Topic category: Corruption in Government
Why did Bill Clinton really meet with Loretta Lynch?
The media narrative rationalizing the "chance" meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch goes like this:
It is important to bear in mind that it is wholly inappropriate for the spouse and subject of FBI criminal investigations to have a private meeting of any kind with the chief prosecution officer responsible for assuring the public that justice is served in both criminal investigations.
Nevertheless, the National Democrat PAC, aka "the national news media" dutifully put out the narrative "explaining" the "innocent" meeting between Bill Clinton and the woman entrusted to potentially be his (and his spouse's) chief prosecutor. Ironically, this "chance" meeting required one of the aircraft to delay departure so that the "chance" meeting could take place!
The justifiable outrage over this "chance" and "innocent" meeting led to a statement by AG Lynch that she would "rely" on the "recommendation" of the FBI regarding whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton's criminal violations.
The important point regarding the AG's statement is that the FBI is an investigatory agency -- it investigates evidence of criminal activity. It does not prosecute and it does not make prosecutorial recommendations. The FBI's job is to investigate evidence of a crime, assemble the investigations' findings, and turn them over to prosecutors to make a legal determination if the evidence justifies prosecution for criminal activity.
Normally, it would be inappropriate for any investigatory agency to make a prosecutorial recommendation when turning evidence over to prosecutors. Prosecutors are the experts at prosecuting criminals based on the law and the evidence of criminal activity. No other consideration is appropriate, and certainly, political considerations should play no part in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
When Hillary Clinton was summoned on Saturday, July 2nd, to be interviewed by the FBI, the Public reasonably expected that (1) the interview would be recorded, and, (2) Hillary Clinton would be sworn to tell the truth. Anyone else would be. But not Hillary Clinton.
According to testimony in Congress by Director Comey, Hillary Clinton was not sworn to tell the truth and her interview was not recorded. How very convenient. She was free to spin whatever tale she desired. She was not under oath and there would be no penalty for lying. Since there was no recording, whatever was said about that interview could be denied or spun in any direction without fear of any record to contradict whatever story the Hillary campaign decided to spin.
Following the AG's announcement and Hillary Clinton's non-interview, FBI Director James Comey subsequently issued a verbal statement to the press that:
Really? No "intent"?
First, most of the many statutes violated do not require intent. The Director was dissembling in an obvious attempt to rationalize his irrational recommendation.
Second, one has to be blind to not see "intent" based solely on the evidence revealed earlier by Director Comey's statement! When Hillary Clinton ordered her private servers installed within hours of completing her security briefing on how to safeguard national security information she was intentionally and knowingly violating both FOIA law and national security law because she fully intended to use her private servers for ALL her email correspondence -- correspondence she well knew would contain highly classified material and official government business..
Third, when she knowingly received and sent the highest classification information over email through her nonsecure email servers on numerous occasions, she knew she was violating national security law, and, indeed, according to the statutes, her acts constituted espionage against the United States.
Any prosecutor looking at the evidence against Hillary Clinton would relish the opportunity to prosecute the "slam dunk" case against her.
Yet, Director Comey, uncharacteristically, made a bizarre recommendation to the Department of Justice (DoJ) in this case to not prosecute!
So what does this all tell us?
Rational people would look at the series of events and the evidence of criminality and reasonably conclude:
This is an egregious example of the disdain Washington power brokers have for the Public.
But Washington "insiders" did not anticipate the Public's reaction:
Unless one is a rabid Democrat or equally self-delusional, the above rational scenario is far more convincing and reasonable than the contrived series of events used to wrap up the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and allow her to escape punishment for the most brazen and extensive criminal activity in the history of our country by a cabinet-level government official.
The American Public is perceived as dense and stupid by the powers in Washington. We are expected to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her sexual organs, not on who she is. We are expected to vote for Hillary Clinton because she has "experience." But it appears the only "experience" Hillary can accurately claim is a long litany of blatant lies, serial dishonesty, and outrageous corruption ("pay to play" scheme).
There can be little doubt that the evidence clearly reveals Hillary Clinton to be the most corrupt, dishonest politician to ever seek the Presidency of the United States.
There is one way the American Public can stand up to this brazen dishonesty and corruption. When election day comes around, make sure you make the effort to vote against Hillary Clinton. And the only effective way to do that is to concentrate the anti-Hillary vote on the Republican candidate.
Not only will that preserve some dignity for the Office of President, it will assure that the new Attorney General will prosecute everyone involved with the criminal acts and their cover-up to the fullest extent of the law.
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.