. ABC15 reports:

Amid an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of email and hours before the public release of the Benghazi report, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton.

The private meeting took place on the west side of Sky Harbor International Airport on board a parked private plane.

Former President Clinton was visiting the Phoenix area and arrived to Sky Harbor Monday evening to depart.

Sources tell ABC15 Clinton was notified Lynch would be arriving at the airport soon and waited for her arrival.

Lynch was arriving in Phoenix for a planned visit as part of her national tour to promote community policing.

ABC15 asked Lynch about the meeting during her news conference at the Phoenix Police Department.

“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,” said Lynch.

The private meeting comes as Lynch’s office is in charge of the ongoing investigation and potential charges involving Clinton’s email server.

The private meeting also occurred hours before the Benghazi report was released publicly involving Hillary Clinton and President Obama’s administration.

Lynch said the private meeting on the tarmac did not involve these topics.

“Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix,” said Lynch Tuesday afternoon while speaking at the Phoenix Police Department.

Sources say the private meeting at the airport lasted around 30 minutes.

“There was no discussion on any matter pending before the Department or any matter pending with any other body, there was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of State Department emails, by way of example I would say it was current news of the day, the Brexit decision and what it would mean,” she said.

Neither Lynch nor Bill Clinton are dummies. They both know that such a private meeting creates the appearance of impropriety regardless of what was discussed. Bill Clinton’s wife is being investigated by the FBI — why do you think he dropped in for a chat with Lynch?

Of course they didn’t discuss the case. They didn’t need to.

If there was no appearance of impropriety, why did Lynch wait until a local news crew, apparently tipped off, asked her about it?

It feeds a narrative of the Clintons acting like the fix is in, with Hillary repeatedly bragging that there is no way she’s going to be indicted.

Lynch should have known better.

I’m confident she does.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Impeachment proceedings need to begin NOW…today…

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    One one hand you’re right, but on the other hand we know she’d be guaranteed of acquittal in the senate, and that she would treat that as a vindication, so what would be gained by impeaching her?

    And is it even ethical to impeach someone you know can’t be convicted? Isn’t it the same as a prosecutor indicting someone he knows he can’t convict?

      legacyrepublican in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2016 at 5:25 pm

      Doesn’t matter what the senate does in my humble opinion. Rags is right, impeachment is the right thing to do.

        DaveGinOly in reply to legacyrepublican. | June 30, 2016 at 12:12 am

        I agree. The House has a responsibility that is independent of what may happen in the Senate. Insistence that a disgraceful public official will not be removed from office by the Senate is just an excuse to avoid the responsibility (and the potential for negative optics that go with it – it’s all about getting re-elected, which requires not rocking the boat).

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm

      We never really know what people will do, or how circumstances will drive people in directions we would not reasonably predict.

      History is legion with examples.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2016 at 5:52 pm

      “And is it even ethical to impeach someone you know can’t be convicted? Isn’t it the same as a prosecutor indicting someone he knows he can’t convict?”

      OK. I never went to law school, so I never learned your high level of ethics.

      What you are saying is that since we know what pool the jury will be drawn from, the US Senate, and we already know how they will vote, it would be “unethical” to even attempt to impeach Loretta Lynch. Because a jury pool with that many partisan democrats simply won’t convict her.

      I see this as somewhat different from a prosecutor declining to pursue a case due to insufficient evidence. What you’re saying is that since this is Klan territory, it would be “unethical” to pursue a lynching case.

      Am I missing something? Because it’s one thing to say a prosecutor would be acting unethically if he/she tried a case knowing the evidence wasn’t there. But you’re saying it would be unethical to try a case knowing that no amount of evidence would sway a jury in Klan country. And there is no other jury pool available. So let it go.

      This is what they teach as ethics at law school?

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | June 29, 2016 at 6:33 pm

        What you are saying is that since we know what pool the jury will be drawn from, the US Senate, and we already know how they will vote, it would be “unethical” to even attempt to impeach Loretta Lynch. Because a jury pool with that many partisan democrats simply won’t convict her.

        Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The Democrats have made it abundantly clear that there is no offense one of their own high office-holders can commit that will induce them to vote for their removal. An IRS commissioner they might be willing to sacrifice, if his offenses are clear enough, but not an attorney general — especially the first black woman in that position — and certainly not a president.

        And as we saw with Bill Clinton, an acquittal in the senate will be taken by the public as a vindication.

        And yes, it’s my understanding that it’s considered unethical for prosecutors to bring any criminal case that they don’t believe they can win, no matter how strong it is on its own merits. If I recall correctly, that’s why Ken Starr dropped several prosecutions after a DC jury acquitted one of his suspects against all the evidence. He announced that since these people had to be tried in DC, and it was clear that no DC jury would convict them, he had no choice. Or at least that’s how I remember it 18ish years later.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2016 at 6:02 pm

      I never took a law school ethics class. So I still can’t treat the words unethical and impractical as if they were synonyms.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm

      “And is it even ethical to impeach someone you know can’t be convicted? Isn’t it the same as a prosecutor indicting someone he knows he can’t convict?”

      Emphatically NOT. A prosecutor is an officer of the court, and acts under rather clear ethical mandates as they apply the criminal law of their jurisdiction.

      The House is not under ANY of those ethical strictures, and has no code to prosecute under EXCEPT the Constitution. (That I know of.)

      One is acting as a legal officer under criminal law. The other is manifestly a political body, acting under the charter of the nation.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 12:17 am

        Congress critters = officials sworn to uphold the United States Constitution that imposes upon them a duty to impeach when appropriate. It also imposes a duty upon Senate critters to remove an official from office, once that official has been impeached and when appropriate. The former group has a responsibility to allow the Senate to make its own judgment, something it can’t do if the House refuses to act.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 30, 2016 at 2:56 am

          And we saw the result 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton, whom everyone knew was guilty as sin, emerged from the Senate waving his acquittal as if it were a vindication — and the public bought it.

    tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    If impeachment and conviction look unlikely, at the very least resolutions of censure in both House and Senate are called for. This is outrageous behavior.

    anziani in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Hey guys, everyone is missing the point. Forget about impeachment,it would never happen. But why aren’t we DEMANDING that Lynch recuse herself from this case due to improperly meeting with Billy Bob?

    davidfarrar in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Impeachment proceedings need to begin NOW…today…, but who are we kidding?

How many times has the DOJ and the FBI said they cannot comment on an ongoing investigation? Well the Attorney General cannot play grab ass with the husband of the target of an ongoing investigation.

Xenomethean | June 29, 2016 at 4:58 pm

Woman has private meeting with Bill Clinton, we all know what that leads to 😉

    MattMusson in reply to Xenomethean. | June 30, 2016 at 9:33 am

    “Loretta dear, do you think you could send Hillary away for a few years? She kind of cramps my style if you know what I mean?”

A Lewinsky?

Lynch, I think you’re too smart to do so, but I wish you could just go Mosby yourself.

Apparently she’s in a heated race with Marilyn Mosby for Progressive Attorney of the Year!

Lynch should have known better.

Knowing and caring are far different critters.

DOJ = Lynch Mob

Apparently ethics is not a strong suit in this AG.

Flagrant. Brazen.

Guess who wants to be AG during a Clinton term?

Slick Willie: Ya know Loretta – when my little Cankles becomes POTUS – she gets to appoint a Supreme Court judge – just sayin?

Lynch: Oh my Mr. President, Granny Clinton will make a wonderful POTUS with those beautiful grandkids that Chelsea “chose” not to abort, sitting on her lap as she teaches them how to pound on her Blackberry.

Slick Willie: Wink, wink, nod, nod.

If Big Bill didn’t make a pass at her it’s because she’s Black and he’s a racist (with good eyesight).

The least Congress could do is zero out the budget for that big-ass airplane she’s flying around in.

If she wants to go chat up the husband of a suspect she can fly coach.

Richard Aubrey | June 29, 2016 at 8:36 pm

Let’s remember the First Law of Clinton:
If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it…and, delighted giggle…they got away with this one, too.

Professor, you are such an optimist of human nature and behavior :-).

“This is the last straw for me, when it comes to Lynch.”

I’m reminded of the movie Casablanca, when, at the very end, the hero, Rick, at long, long last reaches *his* last straw and finally, finally figures out who the bad guys really are (the Nazis), and Rick decides to fight them.

The co-hero of Casablanca, Victor Laszlo, turns to Rick and says “And welcome back to fight. This time I know our side will win.”

Of course, the audience has known who the bad guys are and what the “fight” is since the opening titles, but Rick “sticks his neck out for nobody” and is blind to the danger.

The story of Casablanca is Rick’s journey to his epiphany.

Of course, our audience has known Lynch is a bad actor since the movie started. No surprises there, except perhaps that the “last straw” took 19 months for some 🙂 (and it did take Rick 90 minutes of film to figure it out :-).

Perhaps our heroes will have an ephiphany and realize that Hillary will simply continue an administration with a multitude of Lynch’s and worse.

Rick went to Brazzaville to continue the fight. What will our heros do to fight Hillary? (Hopefully, not stay in Casablanca and support Major Strasser (the chief Nazi).

Subotai Bahadur | June 29, 2016 at 9:30 pm

It feeds a narrative of the Clintons acting like the fix is in, with Hillary repeatedly bragging that there is no way she’s going to be indicted.

Professor, the fix IS in. The only way the Hillary will be indicted is if Buraq Hussein thinks it is in his personal interest for it to happen, regardless of the law and the facts. If the Emperor wants it, it will happen. If the Emperor does not want it, it will not happen.

The “Rule of Law” became a fable years ago.

“We’ll kill your grandchildren with a golf club,” is how grandchildren and golf probably came into the conversation.

How stupid can much of the nation be to even entertain this psycho Clinton as our president?

Then again, quite a few of the hacks of the GOPe have given her their support.

Which answers the question: THAT stupid.

So she’s got that well-paid sinecure courtesy of the Clinton Crime Syndicate…errr Global Iniative…sewed up

Remember back during the Clinton impeachment the republicans held the majority in the Senate. When that Senate took its show impeachment vote they couldn’t even get a simple majority yes vote to impeach. If I remember I think it was around 46 yes votes to impeach. The majority voted no. Republicans voted not to convict. It was their Senate.

That’s when I gained the belief the whole exercise was a fraud. The house put on a good show, the senate by their whole demeanor led to the belief of that show being a fraud.

And yet in 2000 i started my voting for republicans. What a debacle THAT’S been.

    Milhouse in reply to secondwind. | June 30, 2016 at 10:20 am

    That’s just stupid. “Republicans” are not one person, and they can’t control how all their members vote. Just because the majority of senators are Republican doesn’t mean that whatever the Republican party decides will happen. Every senator makes up his or her own mind how to vote on each question, and there is no such thing as party discipline. This is not the UK, with its party whips.

    If five Republican senators, three of whom soon became Democrats (Jeffords, Specter, Chafee) decide to vote “no”, nobody can make them vote “yes”. That doesn’t mean “the Republicans” decided that “Yeah, we’re going to put on this charade where most of us vote yes, but you, you and you vote no so it doesn’t pass”.

      You just don’t get it. You’re being played for a patsy & frankly I’m to worn out too explain how.
      You wouldn’t believe it anyhow if I did explain.

Nothing will change for the better so long as the crying boehners are hogging the leadership positions of the GOP.

It’s so bad, you’d think Paul Ryan is Speaker that that putz McConnell is leading the Senate.

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.

Whether there is an ACTUAL conflict of interest is to be determined, but the appearance of impropriety is obvious.

She should recuse herself on her own. Let us see what the FBI does now. The FBI also notes such an obvious conflict and should stop briefing her and to make such moves public.

Any decision going forward should be made to another officer. Yet any other officer at DOJ is a subordinate to her.

cowgirldiva | June 30, 2016 at 7:28 am

The criminal behavior just doesn’t stop, does it..??!! What if Bill Clinton threatened Lynch and told her unless she completely exonerated his evil wife there “would be consequences that she would find very unpleasant”….??!!

Lynch needs to recuse herself and let somebody who is not afraid to punish Hillary Clinton take over this case…!!! Hillary is a criminal….!! She knows it….Bill knows it….Loretta Lynch knows it…..Barack INSANE Obama knows it…!!

buckeyeminuteman | June 30, 2016 at 7:58 am

I wrote a letter to Senator Portman and told him there’s no way I would vote for him again if he confirmed Lynch. November’s elections are hugely important, but they also need to have consequences.

Common Sense | June 30, 2016 at 8:03 am

This is nothing but vile contempt for the rule of law!
This is in your face!
This is more of the same behavior from the Obama administration!
This is your law and our law!
This is what the next 4 years will look like if Hillary is elected.

What’s the big deal? One shameless attorney speaks with another! Move along, nothing to see here…

Maybe it was just something relatively wholesome, like Bill playing the role as bagman to pay for Lynch’s and Obama’s services.

Vile and arrogant are too kind of words for their behavior.

“People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” – John Kenneth Galbraith – The Age of Uncertainty

Yea by all means Bill she stuck by you in your shaddy dealings I guess it is now time for you to return the favor.

Bill Clinton is a Yale Law graduate and former law professor at Arkansas. He could ostensibly be acting as Hillary’s counsel and there would be nothing improper (or unusual) about a meeting between a putative defendant’s counsel and a prosecutor such as Lynch. White collar criminal defense attorneys get their best licks in BEFORE the case goes to the grand jury, by heading off an indictment while the prosecutor still has discretion. Once the grand jury hands down an indictment, the case has to go forward.