Why did Bill Clinton really meet with Loretta Lynch?
We are expected to believe the carefully laid out narrative that there was a "chance" meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch days before the FBI made a recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her many violations of Federal law. But what, really, was the purpose of that "chance meeting"?
The media narrative rationalizing the "chance" meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch goes like this:
Two private jets, by chance, happened to be at the same airport at the same time.
On one of those planes was AG Loretta Lynch; on the other was former President Bill Clinton whose wife was the subject of a prolonged massive FBI criminal investigation for illegal use of private email servers, repeated violations of espionage and national security laws, and blatant violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Also, at the time, a separate criminal investigation involving both Clintons and their private Foundation was (and still is) being conducted by the FBI.
Realizing AG Lynch's plane was at the same airport, Bill Clinton decided to pay her a visit and "small talk" for 30 minutes.
Secret Service agents told reporters at the airport to not take any pictures.
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:
Outlined in detail the clear and overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton committed a host of criminal acts by wantonly violating national security and FOIA laws on many occasions over a period of years. To make matters even worse, Clinton's violations included using numerous private nonsecure email servers that readily exposed the highest classification of national security information to the ongoing, full-time computer hacking operations of the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians. Only a self-delusional fool would deny that the information passing through Clinton's nonsecure servers was simultaneously being accumulated by the foreign intelligence agencies of our adversaries.
After building a compelling case for prosecution of a slam dunk case, the FBI Director concluded by stating he was not recommending prosecution on the contrived basis that he could find no "intent" to violate the law!
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:
The "chance" meeting of AG Lynch and Bill Clinton was not by "chance" but was carefully pre-arranged. The "delay" might also have been orchestrated to emphasize the inappropriateness of the meeting.
Reporters were told not to take pictures of the meeting, most likely to ensure reports of the meeting would get out.
Lynch and Clinton did not limit their conversation to "small talk".
Lynch was not going to prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton, no matter what the evidence. She needed help from Director Comey so that she could distance herself from that pre-ordained decision.
President Obama must have been aware of the arrangements that were being made and, in fact, he may be responsible for directing the course of action that unfolded. How else to explain (1) his repeated assertions that Hillary Clinton was innocent, (2) his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for nomination by the Democratic Party, and, (3) his arranging to fly Hillary on Air Force One to a joint campaign rally in North Carolina within 24 hours of Director Comey's statement?
Director Comey was instructed to make a recommendation to not prosecute Hillary Clinton. That had to be an order. Exactly what "incentives" were behind that order are known only to Comey and whoever directed him.
Within 24 hours of Director Comey's bizarre recommendation, AG Lynch closed the case in the DoJ. There was insufficient time to review the mountain of evidence and Federal laws involved prior to the AG's decision. Nevertheless, on cue, AG Lynch closed the case.
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:
We were expected to believe that Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton indicated that he knew she was innocent of any criminal acts. He did not. In fact, Obama himself sent at least two emails to Hillary's illegal servers, and was aware of her illegal servers, and did nothing, itself, a crime.
We were expected to believe that Obama's invitation to Hillary Clinton to accompany him on Air Force One within 24 hours of the FBI's investigation being turned over to prosecutors was further evidence of her innocence. But that was just the hubris of power being flaunted in the face of the Public.
We were expected to believe that it is routine for the FBI to recommend prosecutions to the DoJ. It is not.
We were expected to believe that the meeting between Bill Clinton and AG Lynch was by "chance" and that they only chatted about family matters. It was not. They spoke about both criminal investigations involving the Clintons (illegal email servers and corrupt practices involving a "pay to play" scheme that funded the Clintons' foundation).
We were expected not to realize the decision was made long ago at the highest level of the Obama administration to not prosecute Hillary Clinton despite the mountain of evidence of Hillary Clinton's criminal activity .
Having had everything set up beforehand, in response to the Public outrage over her meeting with Bill Clinton, AG Lynch announced that she would defer to the recommendation of the FBI. We were expected to believe such deference was routine and reasonable based on her effort to avoid the perception of impropriety created by her meeting with Bill Clinton. It was not and we did not because it is highly unusual and Director Comey's conclusions did not follow from the evidence.
Director Comey was ordered to not recommend criminal prosecution, no matter what the evidence demanded. This would provide AG Lynch the excuse for not even examining the evidence before closing the case on Hillary Clinton. We were expected to believe Comey's "recommendation" was based on the evidence and a sound interpretation of the many applicable Federal laws. We did not because it was not.
We were expected to believe that AG Lynch's quick move to close the case against Hillary Clinton was routine, given the FBI Director's claim that no prosecutor would bring such a case, based on the law and the evidence. We did not believe it because the claim was absurd on its face.
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.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob 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.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
