Citing donations, critics say Lynch shouldn’t decide on Clinton probe

[hoosierlib]

Source: The Hill

Critics of the Obama administration say Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be disqualified from overseeing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server because of the more than $10,000 she has given to Democrats in recent years.

With Republicans already calling for a special prosecutor to monitor the probe, conservatives are pouncing on the past campaign contributions as evidence of bias.

“The latest assertion from her allies that Loretta Lynch is not ‘political’ is totally untrue,” said David Bossie, the president of conservative advocacy organization Citizens United in a statement to The Hill. “In fact, she’s been a regular financial contributor to Democrat candidates, including to her current boss, Barack Obama.”

Former colleagues of Lynch’s described her to The Hill as a hard-nosed lawyer who rarely discussed politics in her previous jobs.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268705-citing-donations-critics-say-lynch-shouldnt-decide-on-clinton-probe

---

Conflict of interest or not? Thoughts?

[JonLeibowitz]

1. I would leave the donations aside -- as a political appointee alone she seems unsuited

I would leave the donations aside -- as a political appointee alone she seems unsuited to make a decision on prosecuting a top government official.

[napi21]

3. First of all, it's the AG's JOB to prosecute ANY person, including top Government officials.

But, more than that, WHY in the world would you fault a Democrat of contributing to other Democrats? That's like saying Why in the world are there almond on that damn almond tree?

Foolish argument all around.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. Did I fault her in my post? I specifically said to leave the question of donations alone, ffs.

[Yo_Mama]

10. It seems to fall under the circumstances 28 CFR 600 addresses.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

It would be better for the president if she went the special counsel route.

[JonLeibowitz]

11. I am reminded of the West Wing when Bartlet allowed his opposition to pick the special counsel.

[cstanleytech]

18. Yes, I am sure the Republicans can be trusted to pick someone who is impartial

to investigate Clinton

[JonLeibowitz]

19. The point is to show that you are trying to be impartial

I understand not going so far as letting the Republicans pick an investigator. But appointing someone seems appropriate.

[cstanleytech]

22. If she had been given money ya or if she gave to Clintons campaign? Maybe but she did not do

either of those things so I think a call to ask her to recuse herself is premature just because she gave money to people of x political party.

[JonLeibowitz]

23. I suggest you read what I have said in this very thread. I specifically ignored money.

Not sure why you're addressing those points to me.

[cstanleytech]

27. Either way it doesnt matter. There has to justification that supports her removal and

currently all there is just the opinion of some people and some of those clearly would be happier with someone who actually is biased against Clinton.

[JonLeibowitz]

28. The justification is clear -- a political appointee can be leaned on (or thought to be so)

by politicians.

That is enough for many.

[6chars]

32. that would not happen

[JTFrog]

40. Exactly. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

45. It's not her removal - under the reg, she picks someone to deal with the matter.

That person then proceeds independently, which takes a load off her and a load off the President.

It is really essential that they do this. The situation has gone too far and is too politically charged not to appoint a special counsel.

If the special counsel decides not to proceed, it will be very favorable for Clinton, which is important in an election. If the special counsel decides to proceed, I am sure the decision will be made after the election.

The only reason NOT to appoint a special counsel is that A) Prosecution is justified, and B) The intent is to prevent it. That is not a good strategy in American politics.

[mikehiggins]

21. Hillery is NOT presently a top government official.

I don't think that should be a consideration, even if she was.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. Others differ, on substance and in view. I respect your position though. n/t

[24601]

2. It would make sense to recuse herself and delegate the decision to a DOJ career employee. n/t

[840high]

6. yes

[Kelvin Mace]

5. I would agree that she should step down on this

the next time Scalia recuses himself.

[onecaliberal]

7. She should step aside.

[pnwmom]

34. She absolutely should not. There is nothing the Rethugs can do except blow hot air.

They can try impeaching the second Democratic President in a row -- for not caving in to their demands -- but they will never get a conviction in the Senate. And they will be revealed for the nincompoops they are.

[FairWinds]

8. Sure, she should step aside . .

as soon as SCOTUS Thomas does for Monsanto.

[H2O Man]

9. An actual conflict of interest

should not be the standard here. The bar should be set at the appearance of a possible conflict of interest.

[pnwmom]

35. In which case most of the House and Senate should immediately step down. n/t

[H2O Man]

38. Definitely.

[Kingofalldems]

12. The opinions of David Bossie, a right wing hit man, do not interest me.

Do they interest you?

[George II]

13. Keep digging, but it won't change anything. All that posts like this do is damage our (presumed)...

....collective interest in defeating the republican candidate.

Why are we discussing so-called "critics" of Democrats anyway?

[totodeinhere]

26. I would tend to stay away from any hint of censorship in this case.

If the collective DU community agrees with you then this thread will be ignored and it will sink like a rock. But if we are interested in discussing this then so be it. And I don't think it will hurt Bernie's chances in November anyway.

[still_one]

14. I think the fairest way to settle it is to ask one of the folks here at DU to preside

We can almost be certain they won't be bias for Hillary

The concern here is so touching

[Kingofalldems]

15. Oh and the article mentioned the oh-so-ethical David Bossie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bossie#Congressional_investigator

Not fooled.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Here is another article on David Bossie:

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/gops_best_partisan_hit_man_how_dirty_trickster_david_bossie_changed_the_world/

[JonLeibowitz]

17. Are david brock hit pieces now disallowed as well? Just curious. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

37. I certainly don't post them.

And will not attack any Democrat. I leave that to republicans.

[jmowreader]

20. Let me guess...they want Ken Starr

[cstanleytech]

25. Nonsense, they are clearly only pushing because they want a impartial investigation.

BTW I have a lovely bridge that I'm looking to sale in San Fransisco overlooking the bay with a truly gorgeous view, I dont suppose you would be interested?

[jmowreader]

29. Okay, let's go at it this way...

You are a business owner who has a house. You decide to go on vacation, and leave your key with a trusted employee so the plants can be watered and fish fed. The day after you get on the plane, your "trusted employee" starts cooking meth in your garage. Would it be proper for the police to seize and sell your house because meth was being cooked there against your wishes?

There have ALREADY been a number of impartial investigations of Hillary's server. All of them have concluded Hillary didn't put the information which was retroactively classified on it. This is starting to look like the three hundredth Obamacare repeal bill the GOP tried to file.

[Midnight Writer]

31. LOL! Now find a Federal Prosecutor who has never made a donation to either party.

Good luck!

[cstanleytech]

39. Oh I am sure there are some but imo what this is really about is

a combination of them trying to smear Clinton indirectly before the election if she should win the nomination and also they want the ability to appoint their own "special" prosecutor who they probably hope will be able to pull a Ken Starr and nail her for something no matter how minor.

[pnwmom]

33. He's not going to offer them Hillary's head on a silver platter,

to hand over to one of their Special Prosecutors. And they can't force President Obama's hand.

They could make him the 2nd Democratic President in a row to be impeached -- indicted -- but he would then be the 2nd Democratic President in a row to not be convicted in the Senate. They would need a 2/3 vote to do that and they would never have it.

But they won't even try because it backfired on them last time they tried.

[OnyxCollie]

36. Doesn't the AG pick the special prosecutor?

I seem to recall Mukasey picking the special prosecutor to investigate the US Attorney scandal.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Jury's in

FWIW, I was #4:

On Tue Feb 9, 2016, 09:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Citing donations, critics say Lynch shouldn’t decide on Clinton probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141341992

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Why would anyone drop the opinion of the president of RIGHT WING Citizen's United in order to attack Hillary? At some point folks, DU either wallows in the embarrassment of embracing right wingers or we put a stop to flooding DU with right wing propaganda. This is really getting concerning.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 9, 2016, 09:47 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Refute, don't alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see how there is any problem with this post.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't get it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Your "concern" is noted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is disruptful, hurtful, rude? give me a break
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If this came from a wacko RW blog I would vote to hide but since The Hill is a legit source, I think this article is fair game for discussion.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Babel_17]

42. Huh, "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time"

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department has said that career prosecutors and investigators are working on the Clinton case and that a special prosecutor is not warranted.

What happened to just laughing off such questions? If the FBI says they could find no suggestion of criminality, there's nothing for the DOJ to think about. What happened to that line of reasoning? Could be basically just a click bait article, or maybe nobody would volunteer a quote predicting all this was soon going away. Though it could be both.

More importantly, are those being quoted hearing anything that we aren't?

[TipTok]

43. Absolutely a conflict of interest... but it won't go anywhere...

Clinton is banking on those connections to see her through this.

[vkkv]

44. No Republican donor / supporter should lead the investigation - that would be biased! n/t