Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[dparker713]

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

Your posts keep getting worse.  I didn't think it was possible, but you keep on proving me wrong.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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 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. "Do the meeting and don't offer or accept bribes" is the normal rule that we operate under, I think.

Just another point here - Bill Clinton is not some random spouse hanging out on the periphery of some investigation.

Hillary's server may have been shared by: 1. Bill himself, 2. the Foundation, and maybe 3. Teneo.

Bill's aide, Justin Cooper, was the registrant of the server. Bill himself is in a way under investigation, albeit probably not a suspect or subject even, but he is a part of it.

Reading your comments, you seem to be driving this back to a strict legal or legal-ethics call. I tried to get away from that in my last point. I'm talking personal ethics. But I still don't think the comparison to a judge is totally inappropriate. Maybe I come from a place where influencing judges is par for the course. That happens here. It's not some wild conspiracy scenario, it's par for the course to expect it.

But on your last point about "bribery" - that is totally unnecessary. Lynch's life is federal work. The spouse of the president, an ex-president himself who will be the most important advisor in the next administration and the guy who appointed her to her first federal job, wants a meeting with her? Please. That's an obvious opportunity - or danger - for influence.

I think the correct response here is 'don't do the meeting', because of the danger of appearance of impropriety, but again, Lynch saying no to Bill Clinton? Come on. Please pull my leg and tell me how there is no chance for influence or slipped info here.

 

[Guest]

Your posts keep getting worse.  I didn't think it was possible, but you keep on proving me wrong.

Hillary is in hot water of her own doing, and many lies have been exposed.  Her credibility is shot, and those of us who want justice to be blind also expect it won't be.  Not like we're dealing with a woman whose story has held up.  Quite the opposite -- and the healthy approach is deep suspicion and calls for accountability.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is not Bill and Bill is not Hillary.

They are actually. But not only that as pointed out above Bill is actually a part of this investigation himself.

 

[Guest]

Just another point here - Bill Clinton is not some random spouse hanging out on the periphery of some investigation.

Hillary's server may have been shared by: 1. Bill himself, 2. the Foundation, and maybe 3. Teneo.

Bill's aide, Justin Cooper, was the registrant of the server. Bill himself is in a way under investigation, albeit probably not a suspect or subject even, but he is a part of it.

Reading your comments, you seem to be driving this back to a strict legal or legal-ethics call. I tried to get away from that in my last point. I'm talking personal ethics. But I still don't think the comparison to a judge is totally inappropriate. Maybe I come from a place where influencing judges is par for the course. That happens here. It's not some wild conspiracy scenario, it's par for the course to expect it.

But on your last point about "bribery" - that is totally unnecessary. Lynch's life is federal work. The spouse of the president, an ex-president himself who will be the most important advisor in the next administration and the guy who appointed her to her first federal job, wants a meeting with her? Please. That's an obvious opportunity - or danger - for influence.

I think the correct response here is 'don't do the meeting', because of the danger of appearance of impropriety, but again, Lynch saying no to Bill Clinton? Come on. Please pull my leg and tell me how there is no chance for influence or slipped info here.

Like when Obama endorsed Hillary, said he was not privy to details on the investigation and was staying neutral -- then later that day had a closed door meeting with Lynch.  This woman must be beyond all influence, apparently.

...or she's being reminded of her place.

 

[dparker713]

Just another point here - Bill Clinton is not some random spouse hanging out on the periphery of some investigation.

Hillary's server may have been shared by: 1. Bill himself, 2. the Foundation, and maybe 3. Teneo.

Bill's aide, Justin Cooper, was the registrant of the server. Bill himself is in a way under investigation, albeit probably not a suspect or subject even, but he is a part of it.

Reading your comments, you seem to be driving this back to a strict legal or legal-ethics call. I tried to get away from that in my last point. I'm talking personal ethics. But I still don't think the comparison to a judge is totally inappropriate. Maybe I come from a place where influencing judges is par for the course. That happens here. It's not some wild conspiracy scenario, it's par for the course to expect it.

But on your last point about "bribery" - that is totally unnecessary. Lynch's life is federal work. The spouse of the president, an ex-president himself who will be the most important advisor in the next administration and the guy who appointed her to her first federal job, wants a meeting with her? Please. That's an obvious opportunity - or danger - for influence.

I think the correct response here is 'don't do the meeting', because of the danger of appearance of impropriety, but again, Lynch saying no to Bill Clinton? Come on. Please pull my leg and tell me how there is no chance for influence or slipped info here.

Hopefully.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hopefully.

Almost certainly.

 

[jon_mx]

Lynch has already showed her hand by going not referring to this as a criminal investigation.  She has already shown special treatment to Hillary. The fact that she was appointed by Bill is enough to compromise her judgement.  The fact she has now met with Bill removes all doubt about her inability to remain objective.  

 

[Boston]

Lynch should know better...this is a rookie mistake and unacceptable...doesn't matter if they are talking about the upcoming NFL season you have to know this is not a good look...there is a very serious investigation going on with regard to a potential President and you are meeting with her husband...seriously?...put the investigation  in the books and you can talk Grandchildren with Bill any time you want...

 

[dparker713]

They are actually. But not only that as pointed out above Bill is actually a part of this investigation himself.

This is so absurd.  I know you have a hard-on for this email crap, but this entirely meritless.

 

[cobalt_27]

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.

Sure.  I can agree to call it a private meeting.  Changes nothing in terms of "what the ####" factor.

 

[dparker713]

Lynch has already showed her hand by going not referring to this as a criminal investigation.  She has already shown special treatment to Hillary. The fact that she was appointed by Bill is enough to compromise her judgement.  The fact she has now met with Bill removes all doubt about her inability to remain objective.  

I know, lets get that paragon on virtue Ken Starr to investigate!  I hear he's available.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is so absurd.  I know you have a hard-on for this email crap, but this entirely meritless.

Tell me this is wrong:

- Hillary said herself she would not turn over the server because it had communications with Bill on it.

- Hillary originally claimed the server belonged to Bill. (This was ultimately not true).

- The server was administered by an aide of Bill Clinton's, Justin Cooper who also worked/works for Teneo.

- The server may have been shared by the Foundation.

- The server may have been shared by Teneo.

- Bill is a key player in both the Foundation and Teneo.

 

[dparker713]

Sure.  I can agree to call it a private meeting.  Changes nothing in terms of "what the ####" factor.

Again, politically stupid.  Ethically fine.

 

[cobalt_27]

Again, politically stupid.  Ethically fine.

It's politically stupid and indisputably not ethical.

 

[jon_mx]

This is so absurd.  I know you have a hard-on for this email crap, but this entirely meritless.

For some reason federal employee's spouses can not own stock, or receive gifts, or even work for companies whose contracts they have influence over.   For some reason the silly government view them as if they are related in some way and might have some undue bias.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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. 

Tobias I deleted my prior response to you.

My point was I would think you could well imagine being in an emotional high stakes legal case and the politically connected spouse of your opponent emerges from a private meeting with the judge, and a friend tells you about that. You would not in the least bit be upset or cry foul? You think being completely would be a normal, reasonable response to that?

 

[jon_mx]

I know, lets get that paragon on virtue Ken Starr to investigate!  I hear he's available.

You have a point.  Ken Starr demonstrated far less bias. 

 

[dparker713]

For some reason federal employee's spouses can not own stock, or receive gifts, or even work for companies whose contracts they have influence over.   For some reason the silly government view them as if they are related in some way and might have some undue bias.  

I would love to get a lecture on legal ethics from a non-lawyer.  So, please expound.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Like when Obama endorsed Hillary, said he was not privy to details on the investigation and was staying neutral -- then later that day had a closed door meeting with Lynch.  This woman must be beyond all influence, apparently.

...or she's being reminded of her place.

Ha, you know, on the positive side I guess Bill Clinton felt the need to meet with Lynch.

 

[jon_mx]

I would love to get a lecture on legal ethics from a non-lawyer.  So, please expound.  

Obviously my definition of ethics differs from yours.  Your standard of ethics seems to be unless it can land you 10 years in prison, it is ethical.  And I completely understand that is the kind of thinking it takes to be a Hillary supporter.  We have a thousand page thread which thoroughly demonstrates that. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Obviously my definition of ethics differs from yours.  Your standard of ethics seems to be unless it can land you 10 years in prison, it is ethical.  And I completely understand that is the kind of thinking it takes to be a Hillary supporter.  We have a thousand page thread which thoroughly demonstrates that. 

It's also the case that lawyers tend to have a rather malleable definition of ethics, dependent entirely on the case/presentation they are prosecuting or defending.  

 

[dparker713]

Obviously my definition of ethics differs from yours.  Your standard of ethics seems to be unless it can land you 10 years in prison, it is ethical.  And I completely understand that is the kind of thinking it takes to be a Hillary supporter.  We have a thousand page thread which thoroughly demonstrates that. 

Actually

Now, those are just model rules, not the rules of any particular bar association.  But they're a decent start.  

 

[dparker713]

It's also the case that lawyers tend to have a rather malleable definition of ethics, dependent entirely on the case/presentation they are prosecuting or defending.  

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.  Amirite?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tobias I deleted my prior response to you.

My point was I would think you could well imagine being in an emotional high stakes legal case and the politically connected spouse of your opponent emerges from a private meeting with the judge, and a friend tells you about that. You would not in the least bit be upset or cry foul? You think being completely would be a normal, reasonable response to that?

You keep using that word. Loretta Lynch is the prosecutor, not the judge. It's true that she must make a determination about whether to bring charges -- but that's exactly what prosecutors do. (Not judges.)

 

[RandyDB]

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.  Amirite?

you really think 1% is a good start?

 

[timschochet]

Obviously my definition of ethics differs from yours.  Your standard of ethics seems to be unless it can land you 10 years in prison, it is ethical.  And I completely understand that is the kind of thinking it takes to be a Hillary supporter.  We have a thousand page thread which thoroughly demonstrates that. 

 You know if you're going to be insufferable and patronizing you really should have something to back it up. So you don't look foolish on top of everything else. 

 

[jon_mx]

Actually

Now, those are just model rules, not the rules of any particular bar association.  But they're a decent start.  

An action does not need to be against some rule of conduct to be unethical.  I kind of doubt anyone has ever considered a situation where a former president meeting with an AG who had previously been appointed by said president and is currently involved in an investigation of the president's wife who also happens to be the leading candidate to be the next president.  I just kind of doubt that situation has ever been covered in any book on what the appropriate action should be.  But if the majority of people can look at such a meeting and it raises lots of suspicion, it was probably not the right thing to do. 

 

[cobalt_27]

You keep using that word. Loretta Lynch is the prosecutor, not the judge. It's true that she must make a determination about whether to bring charges -- but that's exactly what prosecutors do. (Not judges.)

In a sense, she is the one to "judge" whether or not to bring charges.  I understand the distinction you're making, but her position requires distance.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You keep using that word. Loretta Lynch is the prosecutor, not the judge. It's true that she must make a determination about whether to bring charges -- but that's exactly what prosecutors do. (Not judges.)

Ok, I understand, I agree it's not the same standard. But I do think people's expectations for impartiality are the same nonetheless.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In a sense, she is the one to "judge" whether or not to bring charges.  I understand the distinction you're making, but her position requires distance.

But there's nothing at all unusual or improper about the person who must "judge" whether to bring charges meeting with the person against whom charges might be brought.

People from the DA's office met with OJ before charging him. Players on the Duke Lacrosse team talked to people in Mike Nifong's office before any charges were brought. I'm not mentioning those two cases because they were paragons of how the justice system is supposed to work, but just because people might be familiar with them. Nobody thought it was unethical for such meetings to occur.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Loretta Lynch is the prosecutor,

Eh, let's equate this to a DA then. Yeah I guess the politically influential spouse of a suspect/subject in a publicly visible and controversial case could meet with the DA.

So - how do the family and the friends of the victim feel?

And then when the DA decides not to prosecute, what do people say? I realize Hillary supporters will say so what, skrew off, and who cares. But I think all the people are entitled to this idea that the case is being looked at impartially.

I'm not sure it gets any better. I know you keep driving it back to ethics rules. And I keep driving it back to just ethics, as ethics, and the perception or appearance of impropriety. People want the appearance of impartiality here. I think they deserve it.

eta - And I think most of us expect that Lynch will not be bringing charges. This will come up.

 

[jon_mx]

 You know if you're going to be insufferable and patronizing you really should have something to back it up. So you don't look foolish on top of everything else. 

Just shut up Tim.  I made a well reasoned articulate argument utilizing my own words and logic.  The fact that you come by and throw out insults without offering one bit of intelligence is what a true fool looks like. Just go away or try to join in with something that makes sense.  We all know you got your head so far up Hillary's ### you can't think.  But try to pull out every once in a while. 

 

[cobalt_27]

But there's nothing at all unusual or improper about the person who must "judge" whether to bring charges meeting with the person against whom charges might be brought.

People from the DA's office met with OJ before charging him. Players on the Duke Lacrosse team talked to people in Mike Nifong's office before any charges were brought. I'm not mentioning those two cases because they were paragons of how the justice system is supposed to work, but just because people might be familiar with them. Nobody thought it was unethical for such meetings to occur.

Typically such meetings would be formal and with counsel present, no?  And Hillary is the one under investigation, not her husband, as I understand it.

 

[ericttspikes]

Good to see so many Trumpettes concerned with morality and ethics.   

I'm sure a Trump magnetic poetry speech is coming up to take your minds away from all this seriousness.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Typically such meetings would be formal and with counsel present, no?

Of course, typically the accused would want to have their counsel present because typically they'd be talking about something other than their grandkids, and anything they say can and will be used against them. This situation appears to have been a bit different. But even if Lynch and Clinton were talking about Clinton's use of a private server to avoid FOIA requests, that still wouldn't be improper or unethical. Talking about their grandkids instead of about legal stuff doesn't make it any less proper or ethical.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Politically stupid.  Ethically fine.

New campaign slogan?

 

[The Commish]

 You know if you're going to be insufferable and patronizing you really should have something to back it up. So you don't look foolish on top of everything else. 

really Tim?

 

[cobalt_27]

Of course, typically the accused would want to have their counsel present because typically they'd be talking about something other than their grandkids, and anything they say can and will be used against them. This situation appears to have been a bit different. But even if Lynch and Clinton were talking about Clinton's use of a private server to avoid FOIA requests, that still wouldn't be improper or unethical. Talking about their grandkids instead of about legal stuff doesn't make it any less proper or ethical.

Why does it appear to have been a bit different.  Because we're buying that the discussion revolved mostly around grandchildren?  

Timing and context are important.  Most DAs are involved in the investigation.  At this stage, Lynch isn't.  She hasn't been asked to review any evidence, so meeting with the accused -- or the accused's husband -- at this stage is wholly inappropriate and unethical.

 

[RCon]

Obviously my definition of ethics differs from yours.  Your standard of ethics seems to be unless it can land you 10 years in prison, it is ethical.  And I completely understand that is the kind of thinking it takes to be a Hillary supporter.  We have a thousand page thread which thoroughly demonstrates that. 

 You know if you're going to be insufferable and patronizing you really should have something to back it up. So you don't look foolish on top of everything else. 

Says the guy whose official position is "I haven't looked into the details of insert issue here, but I know she didn't do anything wrong because she wasn't indicted"?

 

[jon_mx]

Of course, typically the accused would want to have their counsel present because typically they'd be talking about something other than their grandkids, and anything they say can and will be used against them. This situation appears to have been a bit different. But even if Lynch and Clinton were talking about Clinton's use of a private server to avoid FOIA requests, that still wouldn't be improper or unethical. Talking about their grandkids instead of about legal stuff doesn't make it any less proper or ethical.

You do not think this at least raises the appearance of impropriety? 

 

[timschochet]

Just shut up Tim.  I made a well reasoned articulate argument utilizing my own words and logic.  The fact that you come by and throw out insults without offering one bit of intelligence is what a true fool looks like. Just go away or try to join in with something that makes sense.  We all know you got your head so far up Hillary's ### you can't think.  But try to pull out every once in a while. 

But I like it in here. Except there's no light. 

 

[timschochet]

Oh and what was the well reasoned and articulate part? Was it when you casually claimed that no Clinton supporter could understand what ethics are? Yeah that was carefully thought out. Did you expect applause? 

 

[dparker713]

Eh, let's equate this to a DA then. Yeah I guess the politically influential spouse of a suspect/subject in a publicly visible and controversial case could meet with the DA.

So - how do the family and the friends of the victim feel?

And then when the DA decides not to prosecute, what do people say? I realize Hillary supporters will say so what, skrew off, and who cares. But I think all the people are entitled to this idea that the case is being looked at impartially.

I'm not sure it gets any better. I know you keep driving it back to ethics rules. And I keep driving it back to just ethics, as ethics, and the perception or appearance of impropriety. People want the appearance of impartiality here. I think they deserve it.

eta - And I think most of us expect that Lynch will not be bringing charges. This will come up.

So as long as things look kosher, it's all ok?  So basically you're fine as long as there's a good coverup?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So as long as things look kosher, it's all ok?  So basically you're fine as long as there's a good coverup?  

Not meeting and not lying about not meeting would completely exclude any cover up. HTH.

 

[timschochet]

The whole thing is so silly. Bill Clinton is the former Presidrnt of the United States. His wife is the presumptive Democratic nominee. There's no evidence whatsoever that she is suspected of any kind of criminal behavior. And he can't meet with the current Attorney General? 

Theres no impropriety here. None. 

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The whole thing is so silly. Bill Clinton is the former Presidrnt of the United States. His wife is the presumptive Democratic nominee. There's no evidence whatsoever that she is suspected of any kind of criminal behavior. And he can't meet with the current Attorney General? 

Theres no impropriety here. None. 

Keeping whistling past that graveyard 

 

[dparker713]

Not meeting and not lying about not meeting would completely exclude any cover up. HTH.

Are you under the impression that they would actually need to meet face to face to conspire?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

The whole thing is so silly. Bill Clinton is the former Presidrnt of the United States. His wife is the presumptive Democratic nominee. There's no evidence whatsoever that she is suspected of any kind of criminal behavior. And he can't meet with the current Attorney General? 

Theres no impropriety here. None. 

 

[timschochet]

I'm stunned you disagree!