A Justice Department official said the attorney general will accept the “determinations and findings of career prosecutors and lawyers as well as FBI investigators and director [James B.] Comey.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Lynch’s remarks. The New York Times first reported the expected Lynch comments.Let's be clear here folks.
- The career prosecutors and lawyers work for Lynch.
- Lynch works for the President.
- The President has made it abundantly clear that he feels Clinton did nothing wrong.
So let's stop pretending that a statement from Lynch promising she won't personally overrule the determinations of others involved actually means anything. Under no circumstances would the powers to be in this case every allow for a situation where prosecution would be recommended by a career prosecutor, but ultimately vetoed by the Attorney General herself.
People in charge, who want to control the event taking place under their charge, do not control those events publicly by overruling decisions after the fact. They control them from the start, making sure the people subordinate to them, understand what is expected.
If there was any interest in objectivity, then Loretta Lynch would not be involved in the first place. Over the past forty years or so, every single political scandal that involved anything potentially criminal has been handled by an independent prosecutor. This is possibly the highest profile criminal probe into an active politician, and holds possibly the most blatant possibilities for conflict of interest, and yet it was not turned over. That, in and of itself, shows the intent for the Administration to remain in control of events.
Secondly, if Lynch really wanted to look like she was not involved, then she would not hedge regarding the possible recommendations from the FBI, by also involving career prosecutors and other lawyers who work for her as part of the equation. She could simply say that they would accept the recommendation of the FBI. Period. While involving both the FBI and prosecutors is likely standard practice, it's still a hedge. The DOJ is still maintaining the ultimate control. Which has been the point all along.
11 comments:
I'm pretty sure we know how this will play out....
The prosecutors won't recommend indictment. They want to keep their jobs.
The real wildcard is director James B. Comey.
comey's not really a wild card. all he can do is recommend to indict... or not.
one things for sure - this administration has completely dispensed with the rule of law, and has made even the most miniscule issues completely political.
i questioned lynch's intellect. in her role as AG, getting within 100 feet of a clinton in light of the investigation is moronic. and she met privately with him for 30 minutes.
dumbass shit like that get's you fired on the spot in the private sector. she's too stupid to be our AG.
When will the Leftist ever get tired of Crooked Hillary and Her totally fucked up hubby?
When will the raw corruption of those two be enough to be done with them?
Rat - especially stupid when you consider that part of the investigation regards possible State collaboration and corruption with the Clinton Foundation. Which could mean he is at the very least a potential witness, if not a potential target.
But as Lanny Davis (former special council to Clinton) stated today so elegantly. There is no "proof" that they spoke about anything other than golf and grandkids and therefor it's much ado about nothing. Which highlights the main issue when it comes to the Clintons.
The bar is set to high that the Clintons are innocent even when proven guilty.
i am convinced that when it comes to the left, the more corrupt a candidate is, the more popular (s)he is.
it is obvious to anyone with a functioning brainstem that the clinton's are rotten to the core. and to democrats, that's a feature, not a bug.
the left's 'willing suspension of disbelief' is always in perpetual overdrive.
Blogger Loretta Russo said...
I'm pretty sure we know how this will play out....
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
one thing is for sure -
this must drag out past the election. if comey were to recommend indictment, and lynch declines, you know there will be a backlash. one that could derail herself's campaign just as badly (politically speaking) as an indictment itself. just yesterday the state dept said that they'll require at least an additional 27 MONTHS to comply with the FOIA email requests.
that tells you all you need to know.
this get's dragged past election day, and assuming the drunken old hag wins, 0linsky pardons her on his way out the door back to cabrini green.
we may very well get the first president to be sworn in after being pardoned for an indictment with serious national security ramifications. and since the clinton's have absolutely no shame, herself won't care. all she gives a shit about is her anointed ass being parked behind the big desk. and from there she gets to wage war on her true enemies - the GOP, while ISIS continues their slaughter both at home and abroad.
Ch, I hate to further spoil your breakfast, but the following article is so important I just KNOW you would want me to reproduce it here in its entirety, even if it does come from someone you try to disparage.
It's ANOTHER REASON CLINTON WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED (my title):
______________
An In-Depth Look at a State Department Leak
No, not that one. One from 30 years ago. Stephen R. Dujack was once the editor of the Foreign Service Journal, a periodical aimed at America's ambassadors. At the behest of Politico, he has written an in-depth account of the time he inadvertently helped expose state secrets to over a hundred foreign governments in 1987.
At issue is the February 1987 entry of the Journal, which had a cover featuring a picture of Ronald I. Spiers, then a high-ranking State Department official (#4 in the hierarchy). The shot was taken by Dujack, and was seen by anyone and everyone who received a copy of the issue (10,000 recipients, in total). Spiers posed at his desk, which was covered in paperwork, as befits a busy bureaucrat. THE PROBLEM WAS that one of the documents on the desk, clearly visible in the picture, was the National Intelligence Daily, an extremely sensitive and highly-classified document produced by the CIA each day for the president and his closest advisers. That document should not have appeared in the photo, of course. In fact, Dujack should not have been allowed in the room while it was visible. And what sanction did Spiers receive for this carelessness? A letter warning him to show more discretion in the future.
The point of the piece is obvious. As Dujack concludes: "If Spiers wasn't criminally prosecuted for his worse 'infraction,' why would Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for hers?" And really, it goes beyond that. The State Department's handling of Spiers not only speaks to their general philosophy (mistakes happen), but also creates a precedent. If Clinton were to face prosecution, you can bet that her attorneys would be bringing Spiers up, early and often. And so each day we get closer to Election Day, the clearer it gets that Clinton is likely going to dodge this particular bullet. (Bate)
Yes, because whats more of an obvious correlation to thousands of classified documents being purposely moved to and stored at an unapproved and unsecured location.
than a guy taking a picture that "inadvertently" included a single classified document.
I Triggered a State Department Leak
More Serious Than Hillary Clinton’s
--You might be surprised at how light the punishment was.--
By Stephen R. Dujack, June 29, 2016
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/state-department-email-leak-cables-hillary-clinton-secretary-cold-war-classified-documents-213999
That's silly. There is no text visible in the photo beyond four lines at the bottom (the document is covered by a sheaf of notes), and the text is illegible even with modern image enhancing capabilities. No information was even potentially compromised, yet still he was chastised for an infraction.
If he had emailed the actual document, that would be an analogous infraction.
Post a Comment