Should Loretta Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton case?

[SillyAmerican]

After a statement in which Loretta Lynch admits having a private 30 minute meeting with President Bill Clinton in Phoenix, should she have to recuse herself from any matters related to Hillary Clinton?

During a discussion with Greta Van Susteren on the June 29th edition of On The Record, a couple of legal folks weigh in:

Ted Williams, Criminal Defense Attorney

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Katie Phang, former prosecutor

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't the most basic code of conduct require that the AG recuse herself here?

[SillyAmerican]

I suppose it was foolish of me to expect an apolitical response. At the very least, this is yet another in a growing list of examples in which the Clintons put themselves in a situation in which accusations of impropriety can be made.

Perhaps someone can cite legal precedence on such matters?

[SillyAmerican]

I suppose it was foolish of me to expect an apolitical response.

Well, you're SillyAmerican after all.

True enough.

But in case anybody here is interested in a justice system that actually delivers blind justice across the board, a recent article in The Federalist makes the argument for appointing a special prosecutor, and that was written before the whole Bill Clinton / Loretta Lynch airport chat. (The emboldening is mine...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SillyAmerican]

So talking about your grandkids can totally destroy any ability to be impartial about someone who wasn't even there, Good to know.

No. Having a private conversation with the husband of someone being investigated by the FBI, someone who Lynch will eventually have to decide what to do about, that leads to an impression that the AG's ability to act impartially has been compromised. It really doesn't matter what Lynch says they discussed, both Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are smart enough to know that at the level at which they operate, impressions matter.

[SillyAmerican]

So talking about your grandkids can totally destroy any ability to be impartial about someone who wasn't even there, Good to know.

No. Having a private conversation with the husband of someone being investigated by the FBI, someone who Lynch will eventually have to decide what to do about, that leads to an impression that the AG's ability to act impartially has been compromised. It really doesn't matter what Lynch says they discussed, both Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are smart enough to know that at the level at which they operate, impressions matter.

You do realize that this is 2016 and that those two could have conversed in any number of ways in private without fear of people finding out if they really were angling to have a one-on-one, right?

Sure thing. And if asked about such contacts, Lynch could have lied and nobody would have been the wiser. As it is, it took her a couple of days before she acknowledged that this happened, and I get the feeling that the only reason she did so was that other people were aware that it had happened.

People here are acting like this was just a casual conversation in a public place between Lynch and Clinton.

This was literally a 30-minute unplanned meeting on a private plane while there's an ongoing FBI investigation that Lynch herself will be prosecuting.

But sure, whatever keeps the echo chamber going.

Yeah. It's kind of sad that people can't get beyond their party mindset and think in terms of what the proper thing to do is. Frankly, John Aschroft acted appropriately, and Loretta Lynch should follow his lead. That's the kind of America I'd like to live in anyway, fwiw.

[SillyAmerican]

No, no, no. Build a bridge and get over it. These manufactured scandals are ridiculous.

This is neither manufactured, nor is it a scandal. Did Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton have a private half hour meeting? Yes. Is Lynch the chief lawyer for the country? Yes. Will Lynch be deciding what to do about legal actions which involve Hillary Clinton? Yes. So please explain what "scandal" is "manufactured" here.

You realize that if someone is on trial, and while on trial their spouse goes over and talks to the prosecuting attorney, that that is grounds for a mistrial, yes? Why is that? And it wouldn't matter if the spouse merely said "Howdy", such contact is simply not allowed. Period. Go ask a lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.

[SillyAmerican]

No, no, no. Build a bridge and get over it. These manufactured scandals are ridiculous.

This is neither manufactured, nor is it a scandal. Did Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton have a private half hour meeting? Yes. Is Lynch the chief lawyer for the country? Yes. Will Lynch be deciding what to do about legal actions which involve Hillary Clinton? Yes. So please explain what "scandal" is "manufactured" here.

You realize that if someone is on trial, and while on trial their spouse goes over and talks to the prosecuting attorney, that that is grounds for a mistrial, yes? Why is that? And it wouldn't matter if the spouse merely said "Howdy", such contact is simply not allowed. Period. Go ask a lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.

You realize Hillary isn't on trial?

You realize that the person responsible for determining whether Hillary is put on trial just had a half hour private conversation with her husband?

But I do realize that I'm wasting my time here...

[SillyAmerican]

There isn't going to be a recommendation from the FBI to indict, so this is all moot and idiotic prattle from the usual suspects trying to churn up controversy where there really is none.

Ah, so you've spoken to Mr. Comey already? You should have told me sooner, I wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with all this idiotic prattle...

[SillyAmerican]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Now she says she'll get out of the way of the FBI.

Excellent. If Ms. Lynch says she will accept the FBI recommendation that comes her way, as is, that would effectively remove the political factor. Given the contents of the IG report, I may have to consider IceSpear's offer of a bet on whether or not she ends up being indicted.

[SillyAmerican]

Yeah. It's kind of sad that people can't get beyond their party mindset and think in terms of what the proper thing to do is. Frankly, John Aschroft acted appropriately, and Loretta Lynch should follow his lead. That's the kind of America I'd like to live in anyway, fwiw.

Says the person who heads every thread with a hair on fire quote about Clinton from a Fox News show, or a quote from a long-discredited book about Clinton, etc. I'm sure glad you're the arbiter of being completely apolitical and non-partisan.

Not every thread I've begun is based on a quote from Fox News (although I fully admit that a good number are, because I believe the Fox news people provide a much more objective version of what's going on than can be found on other news outlets). And yes, I read various books and sometimes have questions about the voracity of what I've read, so I post questions.  So I'm confused: do you have a problem with those who read, or those who ask questions?

And for the record, I'm not attempting to be the "arbiter" of anything, I simply offer my opinions and observations in hopes of finding reasonable people interested in engaging in a discussion. Please excuse anything that I may have done which caused offense, as that was not my intent.

[SillyAmerican]

Yeah. It's kind of sad that people can't get beyond their party mindset and think in terms of what the proper thing to do is. Frankly, John Aschroft acted appropriately, and Loretta Lynch should follow his lead. That's the kind of America I'd like to live in anyway, fwiw.

So when can we expect you to start a dozen threads demanding the prosecution of Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for the same offense?

Well, I'd consider doing so if
     (1) credible evidence existed that Powell and/or Rice acted in similar fashion;
     (2) Powell or Rice were seeking the highest office of the land;

I realize that we all learn the popular "they did it too" defense in elementary school, but I expect more from those in leadership positions. (I know: I'm silly...).

[SillyAmerican]

Bill is one of those people who doesn't always make the best decisions, and he proved it again here.

Was he always so boneheaded, or is this something new post-presidency? He seems to have a penchant for stupid PR blunders.

Agreed. I mean back in 1976, the man was elected attorney general of Arkansas, so you can't tell me that he doesn't know better than to do things like this. What was he thinkin'? Strange...