When is Loretta Lynch going to recuse herself?

[repoman]

I know there is not an official recommendation from the FBI and there may never be one, and that may be fair and not corrupt. But when will Lynch recuse herself. Is there anyone here who can honestly say that being a friend to the Clinton family is not enough alone to recuse?

First response will be to cite Scalia with Cheney and then Thomas with his wife's career. Yep, tit for tat is a good argument.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree. Then after the person that she's replaced with finds that nothing illegal happened, we're going to need another investigation to find all the things which that second investigation missed. Then we're going to need an investigation into why none of these other investigations have found anything followed by an investigation into the investigation of the investigations to investigate who got paid off where and why.

 

[repoman]

If the investigation will find nothing because there is nothing, that is all the more reason for Lynch to recuse herself.

 

[ZiprHead]

Huh?

 

[RavenSky]

Recuse herself from what? The FBI is doing the umpteenth investigation, not her; and she has already said she will abide by whatever their recommendation is.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Recuse herself from what? The FBI is doing the umpteenth investigation, not her; and she has already said she will abide by whatever their recommendation is.

Ya, but that depends on what the definition of "abide" is.

 

[Bronzeage]

The House and the Senate have full power and authority to impeach Hillary for whatever they can come up with, but they'll have to wait til after the election. Then, anyone who is a friend or enemy can recuse themselves. This should leave it up to three or four people and they can settle it once and for all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When is Loretta Lynch going to recuse herself?

Probably when something actually makes it to her desk that has Clinton's name on it...?
Just guessing.

Is there anyone here who can honestly say that being a friend to the Clinton family is not enough alone to recuse?

Yes.
She does not need to recuse herself from a lack of a call for prosecution. Being a friend of someone who has not been charged with a crime is not a good reason alone to recuse herself. I mean, what would she put in the 'reasons for' box?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that in some circumstances being friends is enough to recuse one's self when being in charge of an investigation. For example, IF the police chief in Sanford, FL was best friends with George Zimmerman AND he was either in charge of or BOSS of the people doing the investigation on Zimmerman, then he should recuse himself. Perhaps, he could hire a third-party or give the job to one of his lieutenants. In Washington, DC, I think it's much harder to find independent people since you've got the partisan republicans and democrats who all know each other. If Lynch were handling the investigation herself, then I'd say she should recuse herself.

Now, that was then and this is now. Just recently, Lynch and Bill Clinton fucked up. They met privately on her plane/in an airport for 30 minutes. That's like George Zimmerman's father meeting secretly with the police chief in Sanford FL for 30 minutes (if they were good friends). So, that's the straw that broke the camel's back for me--i.e. it's just enough to say Lynch has to find some way to back out of this. I don't know what that means, but she has to distance her authority over it by making a change in the authority structure or handing it someone who does not ultimately report to her.

 

[RavenSky]

So the FBI Director says yes a few (110 out of well over 30 thousand) were contemporaneously classified. He was not clear that they were marked as such, but said that HRC and her staff knew or should have known the material was classified. The FBI Director said she and he staff were careless, but there was no intention to violate laws. He recommends no charges, and said there is no basis for charges.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So the FBI Director says yes a few (110 out of well over 30 thousand) were contemporaneously classified. He was not clear that they were marked as such, but said that HRC and her staff knew or should have known the material was classified. The FBI Director said she and he staff were careless, but there was no intention to violate laws. He recommends no charges, and said there is no basis for charges.

Well, that's a somewhat biased interpretation of his remarks. He said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case, but what about a prosecutor who's an unreasonable, partisan Republican hack that wants to have a fake case going on in the months leading up to the election in order to abuse the justice system for the sake of undermining Clinton's candidacy?

Are we just ignoring those prosecutors now?

 

[RavenSky]

So the FBI Director says yes a few (110 out of well over 30 thousand) were contemporaneously classified. He was not clear that they were marked as such, but said that HRC and her staff knew or should have known the material was classified. The FBI Director said she and he staff were careless, but there was no intention to violate laws. He recommends no charges, and said there is no basis for charges.

Well, that's a somewhat biased interpretation of his remarks. He said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case, but what about a prosecutor who's an unreasonable, partisan Republican hack that wants to have a fake case going on in the months leading up to the election in order to abuse the justice system for the sake of undermining Clinton's candidacy?

Are we just ignoring those prosecutors now?

Good point. So now I guess the wing-nuts are going to demand the recusal of Lynch and every prosecutor below her until they find one willing to continue this farce.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bronzeage]

So the FBI Director says yes a few (110 out of well over 30 thousand) were contemporaneously classified. He was not clear that they were marked as such, but said that HRC and her staff knew or should have known the material was classified. The FBI Director said she and he staff were careless, but there was no intention to violate laws. He recommends no charges, and said there is no basis for charges.

Well, that's a somewhat biased interpretation of his remarks. He said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case, but what about a prosecutor who's an unreasonable, partisan Republican hack that wants to have a fake case going on in the months leading up to the election in order to abuse the justice system for the sake of undermining Clinton's candidacy?

Are we just ignoring those prosecutors now?

Prosecutors still answer to the Secretary of the Justice Department. President Obama has been in office for seven years, so the odds of finding an unreasonable, partisan Republican hack in the current DOJ are pretty slim.

The last unreasonable, partisan Republican hack I know of is looking for work. Ken Starr, the famous special prosecutor in the White Water investigation was recently fired for not being sufficiently curious about the sexual practices of the athletes at Texas A&M, where he was chancellor.

Any prosecution of Hillary will have to come from just such a hack. It appears the Court system is done with the matter. Any further pursuit of our next President will have to originate from Congress. This years Congressional elections will determine whether that is a realistic expectation.

 

[Deepak]

http://a.msn.com/r/2/AAi7EQ8?m=en-us&ocid=News

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://a.msn.com/r/2/AAi7EQ8?m=en-us&ocid=News

Interesting paragraph:

Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.

 

[Bronzeage]

Interesting paragraph:

Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.

I've had a gmail account for about 12 years and an AOL account for several year before that. If someone asked me if I discussed any particular subject in an email, it would have to be something I never heard of before and couldn't pronounce if I saw it written. 110 sounds like a big number, but how many emails did she send in a week, or a month?

In any case, this is still a meaningless, but expensive exercise.

 

[Treedbear]

Interesting paragraph:

Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.

A little further:

Comey said Clinton had used not one but multiple private email servers during her time at State. He said Clinton used multiple email devices during that time. (She had offered her desire to use a single device for “convenience” as the main reason she set up the private server.)

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting paragraph:

I've had a gmail account for about 12 years and an AOL account for several year before that. If someone asked me if I discussed any particular subject in an email, it would have to be something I never heard of before and couldn't pronounce if I saw it written. 110 sounds like a big number, but how many emails did she send in a week, or a month?

In any case, this is still a meaningless, but expensive exercise.

yep.

The FBI said they reviewed almost 4,000 emails, and found only 110emails (52 email chains) that referenced then classified information, though it was not neccessarily marked as classified.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's say some guy had sex with 50,000 women, but he only raped 110 of them. It doesn't seem to matter. So why does relative count matter in this instance?

 

[Deepak]

Interesting paragraph:

I've had a gmail account for about 12 years and an AOL account for several year before that. If someone asked me if I discussed any particular subject in an email, it would have to be something I never heard of before and couldn't pronounce if I saw it written. 110 sounds like a big number, but how many emails did she send in a week, or a month?

In any case, this is still a meaningless, but expensive exercise.

Well let's see where the security polices go after this. If there's real teeth put behind the security oversight teams where privileged actors aren't able to flout proper policies then I'd say it's meaningful. If that happens then everybody wins, the ardent Ds get to keep pretending that this is a witch hunt, the ardent Rs get to have another Clinton conspiracy theory, and the folks concerned about data security get better policies in place.