Image 01 Image 03

Cover-up worse than the crime: Loretta Lynch needs to resign

Cover-up worse than the crime: Loretta Lynch needs to resign

VIDEO: Lynch-Clinton meeting would have been secret but for a sleuthing local reporter.

Reports this morning indicate that Loretta Lynch is likely to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to prosecuting Hillary.

The NY Times and initial reports on MSNBC indicated this was tantamount to a recusal, but the DOJ is now walking it back just a little, saying the likelihood of her overruling the FBI is very low, but not zero.

I pointed out on June 29 that the real story here is not just the meeting, but also that Lynch and Clinton kept it secret until a local reporter found out about it from a source and questioned Lynch during a press conference:

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

But for that sleuthing local reporter, the public never would have known about the grossly improper meeting between the husband of a woman (Hillary) under FBI investigation and as to whom Lynch has the ultimate power to prosecute or not.

As Larry O’Connor at Hot Air points out, it’s even worse than that because Bill Clinton himself and the conduct of the Clinton Foundation are under investigation. So Lynch not only met with the husband of someone under investigation, she met with someone whose foundation is under investigation.

And, on top of that, O’Connor points out, there was an active effort to conceal the meeting, with FBI and Secret Service preventing photos or video:

Reporter Christopher Sign of ABC 15 in Phoenix, AZ appeared on The O’Reilly Factor Thursday night to talk about his scoop involving that secret meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Watch the entire interview below. Sign lays out how the story developed and then he leaves this little nugget:

“The former president steps into her plane. They then speak for 30 minutes privately. The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’”

It is not enough for Lynch to recuse herself, either wholly or partially.

She has irrevocably tainted the investigation and prosecution/non-prosecution of Hillary and Bill and the Clinton Foundation.

Even Democrats are pulling their hair out over this, that is how bad the loss of trust has become. Sure, Democrats will give her a perfunctory benefit of the doubt, but the damage is done.

This is particularly so because of prior statements from Obama and the administration suggesting that Hillary did not jeopardize national security. That alone was impermissible interference, signalling to the FBI what is expected of it, Obama improperly leaps to Hillary’s email defense again.

Lynch’s almost-secret meeting with Clinton is another signal to the FBI. Unless, of course, she already knows the outcome.

Lynch has tainted the single most politically important investigation the FBI will conduct this year, and the single most important prosecutorial decision the DOJ will make.

She needs to resign due not only to the gross lack of judgment, but the cover up.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Resign or be impeached.

And the impeachment process needs to begin YESTERDAY…!!!

Nudge her along.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2016 at 10:38 am

    She is safe from impeachment. The spineless GOP members of congress are not about to get the race card pulled on them this close to an election.

      She’s safe, not because GOP congressmen are spineless, but because if she were impeached she’d be guaranteed an acquittal in the senate, which she would flaunt, and would be seen by the public, as a vindication. That being the case, impeaching her would help her. She wants to be thrown in the briar patch.

      Look at how it helped Bill Clinton; ask anyone who wasn’t paying close attention at the time, and they’ll tell you that he came out the victor, acquitted and vindicated, and the impeachment was a badge of honor, proof positive of political persecution.

        4fun in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2016 at 7:04 pm

        Speaking of Billy boy, has anyone caught up to him and asked any pertinent questions? Or is he still asking for a definition of is?
        Absolutely disgusting how bad law enforcement has become in this country.
        Hilldog should already be facing trial on the top secret emails and another indictment should be issued on the Clinton Criminal Foundation.

The meeting was probably about the Clinton Foundation and not Hillary’s lapse of security.

Any thought that the House will impeach her is idealistic dreaming.

    TX-rifraph in reply to OldNuc. | July 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    “…Hillary’s lapse of security.”

    Hillary deliberately violated laws including those related to security. That is not a “lapse.”

    Every ethics training or policy I have ever seen always referred to avoiding the appearance of improper behavior. Am I to assume the Lynch is so ignorant as to not know that?

    The corrupt Clinton foundation is another subject. Didn’t they get to file updated documents recently when the IRS would have hammered anybody else?

    Lynch appears to be as corrupt as Holder or Clinton (pick one).

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to OldNuc. | July 1, 2016 at 11:00 am

    The meeting was probably about the Clinton Foundation and not Hillary’s lapse of security.

    Billy C was all too likely to be Horsetrader-in-Chief for Hillary and their Foundation both, and wanted a deal where ‘no indictment’ would be traded for a sacrificial fall-girl from among Hillary’s top backup-singers.

    MattMusson in reply to OldNuc. | July 1, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Don’t forget – Bill may be an FBI target for corruption charges. That is doubly improper.

Her statement needs to be parsed. She said “the FBI and career prosecutors”. The FBI doesn’t have prosecutors but the DoJ does. They could trump the FBI decision.

David Breznick | July 1, 2016 at 10:39 am

In the wake of the FBI’s complicity of attempting to cover up this secret meeting by ordering no press pictures be taken, news reporters and photographers should begin utilizing high resolution, clandestine, remote-controlled body cameras, similar to what James O’Keefe employs, and sorry for the run-on sentence.

    We are repeatedly bombarded with the BS that the FBI is above reproach because of its wonderful Director.
    Reality is that no part of the federal government will lay a hand on Hillary or Bill, or any other significant member of the democrat ruling class.
    We Americans are constantly being played by our government.

      Worst of all – worst than any democrat corruption, or Obama’s tyrannical behavior – is the worms of the GOPe stabbing us in the back and letting it all happen.

2nd Ammendment Mother | July 1, 2016 at 10:54 am

Call me a tin hat wearing nut job, but I feel like we’re about to get our “dog wagged” by the original pro.

“The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’”

“Move along. No cover up here. Besides Obama says, ‘This is the Most Transparent Administration in History.’”

The current DOJ’s hubristic and condescending attitude toward established American law and toward the law’s requisite demand for extreme care in dealing with legal matters before the DOJ reveals the DOJ’s animus towards all Americans. No denying that.

Impeach the Lynch.

It’s now even clearer that Bill, for whatever reasons, perhaps to protect his own legacy, is trying to sabotage his wife’s candidacy.

Congratulations to reporter Christopher Sign at ABC15 in Phoenix for breaking this story. Lynch needs to resign now. It’s only going to get worse for her.

Fox is reporting that a source from the FBI says agents are LIVID about the airplane meeting because of their investigation into Bill Clinton and the foundation.

Meetings between defense counsel and prosecutors occur all the time and they are never publicized. Over 90% of criminal cases end with plea agreements, and the meetings that produce those agreements never see the light of day. Defense counsel is often trying to get out in front of a possible indictment (“nothing to see here”) and doesn’t want the client tainted with accusations that won’t support a true bill. Here, the accusations are already public, and the potential defendant is already being tried (and convicted) in the press, but that doesn’t relieve defense counsel of the responsibility to manage the case properly, out of the limelight to the extent possible.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 11:25 am

    That’s just happy bullshit.

    Why? Because your plain vanilla criminal case does not involve a former (disgraced as a perjurer) POTUS and the Attorney General meeting in a covert setting, and implicate a candidate for POTUS.

    You’ve implied several times in the last few hours that Dollar Bill is acting as Hellary’s defense counsel. Back that up. Factually.

      Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      Yes, and if Bill Clinton is acting as Hillary’s defense counsel then he is practicing law without a license, since the Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s law license there in 2000 (and Clinton later surrendered his AR license and paid a $25k fine to the AR bar, rather than contest disbarrment), and Clinton was also disbarred from practicing before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001.

        Mike R in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        The suspension was for five years.

          Observer in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 7:14 pm

          And your point is . . . what? Clinton surrendered his law license to avoid formal disbarment proceedings. It’s called a voluntary disbarment. Many disbarments (even involuntary ones) are not permanent, and lawyers who have been found guilty of misconduct may apply for reinstatement of their license after a certain period of time. But lawyers like Clinton, who had been found by a federal judge to have testified dishonestly in a federal lawsuit (the Paula Jones case), have a hard time convincing state bars to reinstate them. And Clinton has never applied for reinstatement, so his disbarment — regardless of the initial term — is still in place.

      Rags, I’m sure you would agree with me that the real problem with the “meeting” between Clinton and Lynch is that the FBI is investigation “The Clinton Foundation”. It’s not the Hillary Clinton Foundation or the Bill Clinton Foundation, it’s the “Clinton Foundation.” Bill would be a potential witness and/or defendant in any action taken by the FBI to prosecute Bill and Hillary’s corrupt international money laundering criminal enterprise.

      inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2016 at 2:42 pm

      Not only is he not going to be her defense counsel, he will need one himself to defend the clinton foundation corruption that he is the founder of. This was not an accident and we all know it. But what we need to do is put our collective minds together and come up with the reason slick willie and loser lynch agreed to meet. There has to be a motive and is it about hillary or willie? It could even be about both since they are both in potential hot water.

      Mike R in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2016 at 3:32 pm

      I’m no fan of Hillary or Bill, but the burden of proof lies with those claiming there was some kind of impropriety. The reality is that criminal defense lawyers have sleazy clients all the time, and they meet with prosecutors all the time for the specific purpose of influencing the prosecution. There is nothing about this instance of a sleazy criminal’s representative meeting with a prosecutor that makes it any more suspect in that regard than any other instance. If Bill Jacobson sees an impropriety here, he’s going to have to do more to explain it than just saying “Bill Clinton” and “Loretta Lynch” in the same sentence.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 4:27 pm

        Since you’re repeating yourself, I will, too…

        That’s just happy bullshit.

        Why? Because your plain vanilla criminal case does not involve a former (disgraced as a perjurer) POTUS and the Attorney General meeting in a covert setting, and implicate a candidate for POTUS.

        You’ve implied several times in the last few hours that Dollar Bill is acting as Hellary’s defense counsel. Back that up. Factually.

        randian in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 6:41 pm

        But even if Bill was acting as counsel, a proper meeting would occur at the prosecutor’s office where everybody could see you do it, not hidden in a plane being protected by FBI personnel preventing public records aka pictures and recordings from being made.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm

      “Meetings between defense counsel and prosecutors…”?

      That’s not even what happened here. Nobody has been charged with anything and nobody has been named as a suspect in a crime (because, officially, whether or not a crime has been committed is still under investigation). So the meeting can’t be excused as one between a defense counsel and a prosecutor. There is no defendant and no prosecutor working a case.

    Milhouse in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Defense counsel, not defendants.

    Observer in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Defense counsel? Who was the defense counsel here? Bill Clinton has been disbarred in the only state where he was licensed to practice law (Arkansas), and even if wasn’t disbarred, he could not represent Hillary in any event, because he has clear conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton is the person who has been running the Clinton Foundation, which is part of the influence-peddling scam that Hillary was running at the State Dept. Further, the illegal e-mail server that Hillary set up while she was SOS was located in Bill Clinton’s house.

    Bill Clinton is not a defense counsel in this scenario; he is more likely one of the targets of the criminal investigation being conducted into Hillary Clinton’s activities. At the very least, he is the spouse of the main target, Hillary Clinton, and for that reason alone this meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch was both improper and unethical.

      Mike R in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      The “disbarment” was a five year suspension in April, 2001.

        Observer in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 6:52 pm

        So what? The point is that Bill Clinton doesn’t have a license to practice law.

        As I said in an earlier comment upthread, Bill Clinton surrendered his Arkansas law license and paid a $25,000.00 fine to the state bar in 2001, after the Arkansas Supreme Court suspended him from the practice of law in 2000 (following a finding of contempt against Clinton in 1999 by federal judge Susan Wright, who fined Clinton $90,000.00 for his dishonest testimony in the Paula Jones case). Clinton surrendered his Arkansas law license to avoid disbarment proceedings. Bill Clinton does not have a current license to practice law, in Arkansas or anywhere else, so he could not have been acting as Hillary Clinton’s “defense counsel” for that reason alone. And as I have already explained, even if Clinton had a valid law license — which he does not — he could not have acted as Hillary’s “defense counsel” in any event because of the clear, and multiple, conflicts of interest between the two of them.

    KirbySalad55 in reply to Mike R. | July 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Bill Clinton, I would be willing to bet, doesn’t have a law license any longer. And he never had a law license to practice law in New York or Washington, D.C. or Arizona so he is not eligible to be defense counsel for Hillary. Plus as a co-defendant co-conspirator with Hillary on the Clinton Foundation racketeering even if he had an appropriate law license it would be unethical for him to represent a co-conspirator.

broomhandle | July 1, 2016 at 11:39 am

Lynch needs to get out of there in a jiffy so that Mosby can be nominated for that spot asap.

David Breznick | July 1, 2016 at 11:43 am

Christopher Sign’s phones are now tapped and so are his parents’.

As briefly mentioned above, isn’t Bill under investigation via his relationship with the Clinton Foundation? Is he begging for help with that investigation?

Make no mistake–I think Trump is a buffoon and an egomaniac, but when I hear people deriding his slogan by saying, “when was America ever great?” I think about my dad who died six weeks ago at the age of 93. He taught us that honesty and integrity were not situation-dependent. The concept of political spin was anathema to him. He was no naif, he was a professor of political science for 40 years. These are our public servants engaging in clandestine operations, misdirection, spin, and when necessary, outright lying–all things that any decent, honorable person should find execrable. Yet because so many of our fellow citizens shrug their shoulders and ignore it, it becomes status quo.
In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers pledged, among other things, their “sacred Honor.” Capitalized, because it was that important once. Alas, no longer. I fear for our children’s future.

The Clintons make Al capon look honest.

Now the local reporter will be harassed by the Obama and Clintoon people. I would not be surprised that the Administration will make up a criminal charge and railroad him into SuperMax, as they did the video guy.

Anybody want to bet that the reporter serves more jail time for reporting this meeting than Bill and Hillary put together serve for what they’ve done?

We do need to stop and acknowledge that at least one journalist actually did something resembling actual journalism.

This is why an unbiased press is essential to any democracy. If I do end up voting for Trump it is because it is a vote against Hillary and a vote that will activate our classically trained professional journalists with the highest ethical standards.

If Trump gets to be President we are going to need the press to perform their watchdog function like never before. And that is one of the reasons that, although I do not trust Trump, I could still vote for him because he isn’t going to be able to blow his nose without 100 journalists reporting on what color hankie he uses.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Anchovy. | July 1, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    What makes you think the press won’t perform their function if there’s a Trump administration? Whenever a non-Democrat is in the Oval Office, the press is ever vigilant and reports the slightest deviation from propriety. If such deviations don’t manifest, the press has, of late, been more than willing to invent them.

      Anchovy in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2016 at 11:45 pm

      Try reading the post again and pay attention this time. The point I made was the press will be way more vigilant under Trump than Clinton and we will need that if Trump is elected.


G. de La Hoya | July 1, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Why do I have the feeling that I am being played and that this whole “liaison” brew-ha is going according to plan?

    wyntre in reply to G. de La Hoya. | July 1, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    And that the “ABC” reporter (George Stuff-an-Octopus station) was tipped off by someone in the BC, HRC or LL entourage.

      KirbySalad55 in reply to wyntre. | July 1, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      I believe the tips came to the reporter from his own CIs that are airport workers. Probably people who handle things like refueling, maintenance, ramps, and baggage.

iconotastic | July 1, 2016 at 1:01 pm

I am not comforted by the assertion that career attorneys at the DoJ will handle the Clinton case(s). J. Christian Adams has documented the hiring of radical leftists at the DoJ since 2008. I am no more confident that any of them can be trusted than I am of Lois Lerner handling IRS records objectively.

    Rick in reply to iconotastic. | July 1, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Absolutely correct. obama’s DOJ went on a hiring spree of leftist attorneys early, so that they would be protected by seniority and become well-entrenched members of the radical leftist bureaucracy.

    Solomon in reply to iconotastic. | July 1, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    My apology, iconotastic. I see that I was late to the party with my own comment below. Does bear repeating, though.

Lynch’em was appointed by Slick Willie Clinton, by the way. There’s so much corruption that follows these people. They are a criminal organization, always where, always will be. Shame on anyone who votes for the HildaBeast.

Wow, this is just like the olden days when reporters actually reported!

inspectorudy | July 1, 2016 at 2:47 pm

We have heard from many people what a stand-up guy Comey is and how he is a straight shooter. Didn’t we hear the same thing about John Roberts? Oh, he is Mr. Conservative! Then along comes obamacare! I can only imagine what the whisperers are saying in Comey’s ear. Some are offers and some will be threats. Which one will he accept?

Well, I feel much better knowing that the decision to pursue an indictment [might] rest with “career Justice Department employees.” Their recommendation is guaranteed to be impartial — at least according to another career employee, Lois Lerner.

So, if she does not recuse herself, does not resign, and does squelch the single most important FBI investigation of this cycle, what is our recourse then?

How can we be made whole again?

    DouglasJBender in reply to Voyager. | July 1, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    Follow the advice of the Founding Fathers as given in the Declaration of Independence, most likely.

David Breznick | July 1, 2016 at 11:32 pm

Here is the question that nobody is asking. Why did Clinton and Lynch risk the intense public scrutiny of meeting in person, when a simple telephone conversation could have forever remained their secret?

Answer: documents were exchanged.

It has since come out that Lynch was surprised by this meeting and that it occurred at the insistence of Bill. I am certain they talked about grand children, golf and such, for in Bill Clinton’s finest Tony Soprano voice, he likely mentioned to Lynch how she has a lovely family with beautiful grand children, how her husband loves to play golf, and so forth, and how it would be such a terrible shame if something bad were to happen to them.

Breitbartforever | July 2, 2016 at 5:37 pm

This conduct was egregious. It is very unlikely anyone in government will hold her to account, but isn’t she subject to discipline by the Bar for misconduct?

Hopefully someone, in one of the bars of which she is a member, will hold her to minimum standards of accountability and conduct.