Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

[dparker713]

There isn't a lawsuit or investigation in America where a judge or decider of legal liability should be meeting privately with the spouse of someone they are adjudicating.

They can meet privately with the individual lawyers, yet you're claiming the spouse is off limits?  That's not going to happen.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

There isn't a lawsuit or investigation in America where a judge or decider of legal liability should be meeting privately with the spouse of someone they are adjudicating.

This is (a) just your opinion and (b) a bunch of stuff you just made up. Prosecutors meet privately with all kinds of people all the time.  Sometimes we call them "settlement negotiations."

 

[skol asylum]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."

From FBI website:

Spies. Terrorists. Hackers. Pedophiles. Mobsters. Gang leaders and serial killers. We investigate them all, and many more besides.

The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our three national security priorities and our five criminal priorities. Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If I'm following things correctly ... there is no judge, and there is no case, so that question doesn't seem relevant. When and if the AG files an action against Hillary, I agree that the judge should not meet with Hillary ex parte. (The AG still could, though, right? Assuming Hillary's attorney okays it...)

Ethically I see no difference. That's my point. And my guess is there is an ethical standard for the US AG.

 

[Gr00vus]

There's a more obvious explanation for the 30 minute layover meeting. They were having sex.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Prosecutors meet privately with all kinds of people all the time.  Sometimes we call them "settlement negotiations."

Right. Usually the accused's lawyer would be present, but if the accused doesn't have a lawyer or if her lawyer okays the meeting, there's nothing wrong with such a meeting.

 

[dparker713]

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

- I see no difference between what a judge is held to and the US AG. Please, please do not give us the Bill does not equal Hillary bs.

Three things - there is no case right now, so it can't be an ex parte meeting - there are no parties.  Second, even if there were, Bill would not be a party regardless.  Third, purely social meetings are not ex parte.

ETA - Third isn't entirely right - represented parties with a case before the court should not be at any meeting with a judge without representation, however, the attorneys can socialize with the judge.   

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Maybe I'm getting a little cynical, but if it really wasn't improper for them to meet, why lie about the topic of conversation? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ethically I see no difference. That's my point. And my guess is there is an ethical standard for the US AG.

You don't see the difference between (a) a judge meeting with one party outside the presence of the opposing party, and (b) the two parties meeting with each other? Even after a case is filed, the two parties are free to meet with each other. When no case has been filed, they certainly can as well.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Ethically I see no difference. That's my point. And my guess is there is an ethical standard for the US AG.

You may not see the difference, but there's an enormous difference. And the ethical standard you cited regarding judges contacting parties in pending matters is there for the protection of the parties.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You don't see the difference between (a) a judge meeting with one party outside the presence of the opposing party, and (b) the two parties meeting with each other? Even after a case is filed, the two parties are free to meet with each other. When no case has been filed, they certainly can as well.

This is a little specific, obviously - no it's not a judge, and no there is no filed case. However there is definitely a legal determination underway and people are counting on impartiality.

 

[dparker713]

If I'm following things correctly ... there is no judge, and there is no case, so that question doesn't seem relevant. When and if the AG files an action against Hillary, I agree that the judge should not meet with Hillary ex parte. (The AG still could, though, right? Assuming Hillary's attorney okays it...)

I think Hillary needs to waive her rights, not her attorney.

 

[RCon]

No, the meeting wasn't illegal.  It does, however, create an appearance of impropriety that normal people would endeavor to avoid.  Per usual, the Clintons and their supporters seem to actively seek out such appearances of impropriety, then complain about right-wing conspiracies when their opponents take note.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right. Usually the accused's lawyer would be present, but if the accused doesn't have a lawyer or if her lawyer okays the meeting, there's nothing wrong with such a meeting.

Let's be realistic here.

This is a highly political situation, the most political. At a minimum a person in Lynch's position should be avoiding any and all apperance of partiality.

Hanging out and being chummy in private might actually be worse than an actual "ex parte" conversation about the investigation. These people should not be friendly or even talking. Lynch is in a political position and she has one of the biggest decisions in American political history on her desk and it needs to not only be but appear completely impartial.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, the meeting wasn't illegal.  It does, however, create an appearance of impropriety that normal people would endeavor to avoid.  Per usual, the Clintons and their supporters seem to actively seek out such appearances of impropriety, then complain about right-wing conspiracies when their opponents take note.

Thank you, I may have overswung but this is the point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...Prosecutors meet privately with all kinds of people all the time.  Sometimes we call them "settlement negotiations."

I would at least be happy to accept this as a statement of what was really going on.

 

[HellToupee]

Didn't you write yesterday that you are never condescending to people here?

he's a pisspot

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's not the same thing, Saints. 

Yes it is, a criminal investigation covers many people and many things. Pagliano and Hillary being under criminal investigation is actually what's going on. There are others as well.

 

[HellToupee]

There's a more obvious explanation for the 30 minute layover meeting. They were having sex.

I know Bill is a world class poonhound but wouldn't want to hang that on him

 

[Gr00vus]

I know Bill is a world class poonhound but wouldn't want to hang that on him

In this area of governance, I'm pretty sure he's very much an egalitarian populist.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Judges are people.  They have social lives.  They don't like being told they can't socialize with the people in their profession.  Absent more, I'd lose any motion and I'd just get a pissed off judge.

Judges shouldn't have ex parte conversations about cases, period. We have had judges suspended here in NO - not only from the bench but as lawyers from the bar - because they allowed other judges to try to influence them in entirely private conversations. That has happened here.

 

[dparker713]

Judges shouldn't have ex parte conversations about cases, period. We have had judges suspended here in NO - not only from the bench but as lawyers from the bar - because they allowed other judges to try to influence them in entirely private conversations. That has happened here.

No, you have a private meeting between the Attorney General and a former President.  There is no judge.  There is no case.  There is only one potential party to the potential pending case here.  This is in no way a violation of legal or judicial ethics.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I would at least be happy to accept this as a statement of what was really going on.

What do you think could possibly be going on?  Is he making the case for no prosecution?  She already has a team of lawyers to do that.  Is he bribing her?  He doesn't need to have a conspicuous face to face meeting to do that and would be crazy to do so.  Is he promising her a quid pro quo?  Same logic above applies, plus what could he possibly offer her?  She's already the damn attorney general of the United States, and you can rest assured she's not getting a Supreme Court nomination in a Clinton presidency after declining prosecution.  The hissy fit from the other side would be epic and would harm all of them politically. 

I understand why the initial reaction might be skepticism about the meeting, but when you think about it for 30 seconds you realize there's nothing to this at all. It is totally legal and any argument about impropriety totally falls apart with even a few seconds of rational thought. 

 

[Guest]

No, you have a private meeting between the Attorney General and a former President.  There is no judge.  There is no case.  There is only one potential party to the potential pending case here.  This is in no way a violation of legal or judicial ethics.  

Absurd.  This isn't about partisan politics.  It's about how far you're will to let any administration waylay the justice system.  This is insanely improper.  

 

[dparker713]

Absurd.  This isn't about partisan politics.  It's about how far you're will to let an adminstraruon waylay the justice system.  This is insanely improper.  

It's politically stupid, its not improper.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, you have a private meeting between the Attorney General and a former President.  There is no judge.  There is no case.  There is only one potential party to the potential pending case here.  This is in no way a violation of legal or judicial ethics.  

That thread between you and me was me asking you about the situation in which a multimillion dollar case you were in a judge met with the spouse of the other party, and that spouse is very politically connected and also gave the judge her start in the legal profession, and how would you feel about that and would you file a motion to recuse?

And IIRC you said that you wouldn't file a motion because judges get "pissy" about such things - which doesn't address the basis for such a motion - but I don't recall you stating how you would feel about your chances moving forward. I guess you would feel fine, really? Great. However I think most people would be pretty ticked off

And yeah I realize the analogy is off but basically many people in America are looking to Lynch for at least the appearance of objectivity and fairness in this determination. This is not that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What do you think could possibly be going on?  Is he making the case for no prosecution?  She already has a team of lawyers to do that.  Is he bribing her?  He doesn't need to have a conspicuous face to face meeting to do that and would be crazy to do so.  Is he promising her a quid pro quo?  Same logic above applies, plus what could he possibly offer her?  She's already the damn attorney general of the United States, and you can rest assured she's not getting a Supreme Court nomination in a Clinton presidency after declining prosecution.  The hissy fit from the other side would be epic and would harm all of them politically. 

I understand why the initial reaction might be skepticism about the meeting, but when you think about it for 30 seconds you realize there's nothing to this at all. It is totally legal and any argument about impropriety totally falls apart with even a few seconds of rational thought. 

Excuse me? You were the one who offered up settlement negotiations not me.

But yeah I think Bill Clinton raised the investigation. Absolutely. And Lynch looking at saying 'no' to meeting the almost certain spouse and pretty much no. 1 advisor to the next president is yes extremely capable of being influenced in that situation.

Never should have happened, and yes it's just IMO.

 

[dparker713]

That thread between you and me was me asking you about the situation in which a multimillion dollar case you were in a judge met with the spouse of the other party, and that spouse is very politically connected and also gave the judge her start in the legal profession, and how would you feel about that and would you file a motion to recuse?

And IIRC you said that you wouldn't file a motion because judges get "pissy" about such things - which doesn't address the basis for such a motion - but I don't recall you stating how you would feel about your chances moving forward. I guess you would feel fine, really? Great. However I think most people would be pretty ticked off

And yeah I realize the analogy is off but basically many people in America are looking to Lynch for at least the appearance of objectivity and fairness in this determination. This is not that.

In a multi-million dollar case, I'd feel fine.  I'd be racking up plenty of billables and might even get to work on the appeal.

ETA - I also said that the motion would lose (because it's baseless)

 

[nittanylion]

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

icture of Vince Foster:

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

Not a word needs to be spoken...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I'm following things correctly ... there is no judge, and there is no case, so that question doesn't seem relevant. When and if the AG files an action against Hillary, I agree that the judge should not meet with Hillary ex parte. (The AG still could, though, right? Assuming Hillary's attorney okays it...)

I think Hillary needs to waive her rights, not her attorney.

Not in California, though it may be different in other states.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

might even get to work on the appeal

Well, thereyago.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Absurd.  This isn't about partisan politics.  It's about how far you're will to let any administration waylay the justice system.  This is insanely improper.  

Wait...what?  Is someone actually arguing that it's NOT improper?  WTH?  Have people gone bat-#### crazy defending Hillary?

 

[Guest]

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

icture of Vince Foster:

icture of grandkids:

icture of grandkids:

Not a word needs to be spoken...

Either that or Lynch has a 16 year old granddaughter that travels with her.  

 

[Guest]

Wait...what?  Is someone actually arguing that it's NOT improper?  WTH?  Have people gone bat-#### crazy defending Hillary?

Apparently absolutely nothing matters anymore. 

 

[dparker713]

Well, thereyago.

In a theoretical case, it's entirely intellectual.  Therefore, its all about the job.  

 

[cobalt_27]

Well it worked! 

Lorretta Lynch is the epitome of integrity, whatever Mr. Ham believes in his conspiracy deluded mind. If she says they talked about being grandparents, then that's what they talked about. 

That's absurd. It's bull####. You know it. You have to be an idiot to believe that was the crux of their meeting. I don't doubt it was mentioned but that's not the purpose of a secret sit down. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In a theoretical case, it's entirely intellectual.  Therefore, its all about the job.  

Well that's what judges always say, right?

 

[dparker713]

That's absurd. It's bull####. You know it. You have to be an idiot to believe that was the crux of their meeting. I don't doubt it was mentioned but that's not the purpose of a secret sit down. 

It was the opposite of secret.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not in California, though it may be different in other states.

(A) While representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer.

I think it's obvious by now I was trying to make a point of principle, it's allegorical, I don't know what the AZ code of ethics say about this or the DOJ or whatever the US AG lives by.

But here the metaphor is the people of America - or some of them who want a fair and impartial decision by Lynch - are essentially a "party" here. People who feel that way do not want to see the "decider" of the indictment question meeting privately with Hillary or Bill. It's bad if they're social, chummy, because then Lynch appears sympathetic. It's bad if they discussed the actual case, because then Lynch is subject to influence or giving away inside baseball at a minimum.

 

[cobalt_27]

It was the opposite of secret.

Because a news camera happened to stumble upon them. It was unannounced and unknown to anyone in the media. 

 

[Apple Jack]

House investigation baby!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because a news camera happened to stumble upon them. It was unannounced and unknown to anyone in the media. 

And then there's that.

 

[Guest]

It's politically stupid, its not improper.

Take 100 words to describe why it's politically stupid, and do your best to avoid the word "improper."  Won't be easy.  

 

[dparker713]

Take 100 words to describe why it's politically stupid, and do your best to avoid the word "improper."  Won't be easy.  

Easy:  The meeting, while entirely innocent, gave fodder for the cottage industry that has developed around Hillary's email scandal.

 

[dparker713]

Because a news camera happened to stumble upon them. It was unannounced and unknown to anyone in the media. 

They neither made public, nor attempted to hide the meeting - which to most normal people means it was a private meeting, not a secret meeting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's obvious by now I was trying to make a point of principle, it's allegorical, I don't know what the AZ code of ethics say about this or the DOJ or whatever the US AG lives by.

But here the metaphor is the people of America - or some of them who want a fair and impartial decision by Lynch - are essentially a "party" here. People who feel that way do not want to see the "decider" of the indictment question meeting privately with Hillary or Bill. It's bad if they're social, chummy, because then Lynch appears sympathetic. It's bad if they discussed the actual case, because then Lynch is subject to influence or giving away inside baseball at a minimum.

I have no experience with criminal law, but I don't think the metaphor works. The AG is a prosecutor. Hillary is a "person of interest" or whatever -- let's go ahead and call her the accused. Prosecutors meet with accused persons all the time, don't they? How else are plea bargains negotiated?

This wasn't a plea deal. They probably were talking about grandkids or something. But even if they were discussing the (potential) case, I don't see anything unethical about it. It might be unwise because of the backlash it will predictably generate (because everything always generates backlash), but I can't fathom how the meeting in and of itself would be unethical. Obviously, if he offered her a bribe, that would be unethical. But the potential for bribery does not make meetings between prosecutors and the accused improper. "Have the meeting but don't offer or accept bribes" is the normal rule that we operate under, I think.

 

[dparker713]

I think it's obvious by now I was trying to make a point of principle, it's allegorical, I don't know what the AZ code of ethics say about this or the DOJ or whatever the US AG lives by.

But here the metaphor is the people of America - or some of them who want a fair and impartial decision by Lynch - are essentially a "party" here. People who feel that way do not want to see the "decider" of the indictment question meeting privately with Hillary or Bill. It's bad if they're social, chummy, because then Lynch appears sympathetic. It's bad if they discussed the actual case, because then Lynch is subject to influence or giving away inside baseball at a minimum.

Hillary is not Bill and Bill is not Hillary.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I give up.  If you all want to ramble about absurd Breitbart-ish conspiracy theories that fall apart after 10 seconds of rational thought, or claims of impropriety that you support with citations to ethical rules about judges in pending matter when lynch isn't a judge and there is no pending matter, so be it. I'll stop challenging you with pesky things like laws and reason. 

But if that where you're at, you really shouldn't be complaining about the awful choices you're stuck with his election.  You're getting exactly what you deserve. 

 

[jon_mx]

It was the opposite of secret.

So you have the video?  Or maybe the transcript?  

 

[Guest]

Easy:  The meeting, while entirely innocent, gave fodder for the cottage industry that has developed around Hillary's email scandal.

Was about grandkids and golf, like deleted emails were about wedding plans and yoga routines.  We must always trust herr leaders at face value.