Bill C. meets Loretta L. at the airport.. stop the presses!!!

[Peacetrain]

Of all the stupid stuff to get head up about..this one has got to be in the top ten.. Oh yeah.. in a public airport.. God give me strength..

[Press Virginia]

1. Actually it was on her plane

and it just looks bad.
She probably didn't want to be rude but....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. it only looks bad if you buy hook, line, and sinker into the completely unsubstantiated insinuations

that the media has been running with.

two democrats chatted with each other. moreover, they probably have also run into each other at parties, democratic fundraiser, democratic events of other kinds etc.

[morningfog]

5. No, it looks bad without insinuations. It wasn't happenstance, Bill sought out the meeting.

I don't think anything nefarious happened, but this is unforced error, giving unnecessary fodder.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. it's not an unforced error. Waiting to say hi to someone important in the party, is normal behavior

[morningfog]

8. That's not what happened. Bill sought her out, requested access to her on the plane.

Unforced error.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. he knew she was going to be there, he waited to say hi and came into her plane to do so

if at any point this was unethical, the AG could have just said NO, obviously no one thought it was controversial till the media on a slow news day made it so. and some people who always happy to join the anti-clinton bandwagon jumped on it.

[Press Virginia]

12. Judge in a trial over a cop shooting a black teen gets seen playing golf

with the police chief...not illegal but it would raise questions

Appearances matter

[99th_Monkey]

19. +10

[amandabeech]

94. It would be even worse if the judge were gulfing with the cop's spouse.

If found out, the judge would have to recuse him or herself from that case, and if the trial were ongoing, the defense would move for a mistrial. The judge might be admonished by the bar at the very least, and it would be an issue at re-election if applicable.

Same thing if you substitute "prosecutor" for "judge."

Not good.

[morningfog]

14. Unethical? No evidence of that. Bad optics? Most definitely.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. Precisely right... it surely was a dumb move.

[scscholar]

26. "AG could have just said NO,"

And, the AG is the final authority on this matter. She can do whatever she wants. By definition, she did nothing wrong.

[morningfog]

34. She apparently didn't even know he was coming onto the plane until he entered.

Further, the AG is not infallible. But I don't fault her at all. This is all on Bill. Bad move on his part.

[amandabeech]

98. The AG is subject to the ethical rules of her bar associations and of the DOJ.

She is required by those rules to avoid both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. This gives the appearance of impropriety, and she doesn't make the call on herself.

Bill surprised her and he put her in a bad position, but she should have had one of her aides politely turn him away, or she should have done so herself, politely, with witnesses outside the plane. And she knows it, but I'm wondering if Bill understands. He's lost a few steps.

[JudyM]

32. It is inappropriate by legal ethical standards. The fact that she may not abide by those standards

does not make it ok. Same as Scalia (may he not rest in peace)... He completely ignored legal ethical rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. Are you a legal ethicist?

[JudyM]

43. That would be an academic, and I am not an academic.

However, this is my field.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. So no, right ?

[JudyM]

81. I am a specialist in this field, as I said. If you want to call it something else, feel free.

[amandabeech]

101. I'm a retired attorney and I'm with you 100%. n/t

[JudyM]

133. Yep. Technically, it's her behavior that's the clearer problem, in not immediately walking him back

to the door of the plane and shaking his hand goodbye. A 30 minute private meeting is beyond the pale, even if they actually didn't reference the investigations. And they both know it.

Isn't it stunning how our government's culture has evolved to accept outright ethical violations with a wink and a nod? Judicial branch, legislative branch and executive branch... the bar has been lowered so much in our lifetimes, integrity doesn't seem to matter. No one is being held accountable, not Shub/Cheney/Scalia, not the corporations that support the government (with "donations," not with taxes!), no one. As a lawyer, it has just been especially disheartening to witness the decay, right?

[amandabeech]

137. I am completely and thorougly disgusted, just like you.

People make fun of Carter, but he was ethical, and eveyone since has had problems.

This is how people lose complete confidence in their government.

This what turns legitimate governments into tinpot dictatorships.

And very few people seem to care.

Glad to meet a kindred soul!

[JudyM]

154. Yes, kindred souls, always appreciate that in a person!

Kinda cold out there.

[amandabeech]

161. Yes it is!

[panader0]

152. Wow! Go Bill!

30 minutes seems like a long time to talk about the grandkids.

[JudyM]

155. Unles you're "bonding" about it.

[Hekate]

49. Oh dear gods. He "sought her out." Was she willing? Did he ply her with liquor? Oh the evil!

Bring me my fainting couch and my smelling salts!

[morningfog]

73. Sorry if the facts get you worked up.

[Press Virginia]

9. a private meeting isn't the same as a public conversation at a party.

It's not that she engaged in wrong doing but she gives the appearance of wrong doing with this.

She's the one that makes the decision on indictments, should they be rec'd by the FBI, meeting with the husband of the possible target of that indictment....it just doesn't look good.

It's a nothing story but it does project an appearance

[floriduck]

13. Agree.

[Svafa]

16. When you do stuff like this, you're just setting yourself up for an attack from your opponents.

It's just not a smart move.

[Press Virginia]

18. Yep. Appearances matter.

[jberryhill]

57. Is Bill Clinton under some kind of investigation?

[Press Virginia]

60. we're going to pretend there's not an investigation that may or may not be targeting his wife?

It was bad judgement.

[jberryhill]

63. So what?

How many degrees of familial relationship are involved here?

Do you know that Bill Clinton appointed her as a federal prosecutor in the first place? Is that a conflict?

[Press Virginia]

65. Some would say yes. I think she just should have declined the meeting to avoid

anyone questioning her ability to be impartial. Especially given the prior relationship.

[jberryhill]

66. "some" would say anything

"Some" will vote for Trump.

"Some" would say the government put radios in their dental fillings.

There is a longstanding pre-existing relationship which pre-dates her current office.

[Press Virginia]

67. Yes. And that relationship is the reason to avoid things like this

it just looks bad.

[amandabeech]

108. AG Lynch has formal ethical requirements as set forth by any bar association

of which she is a member and by the DOJ itself. This gives the appearance of impropriety, and she should have avoided.

I'm a retired lawyer who clerked for a federal judge and has known some prosecutors.

Bill put her in a bad position, but she made a mistake. The most she could have said, and IN PUBLIC, is hello and best wishes to your new grandson and good bye.

[jberryhill]

129. Nonsense

Bill Clinton is not under investigation and they have a pre-existing relationship. Secondly, a state bar, and a state "bar association" are two different things, which most of my colleagues in the profession understand. It is not even a requirement of practice to be a "member" of a "bar association" in order to be admitted to the bar. Again, most actual attorneys are aware of that distinction.

The role of USAG is complex, since the USAG serves at the pleasure of the President, is a cabinet level officer, and yet the DoJ more broadly conducts investigations of activities within the executive branch all of the time. None of that prevents the USAG from associating with others in the administration or with colleagues with whom the USAG has a pre-existing relationship.

Bill Clinton was not involved in either Secretary Clinton's duties as SoS nor in how she chose to conduct her communications. As noted previously, she was appointed as an AG by Bill Clinton, so you might as well claim "conflict" right there.

Our legal system does not include spouses as subjects of investigation by some kind of induction. If you believe otherwise, please let me know the degree of relationship you believe AG Lynch is prohibited from communicating with on a social basis.

[amandabeech]

148. My opinion, and I am a real lawyer admitted in two states, although retired.

You are right about the bar association, but the bar association in many states, including the ones in which I am admitted, play a major in setting and enforcing legal ethics. We are writing for non-lawyers here. What I have written about the nature of ethics rules you have not challenged. You can throw up dust, but that doesn't change the ethical rules themselves.

The DOJ does conduct investigations, but there is no way that an attorney working for the DOJ itself or with FBI, which is under the DOJ, would be palling around with the government employees that they are investigating. If they did pall around and someone found out, they would be transferred from the case and perhaps forced out altogether. No supervising attorney would want someone like that on a team. No way. The same goes for the AG herself. If she investigates a fellow cabinet member she's not going to be palling around with her. It would be a total conflict of interest.

Bill Clinton appointed Ms. Lynch to be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York back in the late 1990s, and I'm sure that she has met Bill and Hillary a number of times. But the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation received subpoenas last autumn. It was reported in the New York Times. Consequently, Bill has a real interest in the outcome of the investigation and prosecution that might result. He might be a witness to the Clinton Foundation matters, and since the server was in his home and the person in New York who took care of the server was paid by the Clinton Foundation, he would be a witness in any trial involving the e-mails.

I had the honor of clerking for a federal district judge when I first started out. He was respected by everyone as being extremely ethical. He expected his clerks to follow his lead, and tried very hard to do so. He lectured his clerks regularly about avoiding the appearance of impropriety and impressed on us the need to watch what we did outside the court room and chambers as much or more than what we did inside. The ethical rules, as I recall, are similar for federal prosecutors and federal judges. My judge passed away about 8 years ago, so I can't call him up and ask him what he thinks. But I think I know the answer. It would be a lecture on why what Ms. Lynch did was wrong because it gave the appearance of impropriety, and my judge had been an active Democrat and the US attorney for his district before he was appointed to the bench.

In summary, I could not disagree with you more completely, and I stand by my posts.

[pnwmom]

159. What official, non-Republican source says that the FBI is investigating

the Clinton Foundation?

[amandabeech]

160. Last autumn the NYT reported that the Clinton Foundation

had received FBI subpoenas to produce documents. That is not a good sign.

[pnwmom]

162. The only NYT report I saw was attributed to an anonymous source.

What named source, not a Republican, did you read about? I haven't found any such reports at the NYTimes or through google.

[amandabeech]

163. Sorry. It was the Washington Post in February, referring to subpoenas

issued in the fall of 2015. Here's the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

[JudyM]

156. You are simply incorrect. If your friends think what she did was ethically ok they need to retake

their legal ethics training.

[morningfog]

79. He's not, as far as we know.

But the use of the server in his home is the subject of a criminal investigation. By the way, did he use that server? If so, that's even closer.

I don't think Lynch did anything wrong, she had no idea he was coming. I don't see any legal ethic rule that Bill violated either. Just bad optics and a dumb unforced error. That is unless he really needed to talk to her about the grandchildren.

[George II]

118. The use of the server in his home is NOT the "subject of a criminal investigation"!!!

[amandabeech]

115. The FBI, which is a part of the Department of Justice, is investigation

a possible criminal charge for Hillary. This was confirmed by James Comey, the head of the FBI who was appointed by Pres. Obama.

The investigation may have spread to the Clinton Foundation, and yes, Bill himself. The question there is whether or not Hillary handed out favors at the State Department in exchange for money paid to the Foundation or to Bill himself in speaking fees and other remuneration.

In further news, the DOJ wants to delay for 27 months producing 30,000 or so e-mails sent by Hillary's aides to the Foundation and to a pr consulting firm connected to Bill and to Houma Abedin. That Wed. pm, and the timing looks bad.

[George II]

123. It only "looks bad" to people who want it to look bad. Over the years I've run into a lot....

....of famous people at airports and taxi lines.

I once shared a cab from LaGuardia to Manhattan with Martina Navratilova.

I once was on the same plane as the New York Islanders from New York to Chicago, and another with Chris Berman (ESPN) from Chicago to Hartford.

And so it goes. No one thought there were any ulterior motives behind those or other chance encounters at airports. Do people REALLY think that Bill Clinton went to the SAME city/airport as Loretta Lynch just so he could talk to her surreptitiously?

[Press Virginia]

153. No, it looks bad to people who understand jobs that require

impartiality and independence and how appearances affect perceptions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. On Morning Joe, Joe said ...

when he was in Congress, if a similar situation cropped up, he would have had 12 staffer screaming, "Not a good idea!"

I wonder how many of those 12 screamed prior to the dead intern incident?

[NWCorona]

7. What's your take on the two meeting?

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. I have no opinion.

[NWCorona]

17. Ok nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. I tend not to speculate about stuff. That's called gossipping/rumor-mongering. ...

and nothing good comes of it.

[NWCorona]

22. This site would be very boring without the stuff you mentioned lol

I respect Loretta a lot but this doesn't look appropriate. I'm not gonna say the sky is falling but still...

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. LOL ...

This site would be very boring without the stuff you mentioned lol

Agreed ... but, alas, anymore, that is what most of this site has become.

[JudyM]

29. Is there any other reason he would have to meet with her? He hasn't been in office for years.

It is IMO a breach of legal ethics on her part since DOJ has already notified a court that Inspectors General are preparing a referral to DOJ concerning his wife's use of her personal server, as well as his foundation being investigated.

[NWCorona]

35. The only thing that I can think of that would have the best outcome for Loretta

Is if she was letting him know that a special prosecutor has been selected or will be.

I also think that would be the best case scenario for Clinton as well. If she is cleared. Having a special prosecutor in place would nullify a lot of the outrage.

[EffieBlack]

151. If Bill Clinton and the AG wanted to discuss anything inappropriate, they have numerous ways and

means to do it far away from any public scrutiny. The notion that Clinton went to a large airport to have a nefarious and unethical meeting with Loretta Lynch in full view of the public and press is ludicrous.

As was noted earlier, Lynch may be AG, but she is also a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President and whom Bill Clinton appointed to the bench during his administration. They are probably friends and surely have plenty to talk about that has nothing to do with the investigation.

I think folks are just looking for things to get worked up over.

[NWCorona]

158. " I think folks are just looking for things to get worked up over."

Well there is an election going on and the political junkies are out.

That said. No matter how you slice it, its not a good look for either of them. Especially given the timing.

[MohRokTah]

55. Link?

Nah, I didn't think you could back that one up.

[JudyM]

69. Take a look below ... backed up, dear. By DOJ itself. Apparently you've missed it every time

it has been posted on DU. Feel free to do so again, but facts are facts.

[MohRokTah]

70. Nope, not a fact. Does not come up on any Google search

Link or it ain't so.

[JudyM]

71. Put on yer glasses. The link is right there.

Here's the post with the link, hand-served to you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2228857

[JudyM]

68. This has been reported many times in this forum, but here you are...

See page 6 of this DOJ filing in court that states as support for withholding info in that court proceeding:

The FBI has stated publicly that it ... “is
working on a referral [from] Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.”

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2813379/FBI-response-to-Leopold-motion-for-redacted.txt

A "referral" (a case prepared for DOJ to prosecute) in connection with her use of her server. The Inspectors General are the State Dept and the Intelligence Community. That is about as clear as it can be.

(Note to jury if this is alerted on: please see that this is a report of an actual court filing by DOJ, in response to a question about whether such a status statement was in fact made by DOJ).

[MohRokTah]

72. Nope, that is not an actual DOJ fiing.

That is a text file on a blog site that has no basis in reality. It references no real DOJ filing that can be found on a real government site.

Link to the actual DOJ filing or this is a completely bogus claim.

Seriously, dude, if you think I'm going to buy a text file from Jason "24 Business Hours" Leopold as the actual text of a DOJ filing, you must think I would buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

[JudyM]

75. Nuts. It's a court filing, like it or not. I'm not here to convince anyone who rejects reality.

Why don't you contact the clerk of court and report back, if that's the level of proof you need.

[leveymg]

80. Discussed this a couple months ago. Depends upon how

one defines "referral". The question boils down to whether this was an acknowledgement by Justice that a criminal investigation targeting HRC is actually underway or whether this simply says that the IGs referred their findings a year ago for a more general follow up by the Bureau.

I don't think they want us to know the answer to that until the Intel Community IG and the Bureau Director actually get around to releasing their public reports. Now would be the time.

[JudyM]

83. Now *would* be the time.

[morningfog]

86. Judge Sullivan referred to it as a criminal investigation.

[MohRokTah]

90. You made the assertion, you are under the burden of proof.

Link a court site or Leopold fabricated the document over 24 business hours.

[JudyM]

95. Ha, that's crazy. Not interested in wasting time since I believe it; it's consistent with what's

happening. Feel free to prove he fabricated it -- easy enough by calling the clerk of court.

[leveymg]

167. I believe the document is genuine. On the other hand, its language is ambiguous on a couple points

Here's a more complete excerpt of that page of the gov't's court filing: Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 12

It is the defendant's (government's) filing, as the title page shows: DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a
pending investigation. Id. ¶ 18. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and “is
working on a referral (from) Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.” Id. ¶ 15 (quoting Oversight of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 32
(2015) (statement of FBI Director James Comey)). However, “(b)eyond Director
Comey’s acknowledgment of the security referral from the Inspectors General of the
Intelligence Community and the Department of State, the FBI has not and cannot publicly
acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation
without adversely affecting the investigation.” Id.

It can be characterized either way.

[morningfog]

85. That is a public filing by the DOJ's office. It's real.

But the poster misinterpreted the quote. What it repeats is only what has been publicly stated: that the FBI is conducting an investigation into the subject at issue and that the FBI received referrals to investigate from two inspectors general, one from a intelligence agency and one from state.

The filing also says they filed an in camera ex parte explanation for why they cannot comply.

[MohRokTah]

89. I still do not buy it is real

It is a text file posted by Jason Leopold. Given his history, it could have been edited any number of ways or even fabricated in whole.

I will only trust it if a link is provided to an actual government site with the document.

[morningfog]

91. Lol. It's real. The DOJ does not publish its filings in cases

for which it is a party on some website.

It's a publicly accessible document filed in a federal case signed by Assistant AGs. You may not like it, but it is real.

[MohRokTah]

93. Jason Leopold published this document

It cannot be trusted.

[morningfog]

100. Leopold is the plaintiff. It's a court filed document.

the DOJ drafted, signed and filed it in a publicly accessible database.

It makes no difference whatsoever if you choose to disbelieve a simple fact.

[MohRokTah]

103. Then link to the document in that database

The poster linked to a text file on a non-government site.

That cannot be trusted.

[morningfog]

109. Lol.

Go here: pacer.gov

Go to DC District court, enter 15-cv-2117 as the case name, document 12. Probably a fee.

Seriously, you will need another argument, the filing is real.

[MohRokTah]

110. Not buying it

Link or it's phony.

[morningfog]

114. You are obviously not the arbitor of that.

becuase you apparently are unfamiliar with court filings.

You can't "link" to a filing in a federal case. You have to access the pacer database and retrieve it. That is what is meant by "publicly accessible."

[MohRokTah]

119. I am not under the burden of proof here

An assertion was made, a link was requested, and a link to a random text file on a blog's site was claimed as proof, which it is not. Anybody can publish any document on any non-government web site and claim it is anything they desire.

So no, it is an obvious phony prima facie.

[morningfog]

124. Have you ever read a filing in a federal case? You can't link to it.

Here is a link for you where someone with an account downloaded the filing and uploaded as a PDF:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310687347/DOJ-Filing-on-FBI-Investigation

[okasha]

121. If a private citizen is the plaintiff,

this is a civil, not a criminal, case. The state or the federal government is the opposition in a criminal case.

[morningfog]

126. Slow down. This is a DOJ filing in a civil case.

Leopold sued the DOJ for access to public records. The DOJ filed this document to argue why it cannot produce and should not be required to produce the records requested.

The DOJ said that the records are subject to an FBI investigation which could be compromised by disclosure.

[okasha]

130. In other words,

this is not necessarily a criminal investigation, and it tells us nothing we don't already know.

[morningfog]

132. This tells us that the investigation was referred to the FBI by

the Inspectors General in Intelligence and State.

Another federal judge has stated on the record that Pagliano's immunity is subject to a criminal investigation. Not sure if any of that is new to you.

[okasha]

140. None of it is new to anyone who's been paying attention.

Nor is it new that at least two other candidates' only chance of success lies in Hillary being hauled off the political stage in handcuffs.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

[leveymg]

168. Get a Pacer Account. It's in there. You wouldn't believe me, either, even if I reposted it.

I posted the case and document number, above.

[KMOD]

92. They have had a political relationship for over 17 years.

I'm certain the former President considers her as not just a colleague, but as a friend.

I'm also certain that at some point she would speak to the former President regarding the server since the server belonged to him.

Your dislike of Hillary Clinton is causing you bias and leading you to buy into tabloid type conspiracy theories. There is no there, there. Even Trey Gowdy would not propose such nonsense.

[JudyM]

96. If you think for a second that there was no discussion of the investigations I've got a bridge

you might want to buy... get real.

[KMOD]

111. If there was any discussion,

it would be in regards to the fact that it was former President Clinton's server.

This whole investigation is wrapping up. The conclusion is not going to be what you dream it to be.

Silliest non-scandal ever.

[JudyM]

136. Too funny. And you have this special knowledge how?? You were on the plane?

[KMOD]

142. lol

I just use common sense.

But if you want to carry on with a theory that is even kookier than what Trey Gowdy attempts, have at it.

[kacekwl]

78. That's what politics is

gossip and rumor mongering. Bad move .

[politicaljunkie41910]

61. I'll tell you my take on it. I watched the show this morning, and if you checked out the link to

the show in the OP, it showed where Mark Halprin of Bloomberg News (who is no friend of the Clintons) said that the two were very good friends and their friendship went back years. While I think Bill Clinton showed poor judgment, I also believe that nothing nafarious happened on that aircraft parked at the airport of two of the most highly profiled people in the US that couldn't have happened in a private phone conversation that took two minutes and would have been witnessed by no one.

[pnwmom]

164. +1000. n/t

[Lord Magus]

27. Well gee, if Joke Scarborough says so...

[DemFromPittsburgh]

52. But banging his co host is AOK

[Zambero]

58. Was everyone on the plane still alive after their meeting?

If so, then Joe S. should not lose too much sleep, not that he ever has.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

11. They talked about his grandchildren.

[99th_Monkey]

20. And their golf scores too. n/t

[BlueNoMatterWho]

23. And the weather. Probably.

[nolawarlock]

24. I've supported Hillary from day one.

I was concerned by the appearance of Bernie's vatican visit because of the implications of influence involved there. But fair is fair. I think this was one of Bill's more terrible ideas. Even if it was completely innocent, it just looks terrible and gives both the crazy right wingers and those who are still fighting the nominee talking points for months. Bill has certainly helped Hillary's career but this is not one of those instances.

[morningfog]

33. Thanks for being rational. It's just bad optics, fodder for the right and an unforced error.

[nolawarlock]

149. I loved Bill as president.

I don't always love his choices. I very much doubt he jumped on the plane and said, "don't prosecute my wife," but why give her worst critics ammo like this? The ever-varying polls aside, this is her election to lose and it always was. Trump's appeal is waning by the minute. I have the max 5,000 Facebook friends and see all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. A lot of them have battled it out over Hillary versus Bernie. The only ones on that friend's list who support Trump are nearly always in some embattled position among their friends or relatives and half the time are either embarrassed to admit supporting him or they constantly pretend that they didn't know he's spoken against gays or whatever else I've thrown at them. No matter how many times i repeat the same item to them, It's always, "I didn't know he took that position." Now my friend's list isn't a slice of everyone but it does seem pretty indicative of a lot of what I've seen out there. I very much want Hillary to win, but if she screws this up, it's on her. She should step it up and be everything that moron isn't and not give anyone a single reason to doubt her.

[madamesilverspurs]

28. As a former prez

he's still bound to refrain from discussing certain things publicly. So of course they met privately to confer about what's really happening on board the mother ship that's hidden at Area 51 . . .

[NWCorona]

31. ...

[Zen Democrat]

30. According to CNN, he invited himself on her private plane.

According to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter, the former president saw Lynch's plane on the tarmac and walked onto her aircraft. Lynch's FBI security detail did not stop Clinton and he proceeded to initiate an extended conversation that included discussion of grandchildren. Lynch was surprised to see Clinton walking onto her plane, the official said, and no Justice Department business was discussed.
Speaking at a news conference in Phoenix on Tuesday, Lynch confirmed the meeting and denied the two spoke about any matter pending before the Justice Department or the Benghazi probe. She also said the former president "did not raise anything" about an ongoing case or anything of that nature.

Bad bad optics. Why did he need to speak to Lynch so urgently .... about local policing?

[JudyM]

36. Even if only discussing "grandchildren" he is an extremely powerful and connected man with

multiple cases likely coming up before her, and the simple act of visiting her (wink, wink) sent a clear message. This should be on the front pages as it is speaks volumes and is also very likely a breach of legal ethics on her part to not have kicked him off the plane. The only way this is ok now is if she releases an unredacted vid of the entire interaction; um, not likely.

[840high]

37. It is on front pages.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

40. Unfortunately

BREAKING: "Judicial Watch asks Justice Department's Inspector General to investigate airport meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch"

[Kingofalldems]

45. Why are you peddling RW crap here?

Judicial Watch is a right wing Trump supporting organization.

[840high]

56. White House said it's a legitimate question why

they met.

[amandabeech]

122. Unfortunately, this is not right wing crap.

This is a serious breach of legal and prosecutorial ethics put forth by bar associations and the DOJ.

The organizations are right wing, but any organization or individual is entitled to review all government papers including e-mails unless withheld for security reasons or ethical reasons, such as attorney-client and attorney work product privilege. The legislation that gives us all the right is called the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and has been around for some time.

The FOIA allows you as an individual to see your government in action. It is the records equivalent of open meetings laws that state and local governments have. It has been used by both conservatives and liberals over the years.

[zappaman]

38. this is huge!

Went out to dinner last night and EVERYONE was talking about it!!!!

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

41. I think it is nothing, but the ethics code for the Department of Justice...

...say that employees should avoid even giving the appearance that an ethical violation has occurred. This was just a terrible idea all around. If the two wanted to talk briefly they should have just done it out and open in the public.

18 USC §§ 202 – 209; Executive Order 12674 on Principles of Ethical Conduct as amended by EO 12731; Uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635; Department of Justice regulations, 5 CFR Part 3801; Department of Justice regulations, 28 CFR Part 45; Executive branch standards of conduct, 5 USC § 735; and, United States Department of Justice Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct, 14 Principles for Ethical Conduct:

“14. Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.”

5 C.F.R 2635.101 (b)

“An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.”

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

[JudyM]

42. Also this is an apparent breach of legal ethics for her, not just the DOJ ethics code.

[snot]

131. Also, if everything they had to say was so harmless, why couldn't Bill just phone her?

[mcar]

44. Yeah

[Rex]

46. Yeah see, never mind the decades of GOPers meeting at the end of piers.

Why is it when a Dem wants to socialize, they must have some insidious agenda...but when GOPers want to drop a body in a deep river, everything is always peaches?

So what. He meant to talk to her about something and he did. I'll cry more about it when I see even ONE GOPer ever called onto the carpet for...well just about anything.

She wasn't about to kick him off her plane, that would have been stupid. She handled it correctly imo.

[CajunBlazer]

47. Has anyone realized that Bill could have call Loretta at home on the phone ....

....had he wanted to talk to her about the FBI case and no one would have ever known. What a bunch of horse hockey.

What angers me is those pushing the insinuations and acting like, "who me" in attempt get around DU rules.

They should teach lessons on how to disparage the Democratic nominee while pretending not to do so.

[Hekate]

50. +1

[spooky3]

99. Exactly.

[morningfog]

102. Have you realized Lynch would likely not take his call?

[CajunBlazer]

125. Have you considered that yoiu don't know what you are talking about|||?

So she would sit there when he visits her in her plane in broad daylight talking to him for 30 minutes without once saying even saying "look, this doesn't look good" and she wouldn't take her a call from him when no one else would know it was happening? Totally illogical!

Why are you interested in this? Are you suddenly concerned about Hillary after all the crap you threw at her here on DU? Or are you still interested in tearing down the Clintons?

[morningfog]

128. I haven't claimed to. But the same could be said to you, right?

You made an assumption, I offered a counter. You don't need to make it personal, stick with me on the issue. New TOS!

[CajunBlazer]

141. I made a logical assumption. You made an illogical assumption.

Enough said.

[morningfog]

144. No. You made a simple assumption. I offered a response that

showed your simple assumption could easily be erroneous.

[CajunBlazer]

146. Whatever, I only argue with logical people

And those that don't have a long history to trying to tear down the party's nominee and want to continue to fight primary battles after the primaries over.

[morningfog]

147. I have no idea who you are referring to now.

Good luck to you.

[LongtimeAZDem]

135. +1 (nt)

[Quayblue]

170. Seriously smh...

[Kingofalldems]

48. If there was collusion all Clinton had to do was pick up the phone

and call Lynch, not meet her in public.

Only desperate Trump supporters are hyping this nonsense.

[Hekate]

51. +2

[DemonGoddess]

53. +1000!

[840high]

64. From NPR..

A strange thing is uniting Democrats and Republicans in Washington: the widespread disapproval of a meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch speaks at a June 22 news conference in Washington.
Politics
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Met Amid Email Investigation

Lynch told reporters that the impromptu conversation on her government aircraft in Phoenix on Monday centered on social issues, from talk of grandchildren and Clinton's golf game to their recent travels. Nothing came up, the attorney general said, about any ongoing Justice Department investigations.

But the chat took place in the midst of an FBI investigation into the security of Hillary Clinton's private email server, which she used to conduct government business as secretary of state. And that's creating a major appearance problem for the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House and the top federal prosecutor in the country.

[CajunBlazer]

82. Now why would you post this?

I recognize you a Sanders supporter who wrote stuff like "Yeah fuck that economic justice shit!" (And that was one of your nicer posts.) Are you still trying to re-fight the primary battles while pretending to obey the new DU rules. Stop it nobody cares anymore. I certainly don't care what Sanders does or doesn't do. He is a non-factor as far as I'm concerned.

My point, if you weren't able to grasp it, is that Bill Clinton wanted to really talk to the Attorney General about his wife's involvement in an FBI case, all he had to do was call her at home and no one but the two of them would have known about it. He didn't have to board her plane in broad daylight to talk to her, except if he just wanted to pay a polite social visit. Anything else is wild speculation which plays into Republican talking points.

[840high]

157. You have me confused with someone

else. I don't use the F word.

[morningfog]

88. I don't think there is any collision. I respect Lynch as a professional.

To that end, she probably wouldn't take a call from Bill, hence the unannounced visit.

[spooky3]

105. If he talked about anything improper, by your same reasoning.

She would have said, "Bill, I know you mean no harm, but I'm concerned about how this conversation could be perceived. Let's change the subject (or, let's get together after the election, or something else).

[morningfog]

112. Absolutely, that is exactly what I would expect she would say.

I respect Lynch as a professional. I think bill was out of line and what he did looks bad.

[okasha]

127. Or met her in a parking garage st two am.

[snot]

134. Exactly the opposite.

If he phoned her, the NSA and possibly others could get it. If they talk in person in a private place, there's no worry about that.

I'm not reaching any conclusions; just saying the appearances are not worth it, just to say hello.

[coco77]

54. I have always said..

Bill was going to be a problem and this is just the beginning.

[dflprincess]

87. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't deliberately trying to sabotage her campaign

He's not stupid, he had to know this was a dumb stunt.

[oasis]

113. Everybody who is somebody knows the "email fishing expedition" is over.

They act accordingly.

[Lance Bass esquire]

62. Lol day after Benghazi falls apart

Trey Boy Howdy Gowdy is firing off memos to his Clinton gate staff.

We back in business fellas.

Stupid move on Bills part but don't think its the game changer media spoke holes are gloming onto tonight.

[ronnykmarshall]

74. No shit!!

[Iliyah]

77. It does not matter, whatever the Clintons say and do is always a

problem with GOPers and the far left.

Anywho, HRC for the win!

[DemonGoddess]

104. ^^^This!!!

[spooky3]

97. If he were up to no good, wouldn't he be a lot sneakier about it?

Come on--there are so many witnesses at an airport--he's not too stupid to know how to try to communicate with Lynch in a way where he would be unlikely to be detected.

I see Lawrence O'Donnell again indulged his Clinton Hate by making a big deal about this and having guests talk about how inappropriate it was because of how it looked. I wish he would spend this time on trying to dig up actual facts of things that matter, for example, about Trump Institute, the Trump tax returns or other evidence of fraud, etc.

[morningfog]

106. There were no witnesses except maybe Lynch's husband.

Bill entered her plane, unannounced.

He apparently needed to see her face to face, privately for half an hour, appearances be damned.

[spooky3]

107. Sorry, I'm just not buying your interpretation.

If there were not witnesses, there were no "appearances" to worry about.

I'm sick of innuendo. When facts clearly show bad behavior, I'll be more interested.

[morningfog]

116. There is no interpretation. Those are facts.

He entered the plane unannounced and uninvited and spoke to her and her husband for half an hour.

It was a stupid unforced error that shifts the narrative.

[spooky3]

117. Sorry, I'm not buying your interpretation. Have a good evening.

[morningfog]

120. What interpretation?

Do you know what that word means?

[LongtimeAZDem]

138. So what? Lynch described what they talked about. Are you accusing the Attorney General of lying?

If so, do you have a shred of evidence?

If not, then what is your problem?

[morningfog]

143. I am absolutely not accusing Lynch of lying.

I believe exactly what she said. I don't have evidence of anything and haven't claimed anything improper was discussed. Perhaps you are confusing me with another.

My point is simple: it was unnecessary and it looks bad. Unforced error. I take Lynch at her word.

[LongtimeAZDem]

145. Anything Bill Clinton does will look bad to people who want him to look bad (nt)

[pnwmom]

166. Uh-huh. Like having his cell phone dial her cell phone.

Instead of meeting her openly in public. Geez.

[betsuni]

150. I thought Bill met Loretta Lynn at the airport and wondered why the big deal.

Then I realized it was another Loretta but still don't know why the big deal. A Clinton does something human and it turns into yet another episode of The Clinton Evil Conspiracy Theory Show.

[pnwmom]

165. I know. Like he couldn't pick up his phone and call her at home anytime

if he felt like it.

Instead, he greets her openly at the airport. What a way to conspire!

[democrattotheend]

169. It was a stupid thing to do

I doubt anything corrupt actually went down. If he were meeting her to try to influence the investigation he would have been more discrete about it. But tactically, it was just stupid. Now if the FBI clears Hillary there will be more questions about whether the investigation was compromised, and it won't give her a clean slate like it should have. I don't know what Bill Clinton was thinking.

[aikoaiko]

171. It has all the signs of a classic display of power.

When you can board the AGs plane uninvited you are showing that you are more powerful than the AG.

I can't imagine there is another spouse of someone under investigation who could do it.

Its really a classic move that business people use all the time to remind people who is in charge.

Now maybe that wasn't Bill's intention at all, but it definitely could function that way.