General Discussion

JudyM

(29,785 posts)

87. It is about Hillary at some level but the ethical lapse was Bill's fault and Lynch's responsibility

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:59 PM

Jul 2016

to avoid.

And FWIW, even if you yourself "buy the bridge" that the case was not discussed, a 30 minute convo about other social niceties is still viewed as an improper attempt to influence, because he is one of the most powerful men in the world, don't you see how that works?

There is a legal ethical standard for a reason. Even if you believe nothing wrong "happened" it was still a serious legal ethics lapse on Lynch's part... This is not a witch hunt standard, there are established boundaries in our legal system to prevent influence in decisionmaking. These exist outside of these particular circumstances and there has been a breach.

Even if nothing was discussed, the established standard is that a decision maker must "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." This is taught to every law student and is part of her role requirement. So it's not just about whether anything actually happened or not. Maybe you are not looking at that. Ask any lawyer who is neutral on the matter, you will get the same answer. This is a bright line violation.

Maybe it would be easier to see if tRump had a case she was going to decide whether to prosecute and he jumped aboard her plane...?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did Bill Clinton use bad judgement? [View all] kentuck Jul 2016 OP

Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing. joshcryer Jul 2016 #1

Bill didn't need to barge in on the AG for that to happen. morningfog Jul 2016 #4

Yes he did Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #2

The AG did nothing wrong. She had no idea until she saw him step on. morningfog Jul 2016 #3

Maybe not but she should have Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #9

Who knows what happened. She may have tried, she may have cut off hi morningfog Jul 2016 #11

Even she did not say that Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #15

No, if you read her statement understanding she is a career attorney, morningfog Jul 2016 #20

She did say they discussed other things Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #22

Wonder what course he played? B2G Jul 2016 #36

He didn't have any campaign events on the calendar for that day. morningfog Jul 2016 #37

He attended �Latino Leaders Roundtable" on Monday B2G Jul 2016 #50

It was a 30 minute private meeting. You think she tried to kick him off the plane? JudyM Jul 2016 #75

I find it insulting to my intelligence that either Clinton or Lynch would come up with such a stupid monmouth4 Jul 2016 #5

I know. What an awkward place for such a ho-hum social visit. At taxpayer expense. n/t yodermon Jul 2016 #7

No, what an awkard place to discuss the Emails investigation. There are plenty of easier places and OnDoutside Jul 2016 #14

And you know emails were discussed how? DonViejo Jul 2016 #29

RTFP ! I'm saying IF they were going to talk about the email case, there are a lot of easier places OnDoutside Jul 2016 #93

Ah okay; thanks for the clarification and apologies DonViejo Jul 2016 #98

No problem. OnDoutside Jul 2016 #102

Wow. Jumping the gun there, OnDoutside? You're assuming way too much. BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #59

Seriously? It was 30 minutes. Lynch is the only person who could hand his wife the JudyM Jul 2016 #77

That poster believes the server/e-mail witch hunt was discussed. Ergo, he believes the Republican BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #80

So you actually think it is more likely that nothing was mentioned about the FBI cases? JudyM Jul 2016 #82

I actually believe that, yes, until evidence surfaces to prove otherwise. I guess I subscribe to the BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #84

It is about Hillary at some level but the ethical lapse was Bill's fault and Lynch's responsibility JudyM Jul 2016 #87

This is ALL about Hillary, and no matter how you choose to twist it, fact remains that *she* will BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #96

No, actually the point is that there should not be a double standard, and that is exactly what JudyM Jul 2016 #99

In fairness, Hillary Clinton's integrity is not in question over this incident. Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #86

Oh. but it is. The implication is there since this is about her emails/server. So to say this won't BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #88

Yes, but this incident is about a highly improper meeting - NOT any misconduct. Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #91

We both know that, Yo_Mama, but we also both know the penchant of her enemies to create non-scandals BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #92

RTFP ! I'm saying IF they were going to talk about the email case, there are a lot of easier places OnDoutside Jul 2016 #95

Perhaps you need to reread your own post. You said nothing about "going to talk about". You clearly BlueCaliDem Jul 2016 #97

No, it's your inference. I was replying to yodermon who said OnDoutside Jul 2016 #104

And suppose, perhaps, she has been, appropriately, avoiding his calls? JudyM Jul 2016 #78

Indeed so Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #10

...!100++++ 840high Jul 2016 #100

Bill? No. He's got nothing to lose in that. HereSince1628 Jul 2016 #6

it was a poor choice on Pres Clintons' part. irisblue Jul 2016 #8

He has been privileged Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #12

Loud plane engines and the uber rich bubble. fasttense Jul 2016 #61

no, but they underestimated a news hungry media and a dumb populace. nt La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2016 #13

In one simple answer "no". DocJ Jul 2016 #16

Both of them should have known better. n/t demmiblue Jul 2016 #17

Every day jehop61 Jul 2016 #18

It was not in sight of reporters or publicly. morningfog Jul 2016 #21

So jehop61 Jul 2016 #28

I don't think they wanted to "deal." Certainly Lynch did not. morningfog Jul 2016 #31

yes, and now lynch is set to announce that she'll accept whatever the FBI recommends liberalla Jul 2016 #19

As it should be.... humbled_opinion Jul 2016 #23

Law of unintended consequences. gordianot Jul 2016 #27

Why ... GeorgeGist Jul 2016 #52

When handling poisonous snakes expect to get bit. gordianot Jul 2016 #24

seems legit ! stonecutter357 Jul 2016 #25

OMG!!! They are friends. Bill is friends with everyone. Lynch is a professional. There is no way, Laser102 Jul 2016 #26

Then why is she giving in yeoman6987 Jul 2016 #35

I can see how the importance of Bill Clinton's golf game and grandkids outweighs the impropriety raindaddy Jul 2016 #41

yes. eom Betty Karlson Jul 2016 #30

pretty damn stupid....BOTH should have known better dembotoz Jul 2016 #32

YEP Cosmocat Jul 2016 #40

What evil plot can be hatched in 30 min? Motley13 Jul 2016 #33

No. BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #34

Gawd I am sick of smelling bullshit! lonestarnot Jul 2016 #38

No. Darb Jul 2016 #39

Yes Cosmocat Jul 2016 #42

Dumbass move oswaldactedalone Jul 2016 #45

There is no way deaniac21 Jul 2016 #43

I know that judges elljay Jul 2016 #44

From the headline I figured this was a followup to electioneering in polling places in MA. AtheistCrusader Jul 2016 #46

Poor judgment, poor timing Boomer Jul 2016 #47

I voted for Bill both terms - for Hillary last time and will this time. Of course, Bill used bad patricia92243 Jul 2016 #48

Bill knew exactly what he was doing and the response to it Jarqui Jul 2016 #49

I think you've got it B2G Jul 2016 #51

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #67

+1, I was sitting here thinking why okieinpain Jul 2016 #54

+1 n/t Matrosov Jul 2016 #72

Cenk Uygur says the same here that Bill was trying to make sure that Hillary can run out the clock: cpwm17 Jul 2016 #111

Yes tallahasseedem Jul 2016 #53

Yes. AngryOldDem Jul 2016 #55

Did he have his bullhorn with him? jalan48 Jul 2016 #56

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #57

Of course it's bad judgment. Baitball Blogger Jul 2016 #58

Depends on whether you think violating the principle of "Caesar's Wife..." malthaussen Jul 2016 #60

Big Dawg better reign it in flamingdem Jul 2016 #62

Bill Clinton has made too many unforced errors, and The Hillary campaign has had to clean up after h apcalc Jul 2016 #63

This message was self-deleted by its author redstatebluegirl Jul 2016 #64

Why did you use that "leading" subject line when the linked opinion piece opined that outright? George II Jul 2016 #65

My guess is that the OP was worried about having the post banned AntiBank Jul 2016 #70

If I were Hillary I would be furious too - I don't think this helps her at all. Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #90

Please...he knew exactly what he was doing. The only question remaining is how long before NorthCarolina Jul 2016 #66

I looked up the meaning of "bad judgement" in the dictionary RoccoR5955 Jul 2016 #68

Horse Manure Gman Jul 2016 #69

The writer of this article is a right winger. spooky3 Jul 2016 #71

that link is weak sauce. In one the stories linked Callan defends Hillary AntiBank Jul 2016 #94

That's your interpretation of the one story. And I notice you didn't comment on the others, in which spooky3 Jul 2016 #103

In 2 of the 4 links Callan is defending Clinton. AntiBank Jul 2016 #106

OPTICS OPTICS OPTICS What the hell were they thinking? UMTerp01 Jul 2016 #73

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #74

Bad judgment? HassleCat Jul 2016 #76

Ha! modestybl Jul 2016 #79

No- the Attorney General did Lee-Lee Jul 2016 #81

Yes Politicalboi Jul 2016 #83

Yes, but he may not have thought of it until it became public. Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #85

I've heard some speculation that he really does not want Hillary to be pres. loyalsister Jul 2016 #105

I don't think that's the case. I think he is emotionally involved and sometimes makes bad Yo_Mama Jul 2016 #107

Person to person talk = no recording of conversation. karadax Jul 2016 #89

When? SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2016 #101

This is such a stupid accusation I can't believe, even in today's idiocy in the media. napi21 Jul 2016 #108

yes, Bill is an idiot to sabotage his wifes campaign Demonaut Jul 2016 #109

A lot of wild thoughts, Bill Clinton had confidence in Loretta Lynch when he was president Thinkingabout Jul 2016 #110