So Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton just happen to run into each other. Golly gee! But I bet no one told you that they met in a plane on the tarmac that neither one of them used to get there. Now that’s quite a set up for you.
And they didn’t talk about any of that political stuff, just the grand kids and golf. Hey I got a bridge to sell you if you believe that.
This is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both have said that the system is rigged. If Hillary is not charged with some offense for her E-Mail shennanigans, that will be true for sure.
A reminder that we have already posted an article on this subject: https://lexingtonlibertarian.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/brazen-effort-to-undermine-u-s-law/
J. Christian Adams Tells Us Why Lynch Met with Clinton — and What It Means
RUSH: You bet. I wanted to talk to you today about the meeting that everybody else is talking about between the attorney general and Bill Clinton that happened in Phoenix earlier in the week. You have a column today in the New York Post. And before I get into the details, did you conclude, finish, and post this column before the news that the attorney general has said that she’s going to accept whatever the FBI and career prosecutors decide to do in this? Did you post your piece before that decision by her?
ADAMS: Indeed, it originally ran in PJ Media and the Post picked it up today.
RUSH: Okay, good. I wanted to ask you about this new development because what you originally write I found fascinating in and of itself. You say that many people would not believe that Lynch and Clinton only discussed grandkids and golf in her jet. But that you would because that’s all they would need to discuss because your theory is that the summit here was to send a signal both to the FBI with Lynch and Clinton getting together, no matter what they said, just the fact that they got together was, as you write, a signal to all of the hardworking FBI agents who have the goods on Hillary that the attorney general meeting Clinton makes it clear what team she’s on, and that’s not the side of justice.
She’s on the Democrat Party team, and it’s an unspoken message from her to all the FBI agents on the case, all the front line lawyers at DOJ, that when you send your recommendations to refer Hillary’s case to the grand jury, you better realize your burden to convince me, Lynch, is higher than you thought. These people are my friends and I’m willing to risk any appearance of impropriety to send that message to you. So you wrote that, and I think it’s an insightful comment, but what would you say now since you posted that before the attorney general said that she’s going to basically accept whatever recommendations Comey and career prosecutors, which I think is a key point I want to ask you about, decide to do?
ADAMS: Yeah, ’cause those career prosecutors are still going to be at the Justice Department seeking promotions in the future, living under the Regime. And so that’s exactly right. They don’t need to have a discussion about whether or not his wife is going to be indicted. They aren’t that stupid. They know how the bureaucracy works. I was in the bureaucracy. I know how it works. And career DOJ lawyers don’t want to fight their superiors. They don’t want to put up a battle to indict Hillary when it looks like the fix is in. And so the ministerial state can read the tea leaves, the bureaucrats can read the tea leaves and know that they’ll have a fight on their hands if they try to indict. It’s even bigger than the fight they thought they had in the first place.
RUSH: So you attach no substance to the attorney general suggesting that she is going to accept whatever recommendations the FBI submits, and this falls way short of a recusal. A lot of people are mistaking this for a quasi-recusal, but it’s not, is it?
ADAMS: No. And it’s even more brilliant than that. These people are so devious and smart. The worst thing you want is Lynch to recuse herself. Republicans who are calling for that are making a big mistake because then autopilot kicks in. All of the left-wing tendencies of the bureaucracy become unattached from the political winds. And so you want Lynch now, who’s under the gun, to be the one to be making this decision because the bureaucrats under her aren’t gonna indict Hillary. They might be working for Hillary shortly. Lynch will be gone, but they’ll still be working for a potential Hillary administration.
RUSH: So let’s go back to the meeting in Phoenix. What we know is what we doubt, that it was spontaneous, that Bill Clinton heard that Loretta Lynch was landing while he was on his way out and said, “Hey, you know what, I want to go say hi and discuss grandkids,” even though she doesn’t have any and he doesn’t have very many. The question, they’re not fools, Christian. They knew. They had to know this was gonna get out. They probably wanted this to get out. So who benefits from all of this attention to this meeting and all this speculation from pundits left and right all over the media, who benefits from this?
ADAMS: Hillary does. I mean, look, first of all, Bill Clinton is almost always up to no good when he gets on a plane to meet a woman.
RUSH: (laughing) By the way, folks, if you just tuned in, we’re talking to J. Christian Adams who used to work in the Justice Department, now is at PJ Media, has a Public Interest Legal Foundation that he runs. I wanted you to know who it is that just said that, ’cause that’s brilliant.
ADAMS: Yeah. And so there’s always mischief afoot when Bill’s going on planes to meet women. And so, look, he might be a witness. This was a situation where there was a home brew server with classified information in his basement. I mean, he may have talked to the tech people. There’s all sorts of evidence that this man might have in this criminal investigation. So for him to pal around with the attorney general in charge of the investigation helps kill the investigation. And so it benefits Hillary to have the story out there and to have all the line attorneys, all of the career prosecutors, all of the FBI agents know that their target is palling around with their boss.
RUSH: All right. Now, he’s also, though, in addition to this email problem, isn’t DOJ supposedly investigating the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, in which case he would be more than a witness; he could end up being, I don’t know if you’d officially call him a target or not, but there are two things here that they’re looking at: Hillary’s email server and the security aspects of that, illegality of that, plus the Clinton Crime Family Foundation they’re looking into.
ADAMS: That’s right. Look, I call it in my piece the carnival-style atmosphere of the Clintons. They’re always up to some sort of shenanigan, and now they’re meeting with the Obama-style lawlessness of administering justice, and it’s just a toxic mixture between the two of them. And he indeed is the beneficiary for sure of this Clinton Foundation. He lives large off of the Clinton Foundation. His family lives large. They travel large. Lord knows the places he goes with the money from the Clinton Foundation. So there’s a broad ranging investigation. Loretta Lynch shouldn’t get one a hundred feet of him, much less pal with him on the plane.
RUSH: Let me pose another possibility here. I’m throwing things up against the wall and seeing if they stick. That’s why I wanted you here, to see if any of this has any possibility or any relevance. ‘Cause I find this whole thing fascinating, Christian. I mean, here they have the meeting on Tuesday. We don’t learn about it until essentially yesterday because of one local affiliate in Phoenix who got tipped off by a source. This guy’s a morning anchor. The guy that revealed this at the ABC affiliate in Phoenix is a morning anchor.
He gets a phone call from a buddy that he trusts, and he gets a second source. The second source does not know the first source. Somebody had to tell the sources. Nobody else knew that Clinton and Lynch were meeting. Now, everybody’s going nuts here from the standpoint that they think Clinton has screwed up. They think Clinton and Lynch have screwed up. That seems to be even the commentary from the left, people like Axelrod (paraphrasing), “I don’t think anything went wrong, but it’s really bad optics.”
You’ve got a bunch of leftists in the media wringing their hands over this. But these people are not fools. They wouldn’t do this if it was genuinely going to harm anybody. I don’t know that they’re that arrogant. Well, I know they’re arrogant, but, you know, for 20 years, Christian, people on the right have been waiting for Bill Clinton to step in it. We’ve put bags manure in front of him every step of the way and he never steps in it. But how many times have we thought that he has, or Hillary?
So the question again, who benefits? But the second thing that I want to throw out at you is the timing of this. Is it possible that she already knows what Comey’s recommendation is gonna be? And, if so, what are the odds that Comey, the director of the FBI, is gonna recommend, “Nothing to see here, no action. Further, we’ve got nothing to do, no indictment.” Is all of that possible?
ADAMS: Yeah, that’s the real fascinating question. You have to have an appreciation for the internal dynamics, how things work inside Justice. And, you know, it is an inconceivable that Comey wasn’t giving intermittent reports about the status of the investigation. They’re always gonna want to take direction from the people who might end up prosecuting this case. Assistant US attorneys and other criminal attorneys in the Justice Department are intimately involved with FBI agents in any investigation. There’s always back-and-forth.
So it’s inconceivable to me that there wasn’t some level of information moving between Comey and Lynch and then Lynch, you know, she might roll her eyes at some point. It could be as simple as that, that they didn’t like where something was going, and it doesn’t even take a memo or a comment, or, as some people say, a bag of cash on the tarmac at Sky Harbor. It doesn’t require that. There’s more subtle ways to move policy inside the Department of Justice.
RUSH: So as a caller speculated here yesterday — and that’s all anybody’s doing — you think it highly unlikely that Bill Clinton would actually arrange this meeting, get on that airplane with her, and talk about how there are gonna be Supreme Court vacancies after Hillary’s elected, and remember, Loretta, I appointed you to the Eastern District. You don’t think anything like that would have to transpire or did?
ADAMS: No chance. These are far more sophisticated people that know how to move policy without sounding like, you know, some idiot in some rural county buying votes with pork rinds. I mean, this is high-level stuff. And the mere visit, the mere relationship, the fact that they knew her Gulfstream was there and they rolled over to talk to her, that’s all it takes to put the level of influence on her.
RUSH: Right. And the fact that she would take the meeting. Put yourself in her shoes. You’re the AG, and you’ve got a former president that’s running around doing whatever he does. His wife is being investigated by your FBI director, and he calls and wants to meet with you. What do you do?
ADAMS: Well, I can tell you people like Michael Mukasey would have said it wouldn’t be appropriate at this time. You know, previous attorneys general, both Democrat and Republican, would have never taken that meeting. They would have operated with an air of integrity, and integrity is in short supply in this administration.
RUSH: Right. But she did, and my point is, they both knew this was gonna happen. Listening to you, it’s almost as though this is what they wanted to happen because the beneficiary of all this is Hillary. Would you agree with the proposition that if she’s indicted, it could benefit her much as Clinton being pursued by Ken Starr ended up making him more popular even within the Democrat Party because the party rallied around him against this evil sex pervert trying to put him out of office. Would you say the same thing could happen to Hillary if there actually is an indictment, that the party would rally around her? Bernie Sanders supporters would forget their anger and join up with her just in solidarity?
ADAMS: Yeah, I wrote that in my PJ Media piece, that people forget, the Clinton fiasco in the nineties actually helped him and made him more popular. And there’s data on this, Rush. There’s polling data that shows incomprehensibly the Democrats would still support her even if she was facing criminal charges for allowing foreign agents and foreign governments to obtain classified information off her home computer. That’s how rotted the Democratic constituency has become.
RUSH: I keep trying to tell people that the Democrat Party, seemingly overnight, has gone all radical, all-in. I mean, there aren’t any Bob Strausses left in this party anymore.
My theory is that we’re being played. That there’s no way, given the construct of the modern-day Democrat Party that anybody there is going to sit idly by and let their party presidential nominee, particularly Hillary Clinton, be indicted and then possibly convicted and then possibly go to jail. It just isn’t gonna happen. And my theory is we’re being played because it’s happened before. They get us all excited, “This may be the one. This may be the time we finally get ’em,” and they skate again, and everybody just gives up. We can’t win, they want you thinking. We can’t win, it’s hopeless, they’ve just got us outnumbered, they’ve got us outsmarted, and we can’t win. That’s how I think we’re being played.
Chris Stirewalt at Fox News thinks the purpose of the meeting was to eventually get an independent counsel appointed. His theory is that they are so close to an indictment that Comey’s got the goods and everybody knows it. There’s been enough. You got credible people on our side like Joe diGenova, the goods are there, she’s guilty as sin. And a lot of people think that. A lot of people are asking, why hasn’t it happened before? What are they waiting so long for? We’ve got the goods. I mean, that’s been leaked. That’s been put in the public domain sufficiently well enough that a whole lot of people think — I mean, even at one point in the Democrat debate Jorge Ramos of Univision asked her if she would resign from the campaign if she were indicted. She laughed and cackled.
So the possibility is out there. Stirewalt’s theory is that the meeting took place specifically for the purpose of creating the appearance of impropriety, which would then soil the investigation, requiring the appointment of an independent counsel, which would take the investigation back to day one, would start all over, another two years, no way could there be an indictment or anything damaging to Mrs. Clinton before the election. That’s another popular theory that’s out there.
There are other theories, such as Loretta Lynch knows full well Hillary’s guilty, Comey’s told her, there’s no doubt about it, she’s pulled herself out of this so as to avoid being tainted by it. In other words, she’s a Democrat attorney general, she doesn’t want her career in the Democrat Party hampered by appearing to taint any kind of an outcome. So she pulls out of it so that whatever happens has no fingerprints of hers on it. That theory is out there.
I got a note from Andy McCarthy. He heard the conversation I had with J. Christian Adams, and he agrees with most of it, but he has one slight difference of opinion, and that is over her recusal. Andy was in the DOJ, as you all know by now. He was an actual prosecutor in the US attorney’s office Southern District of New York, which is Manhattan. He prosecuted the blind sheik, as you all know by now.
He said that he thinks that Loretta Lynch should recuse herself simply because the rules require it. Ethics, rules, which to general law-and-order people mean something. She has violated enough now that she should recuse herself. The investigation is tainted by virtue of her meeting with Bill Clinton. The fact that it’s been discovered, that the only course of action for her as an ethical member of the court, ethical member of law and order, Department of Justice, whatever, is to recuse herself.
Where he disagreed with Christian Adams was in this sense: He doesn’t think that conservatives should want her not to recuse herself. J. Christian Adams said that we don’t want her to recuse herself because that will confound things politically for us. Andy thinks that she should recuse herself, there’s no two ways about it because ethics and the law demand it, the rules just demand it. No matter how you feel about it, she has to recuse herself like a judge would.
That’s a good comparison. Imagine that this case is already proceeded and she’s the judge and Clinton meets with her. There wouldn’t be any question about that. She would have to recuse herself. If she met with the husband of the accused who’s also involved with the email aspect ’cause the server was also in his basement. So Andy’s point is that we as conservatives should want her to recuse herself because that’s the rules, the rules require it.
I mentioned here at the conclusion of the previous hour, her spokesman, Loretta Lynch’s spokesman has told Bloomberg that she is maintaining the right to overrule the career prosecutors and the FBI. So this kind of negates her statement earlier that got everybody all hopped up and excited. Mark Halperin is the source for this via a tweet. “Key clarification from DOJ official re: what Loretta Lynch plans to say today,” and it differs greatly from the New York Times lead.
“From a senior DOJ official, Attorney General Lynch reserves the right to overrule the recommendation of career prosecutors and/or the FBI in the Hillary Clinton email probe.” This DOJ official says the probability she would overrule is very, very low, but it is not zero.
So the news is that she will not recuse, despite the firestorm, saying that she will treat this case like other cases, showing deference but reserving the right to overrule is not new. It’s what Lynch, like her predecessors, does on almost all cases. So with this tweet from the spokesman of the DOJ, you can forget the fact that Loretta Lynch has said that she is standing aside and will accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and the FBI. That’s meaningless.
So almost a half day of the news cycle has been wasted on something that isn’t news, because she is saying, according to her spokesman, that she’s reserving the right to overrule whatever decision is handed down, comes from the FBI. So we’re back to square one in terms of trying to figure all this out and translate it and analyze it.
The point about career prosecutors being in the tank for Hillary and Loretta Lynch and being a thorn in the FBI’s side, by the way, this is a very, very important point. And when I first saw this today, red flags went up everywhere because her original statement was she was going to stand aside, not recuse. She was going to accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and the FBI.
Well, what if they’re not the same? What if the FBI, what if Comey presents his investigation and it is to indict. What if Comey says. “I’ve got evidence here that’s so solid we’re gonna get a conviction without hardly any doubt whatsoever.” What if the career prosecutors don’t see it that way? It said career prosecutors and the FBI, not or. That means the career prosecutors have to agree with what the FBI submits, just as she would. She’s simply said that she was deferring to the decision on whatever the FBI presents to the career prosecutors.
Well, the point about that is that career prosecutors are not gonna be on the side of the FBI. Career prosecutors, these are people that are there no matter what party is in power. They’re not political appointees. These are prosecutors that are there for however long they want to say. And by “career,” it’s meant that they’re not appointed by incoming administrations. They survive as long as they want to, ’til they get fired, ’til they resign, what have you.
But the career prosecutors would no doubt do what they thought the attorney general would do or wants to do because, like anybody else in any other office, how do you advance? How do you get a raise? How do you brownnose? How do you get gold stars? You do it by agreeing with the boss. You show the boss that you’re on her side. You show the boss that she can count on you. You may be a career prosecutor, but it doesn’t mean that Lynch and Obama can’t fire you if they don’t like the work you’re doing.
So the presumption is that the career prosecutors are not gonna look at this any differently than Loretta Lynch would, which is another reason why it’s no big deal for her, in my opinion, to take herself out of the equation. She’s not gonna turn this over to people without knowing what they’re gonna do. No sane lawyer ever does anything like that, either with a witness, being granted immunity, or testifying. You know what they’re gonna say before you put ’em up there. You don’t ask them the question ’til you know what they’re gonna say, usually having already said it under oath in a deposition, in many cases.
So back in May, you remember they stopped the FBI from questioning Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary’s emails to the State Department. The actual collection of these 60,000 emails on Hillary’s server, to present those to the State Department, because, by definition, they didn’t have them. She had her own server. This is when Hillary went through them herself, she said, and 30,000 of them were irrelevant. They were personal. They had to do with yoga class and Chelsea’s wedding and whatever else. And the other 30,000, that was serious stuff and she sent it over to the DOJ.
And you’ll recall that even after that we keep learning they discover 14 more here that were not presented, another two over here, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, if you recall. Well, they called in the Cheryl Mills and other people from Hillary’s office to testify about this process. Well, maybe not testify. But it was an interview. They talked to Mrs. Carlos Danger, Huma Weiner. Well, if you recall back in May, the career prosecutors shut down the FBI questioning of Cheryl Mills about the procedure used to produce Hillary’s emails.
And if you recall the DOJ lawyers made up a preposterous attorney-client privilege argument to stop the FBI from asking some of the most important questions that Mills was in a position to answer, such as, what did Hillary provide and save and what did she destroy? Okay, she said the 30,000 were not relevant; well, what was in those 30,000? They shut down the questioning, these career prosecutors. The career prosecutors have already shown their hand, which is why I think all of this is a giant game. It is so classically part of the Clinton handbook on dealing with your enemies.
I’m just gonna tell you that I have a slight divergence of opinion on the Stirewalt theory, that the meeting out there took place in order to get the process started of appointing an independent counsel.
She wouldn’t have to do this to appoint an independent counsel. She could do that any time she wanted. And she wouldn’t have to taint her reputation to do it. This meeting with Clinton on the jet in Phoenix has, within certain circles, questioned her ethics. You got the appearance of impropriety here. It’s being talked about all over the place. We have her now explaining what she’s doing. There’s a level-of-doubt that has now arisen. None of that was necessary. If she wants to appoint an independent counsel, she can do it any time she wants for whatever reason, any number of believable reasons, too.
And then, folks, there’s another aspect of this. Did they want this meeting to be discovered or not? Remember, if it weren’t for that ABC affiliate out in Phoenix and the morning drive anchor getting a phone call from a source, nobody would know this had happened. Unless one of the FBI agents or Secret Service leaks it, nobody would know it happened. If they wanted this meeting to happen, there were a bunch of easier ways to get the news out that it had.