Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:49 PM Jun 2016

Carl Bernstein just said on CNN that Loretta Lynch needs to recuse herself from the Clinton

FBI investigation should an indictment be recommended by James Comey.

Don't kill the messenger but the media, even Clinton supporting media is outraged over this event.

94 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Carl Bernstein just said on CNN that Loretta Lynch needs to recuse herself from the Clinton (Original Post) floriduck Jun 2016 OP
interesting, thx for posting HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #1
"Clinton supporting media" MohRokTah Jun 2016 #2
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #6
OFFS!!!!! MohRokTah Jun 2016 #8
Bye! floriduck Jun 2016 #9
AND THE CRACKUPS JUST KEEP ON COMING!!!!!! I HAVEN'T LAUGHED SO HARD IN YEARS!!!!!!! MohRokTah Jun 2016 #10
At yourself I assume HERVEPA Jun 2016 #11
Constantly elleng Jun 2016 #53
...!100++++ 840high Jul 2016 #61
Right?..... Grassy Knoll Jun 2016 #43
Ahhh the old Clinton News Network canard ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2016 #13
+1 JoePhilly Jul 2016 #71
Still can't figure out what the hell they were thinking... eom Purveyor Jun 2016 #3
Well, it is nice that we'll probably get someone less anti-Clinton than Lynch (ntxt) scscholar Jul 2016 #58
Lynch recuses herself, names a special prosecutor, and we start over again. DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2016 #59
Good gawd! leftofcool Jun 2016 #4
Carl Berstein can go to hell. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #5
Oh cool, you've seen all the evidence gathered and read morningfog Jun 2016 #31
lol SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2016 #79
Oh FFS DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #7
Clinton's have problem recognizing potential conflicts of interests Arizona Roadrunner Jun 2016 #12
This retired attorney agrees. amandabeech Jun 2016 #25
Yes. elleng Jul 2016 #54
You're very welcome. nt amandabeech Jul 2016 #65
To put it mildly - it stinks. 840high Jul 2016 #62
I agree. Depressing to hear this was happening. Totally inappropriate. lostnfound Jul 2016 #68
as much as I despise the messenger DonCoquixote Jun 2016 #14
LOL. "Clinton supporting media". Comedy! DanTex Jun 2016 #15
This is ridiculous Uponthegears Jun 2016 #16
Well you can laugh in my face, then. amandabeech Jun 2016 #28
Honest question here Uponthegears Jun 2016 #34
Hillary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI for possible criminal violations as per amandabeech Jun 2016 #36
No she is not! leftofcool Jun 2016 #45
She has not been named as a target yet, but Comey has said that the FBI does not do amandabeech Jun 2016 #47
Yea, I read all that at Free Republic. leftofcool Jul 2016 #69
Well, check the WP comment section on today's article about AG Lynch. n/t amandabeech Jul 2016 #74
Comment Section? charlyvi Jul 2016 #94
I'm not understanding... Was Pres Clinton supposed to IGNORE the presence of TheDebbieDee Jun 2016 #17
Fiction depends on willing suspension of disbelief rather than critical thinking HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #23
He should not have approached her and she should not have talked to him. amandabeech Jun 2016 #33
Horse baloney! leftofcool Jun 2016 #46
Are you with the FBI? Are you with the DOJ? amandabeech Jun 2016 #48
AG Lynch works at the discretion of the current President, Barack Obama... TheDebbieDee Jul 2016 #66
The Saturday Night Massacre SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2016 #80
The Saturday Night Massacre SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2016 #81
Yes, and if he had done that, she should have resigned. amandabeech Jul 2016 #90
There is an ethical rule about not talking to the opposing treestar Jul 2016 #85
+1 treestar Jul 2016 #84
NPR said it's a 840high Jun 2016 #18
Hillary and her campaign staff are probably roasting him over the coals. amandabeech Jun 2016 #38
That would be wise. 840high Jul 2016 #60
"Clinton supporting media" NCTraveler Jun 2016 #19
There's often more to a conversation than the conversation. HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #20
That's why prosecutors are not supposed to be palling around with amandabeech Jun 2016 #37
BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!111!! Grassy Knoll Jun 2016 #21
Wow, saw this same thing posted on Facebook by one giftedgirl77 Jun 2016 #22
NPR pretty much had 840high Jul 2016 #63
The decision resides with her and I am confident in her trustworthiness. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #24
I agree. morningfog Jun 2016 #32
Bernstein takes every opportunity there is to hit on Hillary. riversedge Jun 2016 #26
Bernstein and CNN...really? chillfactor Jun 2016 #27
I hadn't seen that. nt silvershadow Jun 2016 #29
Oh my... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #30
grasping at straws, eh, carl? niyad Jun 2016 #35
Well she should recuse herself... ram2008 Jun 2016 #39
NPR said there is bipartisan outrage 840high Jul 2016 #64
Do you have any proof of said outrage or am I just supoosed giftedgirl77 Jul 2016 #70
Let's see - you could always 840high Jul 2016 #72
Ummm, you could provide proof of your statement. giftedgirl77 Jul 2016 #75
nothing wrong with talking to the spouse of anybody treestar Jul 2016 #86
Former AG Michael Mukasey has now called for her to recuse herself as well. BlueNoMatterWho Jun 2016 #40
A lot of Bushies and Trumpies around. Some very close. Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #42
The primaries are over. Bernie will not be the nominee. Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #41
Thought the counting is still going on, Hillary will take California still_one Jul 2016 #56
Bernstein stopped being relevant decades ago. (eom) oasis Jun 2016 #44
Agreed. The meeting violated internal ethics and legal ethics. Recuse now Arazi Jun 2016 #49
I don't understand why she would recuse herself now floppyboo Jun 2016 #50
Carl Bernstein should have retired while he still had some dignity. grossproffit Jun 2016 #51
F*K Carl Bernstein. He has being pushing the anti-Hillary bullshit for sometime now. still_one Jun 2016 #52
Bernstein has been trashing Hillary Clinton for months EffieBlack Jul 2016 #55
That's right still_one Jul 2016 #57
Bernstein has been off the rails for quite a while. I can't stand him. skylucy Jul 2016 #91
Maybe the Indictment Fairy visited him not long ago. The guy seems to have issues. randome Jul 2016 #67
for all the intelligence Bill C. is supposed to have, he has shown time and again to be entirely Bill USA Jul 2016 #73
that "is" true SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2016 #82
he does have them treestar Jul 2016 #87
That was undoubtedly the motive for his "impromptu" gab fest on the tarmac. NorthCarolina Jul 2016 #76
If the FBI indicts Hillary she needs to recuse herself from the Presidential race. nt jalan48 Jul 2016 #77
the FBI does not indict anyone treestar Jul 2016 #88
seems legit ! stonecutter357 Jul 2016 #78
Carl Bernstein can go piss up a rope. n/t Lil Missy Jul 2016 #83
Weird, I thought Bernstein would be a big Clinton supporter. liberalnarb Jul 2016 #92
Not an issue. She is having nothing to do with the final decision. Jitter65 Jul 2016 #89
Carl Bernstein is like the ultimate concern troll MaggieD Jul 2016 #93

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #2)

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
59. Lynch recuses herself, names a special prosecutor, and we start over again.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:17 AM
Jul 2016

And of course it would take a long time to get ramped up with someone new on the case--months and months, and on into next year.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
5. Carl Berstein can go to hell.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 08:51 PM
Jun 2016

And if an indictment is recommended, it should be James Comey that Lynch files charges against, for abuse of power. Because that's clearly what any recommendation of indictment would be.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
31. Oh cool, you've seen all the evidence gathered and read
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:56 PM
Jun 2016

all the witness interviews. Glad to have someone in the know weigh in! I can rest easy now.

 

Arizona Roadrunner

(168 posts)
12. Clinton's have problem recognizing potential conflicts of interests
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:04 PM
Jun 2016

The lack of propriety by both Clinton for approaching Lynch and Lynch for letting it happen is outrageous but it gives an example of the lack of proper recognition of conflicts of interest on the part of the Clinton's. This article in Atlantic Magazine points out how the then Secretary of State assisted a foreign bank and then a foreign bank, at that, all of the sudden "gives" Bill Clinton $15 million dollars in speaking fees money. The Clintons should not have accepted those monies nor should they have accepted a contribution from that bank for it's foundation. Even if there is no cause and effect it is the APPEARANCE of such a potential that should have rung the warning bells but with the Clintons it doesn't and didn't ring a warning bell about potential conflicts of interest. They have too many of these types of situations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
25. This retired attorney agrees.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:42 PM
Jun 2016

Bill has lost a few steps, but his aides should have restrained him. Lynch should have sent her aides to say no thanks, or she should have said to him herself outside the aircraft with witnesses in a polite but firm manner. Bad on both of them for this. Hillary is probably about ready to strangle Bill about this.

It would be wise for Lynch to at least turn this over to the deputy for criminal cases and recuse herself entirely. She would best be thinking about resignation, however, particularly considering the motion yesterday by the DOJ on behalf of the State Department to relay an FOIA request for over 30,000 e-mails between Hillary's aides at State and the Clinton Foundation and the consulting firm where Houma Abedin worked part time, as did Bill. Bad timing on the motion in light of the private meeting between Lynch and Bill.

Unfortunately, this is a very bad business all around.

lostnfound

(16,536 posts)
68. I agree. Depressing to hear this was happening. Totally inappropriate.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:17 AM
Jul 2016

I'm not a fan anymore of the Clintons but I'd rather that they changed my mind and restored my faith in them, than pull stunts like this. What the heck was he hoping to accomplish, that was worth tainting the process?

DonCoquixote

(13,665 posts)
14. as much as I despise the messenger
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:06 PM
Jun 2016

The fact is Bill should have known better. I honestly wonder if he thinks that he can do no wrong. Let's be blunt, we cannot let him torpedo Hillary from within, so if Hillary needs him to be pilloried, then all is fair in Love war and politics, especially when we are trying to keep trump out.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
16. This is ridiculous
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:08 PM
Jun 2016

I may not agree with Secretary Clinton's policies. She may not have been my preferred candidate. BUT I had more than a toe in the water of the criminal justice system for over thirty years and a prosecutor meeting in secret with a citizen REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE.A SUSPECT OR A GRANDPA, raises exactly ZERO ethical questions. This is a bull puckey issue. If someone tells you otherwise, laugh in their face.

Yea, I'm talking to you Carl Bernstein.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
28. Well you can laugh in my face, then.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:51 PM
Jun 2016

Because I think that both Bill and the AG made a major, major mistake here. I've known some prosecutors myself, and I have known none who have had private conversations with the spouses of criminal suspects because they would run the risk of disbarment if it were found out.

Bill survived a five year suspension of his license to practice law after he didn't tell the truth in the Paula Jones case. The Arkansas Bar Association thought that his testimony amounted to perjury. He figures he can do what he wants and he apparently thinks that Ms. Lynch will be fine, too. I think that he thoughtlessly put her in a bad position, and that she didn't handle it well.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
34. Honest question here
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:04 PM
Jun 2016

Are you really saying that prosecutors do not routinely have confidential conversations with criminal suspects?

Note: this is a hypothetical question. Neither Hillary nor Bill are criminal suspects, I am just saying that, even if they were, it is almost routine for prosecutors to have confidential communications with not just the spouses of suspects but even suspects themselves, particularly when there is no risk that that unfair advantage of the suspect will be taken.

Now "laugh in their face" was just a rhetorical device, but I tell you that you are incorrect.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
36. Hillary Clinton is under investigation by the FBI for possible criminal violations as per
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:17 PM
Jun 2016

comments a few weeks ago by James Comey, the director of the FBI appointed by Pres. Obama. In fact, it is quite likely that the investigation now encompasses the Clinton Foundation and those associated with it. It is a bad situation, and don't let anyone here tell you otherwise.

A prosecutor represents the state, not the defendant, and the prosecutor's interest is directly opposed to that of a suspect or after indiictment or charge, the defendant. You should never talk to an investigator or prosecutor without an attorney present because anything you can and will used against you and you're attorney will shut you up.

Conversely, and prosecutor is not supposed to allow persons close to the case to just walk in on them and maybe make some sort of offer of favors or remuneration or threats that would hamper the prosecution. That's what the Repukes think that Bill may have done, and considering Bill, it wouldn't surprise me too much if he had it in mind to at least get some information which is not public and to which he is not entitled.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here, but does it help?



leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
45. No she is not!
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:55 PM
Jun 2016

How many times does the FBI need to come out and tell you that Hillary is not the target of their investigation?????????????????? They have said this at least 5 times. Do you understand what it means to not be a target?

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
47. She has not been named as a target yet, but Comey has said that the FBI does not do
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jun 2016

"security reviews" which is what Hillary has been calling the investigation of her e-mail situation.

You are splitting legal hairs to mislead people to think that FBI is investigating Hillary's e-mail situation for no reason. The FBI is probably investigating the Clinton Foundation as well at this point considering that the FBI subpoenaed records from the Clinton Foundation last fall.

The FBI has interviewed several of her aides and has given her computer guy a form of immunity so that he will talk.

So far, Hillary has not talked to the FBI, but they are in no way done with her or anyone around her or around the Clinton Foundation.

To continue to suggest that this is nothing really strains credibility and does not do credit to the Hillary campaign.

 

TheDebbieDee

(11,119 posts)
17. I'm not understanding... Was Pres Clinton supposed to IGNORE the presence of
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:16 PM
Jun 2016

the current Attorney General and she him? That only would have spurred speculation that AG Lynch might try to indict Hillary out of spite for being ignored. I mean, really!

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
23. Fiction depends on willing suspension of disbelief rather than critical thinking
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:31 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think non-parsimonious additions are particularly helpful.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
33. He should not have approached her and she should not have talked to him.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:04 PM
Jun 2016

Her professional ethics as a prosecutor forbid her from talking to someone closely connected with a criminal investigation occurring under her. She must avoid even the appearance of impropriety in addition to actual impropriety. The FBI is the investigative unit of the Justice Department of which Ms. Lynch is the head, and the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Sec. Clinton as per the remarks of James Comey, the head of the FBI appointed by Pres. Obama.

AG Lynch is a very professional individual, and she would not take it as a snub if Bill's plane had left before hers landed. In fact, I suspect that she would be quite relieved if Bill had left, because if Bill weren't there she would not have found herself in an ethical "pickle" presented by Bill's visit.

All of this may sound strange to you, but as a temporarily retired lawyer and a good friend of a prosecutor for 10 years, it is absolutely clear to me. Bill put AG Lynch in a difficult position, and no one in the legal community would think that AG Lynch would attempt to indict Hillary because of a perceived snub by Bill. In fact, indicting for spite would be considered gross ethical violation and might result in the suspension or loss of AG Lynch's law license. I'm sure Ms. Lynch wouldn't want to end her excellent career like that.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
48. Are you with the FBI? Are you with the DOJ?
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 11:11 PM
Jun 2016

Are you an attorney?

Are you claiming that the FBI is not conducting any investigation into Hillary's e-mail situation?

Are claiming that Mr. Comey was wrong when he said that the FBI did not do security reviews?

Please state your claim directly and clearly.

 

TheDebbieDee

(11,119 posts)
66. AG Lynch works at the discretion of the current President, Barack Obama...
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:10 AM
Jul 2016

Get real... It doesn't take Pres Bill Clinton to get AG Lynch to drop any potential case against Hillary Clinton. All it takes is Pres O to say, "Drop this case or you're gone!"

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
90. Yes, and if he had done that, she should have resigned.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:38 PM
Jul 2016

She hasn't resigned, and there have been no leaks that he has told her to do so.

The poster below has mentioned the "Saturday Night Massacre" in which Nixon tried to maniuplate the justice department. First the ag resigned, and others below resigned as well. Finally someone deeper in the depth agreed to do Nixon's bidding. I'm really not giving it justice, but I encourage you to do some googling. It was part of what brought Nixon down.

Off to dinner. Have a good evening.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
85. There is an ethical rule about not talking to the opposing
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jul 2016

party if they are represented. Talk to the lawyer instead.

Prosecutor could discuss things with an unrepresented party and they'd have been warned they had a right to a lawyer and remain silent.

And they may not have talked about the case at all.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
84. +1
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:16 PM
Jul 2016

We have a winner. You gotta know that's how it would be interpreted. Or they'd find some other nonissue to blow up.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
38. Hillary and her campaign staff are probably roasting him over the coals.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:25 PM
Jun 2016

I'm serious. Bill really stepped in it here. I think that he's lost a few steps, and I don't think that we'll be seeing him in public until she accepts the nomination at the convention, when he'll appear onstage with Chelsea and her husband.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
20. There's often more to a conversation than the conversation.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:24 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't doubt Lynch told the truth about the conversation.

But direct conversation can dangerous and the possible move that could be played in that situation really doesn't need to involve conversation.

It's probably an advantage for a defendant to have a prosecutor who has seen the pictures of your grandchildren. I'd bet damned few defendants are in that position.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
37. That's why prosecutors are not supposed to be palling around with
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:23 PM
Jun 2016

those under criminal investigation or their spouses. This is basic prosecutorial ethics, and Bill should have known that. It is also important for judges and prosecutors to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. AG Lynch should have had her assistants tell Bill that a visit was not appropriate and refused him access to her plane or she herself should have sent him on his way before he entered the plane.

He really put her in a bad position.

 

giftedgirl77

(4,713 posts)
22. Wow, saw this same thing posted on Facebook by one
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:30 PM
Jun 2016

of my Trump loving friends. The source was Fox, great source you have. 😂😂😂

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
32. I agree.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:02 PM
Jun 2016

It seems she had no forewarning that Bill was coming to speak with her. I think if she had, she would have declined.

ram2008

(1,238 posts)
39. Well she should recuse herself...
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:32 PM
Jun 2016

Having a meeting with the spouse of a candidate who is under investigation, who just happens to be a former president, on a private plane isn't really the best optics.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
86. nothing wrong with talking to the spouse of anybody
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:21 PM
Jul 2016

a prosecutor is not forbidden to speak with anyone "under investigation."

They represent the state like the cops. Is if a conflict of interest for the cops to talk to anyone they are investigating ?

As long as they are not under arrest, they don't even have to give Miranda warnings.

This seems to sound good to Clinton bashers and so they run with it without informing themselves of much.

 

BlueNoMatterWho

(880 posts)
40. Former AG Michael Mukasey has now called for her to recuse herself as well.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:43 PM
Jun 2016

But he's a Bushie. So there's that...

Kingofalldems

(39,176 posts)
42. A lot of Bushies and Trumpies around. Some very close.
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:46 PM
Jun 2016

Here's a clue: No real Democrat cares what a Bushie or Trumpie thinks or says.

still_one

(95,852 posts)
56. Thought the counting is still going on, Hillary will take California
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:09 AM
Jul 2016

The remaining ballots left to count confirm that

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
50. I don't understand why she would recuse herself now
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 11:34 PM
Jun 2016

There has been no recommendation yet. However, if there was an indictment recommendation, and the AG agrees to follow through, I should think she has plenty of reasons to recuse herself. This is a biggy though.

 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
55. Bernstein has been trashing Hillary Clinton for months
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:07 AM
Jul 2016

He's hardly a card-carrying member of the "Clinton supporting media."

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
67. Maybe the Indictment Fairy visited him not long ago. The guy seems to have issues.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:15 AM
Jul 2016

He's been wrong and irrelevant so much lately and yet he still thinks fake scandals can bring down Clinton.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
73. for all the intelligence Bill C. is supposed to have, he has shown time and again to be entirely
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 04:54 PM
Jul 2016

devoid of 'street smarts'.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
87. he does have them
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:23 PM
Jul 2016

that's why he knows it's not a problem. Don't let the media sway you before finding out more.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
76. That was undoubtedly the motive for his "impromptu" gab fest on the tarmac.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 05:35 PM
Jul 2016

"Coincidentally" of course.

 

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)
89. Not an issue. She is having nothing to do with the final decision.
Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:30 PM
Jul 2016

Bill can't stop being human just because his wife is running for President. It was a thoughtless action but Bill Clinton has always been the guy who sees a friend and wants to speak and be everybody's friend. It was a stupid thing to do and it caught Loretta of-guard and in the middle.

Be outraged about this but I just think there are more important things to be outraged about.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Carl Bernstein just said ...