Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

originally posted by: BlueAjah
There is a former White House Secret Service agent being interviewed on Fox now.
He believes that Bill Clinton arranged this meeting to use "soft intimidation" to influence Lynch.
He claims he saw Bill do this same thing, including with a law enforcement officer in the Lewinski case.

There was also a retired FBI director interviewed.
He said the FBI is LIVID.
They believe this meeting compromises their investigation and the outcome of their case.

Also, he said the FBI who were with Lynch were asked to leave the plane before Clinton arrived.
The meeting was planned, not an accident.

.

And when FBI returns a recommendation to pursue charges, it can be dismissed as "Oh FBI is in a fight with DOJ personnel, they're just being pissy little boys".

a reply to: Realtruth

Whenever I read about political donations and more corrupt stuff, I'm always amazed how ridiculously cheaply American politicians can be bought. If you want something in North Elbonistan, a company usually has to pay many tens of millions over the years and collectively make the ruling family billionaires. In US, the numbers are usually well under a single million, often even < $200,000.

a reply to: mbkennel

...North Elbonistan????

a reply to: mbkennel

Based on the information available to the public I think it would be the end of the Democratic party should politics trump the legalities involved. I also think it would destroy any chance for Hillary to win the election. Right now if she is indicted we will know what specific charges are being used. If politics blocks the prosecution and the FBI does a document dump we will see it all instead of just the charges. I would think both results would be equally destructive to the Democratic party.

Then we look at what happens if Clinton is not indicted and loses the election. Trump already said he would reopen the cases so absent a get out of jail free card by Obama (Pardon before he leaves office) she and again democrats are screwed.

The only way the Democrats can salvage whats left is to start distancing themselves from Clinton / Obama and Lynch.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: mbkennel

...North Elbonistan????

Its next to Freedonia and the kerplakistan nations.

a reply to: Xcathdra please edit your subject line. She did not recuse herself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not so sure. Even with an indictment, any further proceeding will be put on hold. Nothing will come out until it's very late, and then Clinton is firmly the nominee. She has a 80% chance of being elected anyway because of people's desire to avoid Trump. Then come the pardons, and the rewards and punishments. Maybe that is what WJC was talking about with Ms Lynch.

No doubt it will destroy the Democratic party, soon after the Republican party has blown itself up.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: mbkennel

Based on the information available to the public I think it would be the end of the Democratic party should politics trump the legalities involved. I also think it would destroy any chance for Hillary to win the election. Right now if she is indicted we will know what specific charges are being used. If politics blocks the prosecution and the FBI does a document dump we will see it all instead of just the charges. I would think both results would be equally destructive to the Democratic party.

Then we look at what happens if Clinton is not indicted and loses the election. Trump already said he would reopen the cases so absent a get out of jail free card by Obama (Pardon before he leaves office) she and again democrats are screwed.

The only way the Democrats can salvage whats left is to start distancing themselves from Clinton / Obama and Lynch.

Screw distancing themselves from clinton, obama, lynch. They SHOULD be screaming like everyone else, demanding HONEST answers and ACCOUNTABILITY.....

.....but....

.....party lines. They would rather shrug their shoulders and say, "eh, this is simply the ugly side of politics."

Spineless, delusional cowards drunken with idiocy, brought to them by the capital letter "D" (democrat).

originally posted by: scatfu
a reply to: Xcathdra please edit your subject line. She did not recuse herself.

I cant as im beyond the 4 hour window set by this website on editing posts. Secondly at the time of post that was the indication until the DOJ walked her comments back. I can submit a request to the mods if you think I should.

ETA - I sent in an alert asking them to remove the recusal part of the title.

Donald Trump has just tweeted that Clinton will not be charged ....

a reply to: UKTruth

I saw that.. I don't buy it.

Clinton's spokesperson said they would not comment any further on the meeting with the FBI as its still an ongoing investigation. 100+ FBI agents and confirmation from publicly available info that she violated the law.

This is not over.

So it looks like the investigative reporter who broke the story is still unable to find anyone that can confirm Bill Clinton played golf while he was out there. Since that is supposedly something they discussed on the plane it makes one wonder.

Unfortunately this is the reasons she will probably not be indicted. Just too serious to prosecute.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sillyolme

As a matter of fact she did recuse herself. Hence appointing lower ranking prosecutors to determine the course of action and not Lynch.

As a matter of fact she didn't and still remains the deciding factor.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure seems from that reporter this was very planned on Bill's part.

Xcathdra,
Thanks for that video, great coverage.

Well, many people take to what is concidered "international" skies or waters to have more secrecy or openess if such places are listened to by more than one country... who knows which? So there's an unknown hypotethical, was the flight for secrecy or openess in what had to be said? If secrecy, one could say the conversation was deemed more personal and secret in nature than national security from the alligations of "leaks". Now if it was that more listeners or countries could listen in, then that would be more transparency.

I know there's a whole lot of nationalist movements around the world, wanting to close borders self contain and regress in the fear of some extreme not seeing that, that itself leads to the other extreme... some seem to forget that the UN also has a constitution for all of humanity as well... that's for all of us as well, even those not members of the UN can go to a embassy and as for asylum... this is why they become frequent targets of attack. Who attacks them? Well nationaists for various reasons... because closing borders means limiting as much free movement as possible, sometimes this occurs for protection of some citizens and sometimes it's prevention of security leaks etc.

This is why openess is a big deal and transparency can cease cold wars and paranoia between nations and leaders of all sorts... and when a nation ceases to be afraid and at war then it's citizens can too.

If we remember the colonial wars there were out posts aka forts walled up and stocked to fight anything trying to get in, in extreme fear of losing their ideals. Well, building forts around countries sort of do the exact same thing and everyone within them gets stuck inside for better or for worse... all inside are not gonna agree its better or worse, when it just is one has to cope with such things.

I personally do not see walling ourselves in as people world wide as a good thing... there are no walls in nature, just mountains and oceans, and if one climbs one or crosses one then it is a sense of accomplishment, we as people of the world need to collectively climb these mountains and cross these oceans for world peace and freedom in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity with respect to life and the world as we know it to be, not believe it to be or selfishly desire it to be.

So this of course started out with a hypothetical meaning we honestly dont know the audience... so making an assumption based on what we dont know, is a fault called ignorance... and it happens all the time. When one does know but claims ignorance that is called lying, when we are ignorant bceause we choose to be we stagnante, when we chose to keep others ignorant we enslave.

So since we are all people of the world... I simply dont get the divide. I understand the hate, I understand the greed, and I understand the ignorance... but that's only been due to the divide itself, which is why I dont get it... because the solution is pretty obvious.

I hope everyone world wide some solice of peace, even when there will be a celebration of war in the country I was born into without choice tomorrow called the 4th... the fight then was for freedom, that no matter the country or person I think is still an ideal no matter the ideas that people think will lead to it using other ideals.

Please be safe and I wish everyone peace, quiet may not happen but those are much better rockets to see in the sky ones of celebration and not death and destruction.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

It depends on what she is prosecuted for. She's violated numerous laws from her actions, some of which dont have anything to do with Obama. Secondly the Democrats would run into a catch 22 with Obama.

If Clinton is indicted their legal argument would have to be "well President Obama broke the law so why is Hillary being singled out". There is a saying - The President doesn't take a bullet for their subordinates, the subordinates take a bullet for him (bullet being politics harmful to the office of the president). Kind of like how Susan Rice was taking the bullet for Hillary over Benghazi.

Any argument Clinton's team gives to defend her will require them to paint the President. How would that go over with the voters? Clinton throwing Obama under the bus in order to back stab her way to the Presidency. "Well Obama did it so can I."

Going down that road could take any possibility of a pardon off the table if she doesn't deal with this on her own without trying to blame someone else.

The other issue, and I will need someone with knowledge to verify if this info is correct or not. With regards to classified information (any level) and the OCA. Their was an incident early in Obama's first term where he was talking to the media and accidentally released information that was classified. As President, as I understand it, has what could be explained as final OCA authority, even over the original classifying OCA.

Because he released the info it was no longer classified (whatever level it was).

Can any of our resident experts answer / explain / debunk that info?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not sure what you're referring to when you say "OCA", but the classification and declassification process was basically rewritten by Obama in 2009. This was done via Executive Order 13526. (text of order below)

Executive Order 13526

In scanning the document it would appear that the only people allowed to declassify a document relative to this discussion are:

a. The head of the agency who deemed it classified to begin with.
b. That persons successor (Kerry)
c. That persons superior (in this case the president)
d. The Director of National Intelligence
e. Automatic declassification - when the classification date on the document (which is required in order to be valid) has expired.
f. Systematic Classification Review - a process focused specifically on declassifying certain material.
g. Mandatory Declassification Review - Numerous provisions in this one, but essentially the originating agency, the president, other agencies with the agreement of the originating agency, the Secretary of Defense in special situations,
h. By request - Very specific FOIA, Presidential Records Act, Privacy Act of 1974 requests, BUT still subject to review before release.
i. National Declassification Center - Essentially the National Archives

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

OCA = Original Classifying Authority.

I was unaware of the EO. Thank you very much for the info. So nothing in the EO would affect the email exchange between Clinton and Obama. That was the angle I was looking at...

A thought -
Lynch has stated numerous times she has never briefed / discussed this case with Obama or anyone at the White House. No one asked her if any person working for or on behalf of the DOJ briefed anyone at the White House. its possible a minion of hers may be briefing Obama / people at the White House.

EO 13526 is simply an updated version of a previous EO on classified material...

You can research them through the years and very little has actually changed, mostly with adaption for more modern technologies like emails and what not.

The very basic core of classified information is that certain information that meets the criteria set for in the Executive Order is considered classified at origination. It has been like this for almost 70 years now.

There is no sufficient reason to doubt that the classified at origination/classified at birth/born classified will ever be overturned due to the simple fact that the government will not further pursue cases of "retroactive" classification, and that would be just about the only way it could ever be challenged in court.

People who have been granted access of classified information all sign the exact same form, the SF 312. Upon signing that very form, you are acknowledging that you are aware of and fully agree with the governments position of classified information being classified upon origination, or born classified.

Hillary is no different than anyone else and should receive no special treatment for the improper storage and transmittal of unmarked classified information.

The mere fact that there are over 2,000 instances very much points "to inference of intent", which just means that intent can be proven by justification, and in this case 2,000+ classified documents certainly would lean heavily in favor of inference of intent to be negligent in the handling of classified information.