dag hammarsjkold wrote:You can not expect me to believe that Bill Clinton boarded the AG's plane simply to say hi. He is the most calculating politician alive today. What a disgrace. And what an awful position to put Loretta in. This family is simply above the law. The law of the land does not apply to the Clintons which reminds me of an old football chant....

They do what they want,
They do what they want,
Bill and Hillary,
They do what they want!

freeman3 wrote:Just a little psychological pressure on not just Lynch but anyone in the Justice Department who comes out on the wrong side of this issue. I put it at about 95 percent of this on Bill and 5% on Kynch because she is a little bit of a political neophyte. I seriously doubt that anything remotely substantive was discussed but that wasn't the point. Neither was it just bad optics. A message--the precise meaning was ambiguous--but a message was nonetheless subtly conveyed. I'm Bill Clinton, ex-president , Hillary is going to be president. You really want to be on the wrong side of this. Probably would not be good for your career. None of it is said of course--it is subtle and deniable since nothing is said. Not sure the press has it quite right.

You can not expect me to believe that Bill Clinton boarded the AG's plane simply to say hi. He is the most calculating politician alive today

rickyp wrote:dag

You can not expect me to believe that Bill Clinton boarded the AG's plane simply to say hi. He is the most calculating politician alive today

Have you seen the guy in person lately? He's a shadow of his former self. Still pretty cool, but a little detached from the world, offering less and less in his responses every time he says something. His health issues seem to have affected him.

The optics of the situation are horrible. However, the optics of any government or government agency investigating itself is always difficult. As long as Lynch provides the FBI recommendations for review by Repubicans (sic) in Congress, or perhaps for the public at large, transparancy (sic) can be achieved. And that is what is necessary.

Menwhile (sic) Trump was accused of rape . Again.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/d ... rt-lawsuit

Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

“Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile,” said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author of a book on the Epstein case called "TrafficKing." “Why would a former president associate with a man like that?”

freeman3 wrote:You know, I didn't realize that Bill Clinton appointed Lynch to be US attorney. Bill Clinton had one of those "you owe me" meetings with Governor Brown before Brown endorsed Hillary in California. So I would guess the silent message was more to remind Lynch who started her on the path to the AG's office (you owe me) than anything else.

Transparency or justice?

When Donald Trump said last Thursday he was forgiving over $45 million in personal loans he made to his campaign, the announcement drew plenty of coverage. Many even reported Trump's statement as if the deal was done.

But it's not.

At the time the story was published this morning, the FEC showed no filing from the Trump Campaign forgiving the loan. An FEC official also told NBC News this week that there was no digital or paper filing from the Trump Campaign forgiving the loan. And the campaign has repeatedly declined requests to share the legal paperwork required to execute the transaction.

What kind of transparency is there when they talk for 30 minutes and no one is permitted to record anything?

rickyp wrote:fate

Transparency or justice?

What does this mean?

With the email investigation, a non-political entity, greatly respected by the public (The FBI) is conducting an investigation. There is no evidence that this investigation has been interfered with by the AG or anyone else in public office. Until there is its all just innuendo and conspiracy theories.
Lynch can demonstrate her impartiality by being transparent with the FBI report and recommendation.

Meanwhile she's running against an unsavory con artist who has even lied about forgiving his campaign "loans".

When Donald Trump said last Thursday he was forgiving over $45 million in personal loans he made to his campaign, the announcement drew plenty of coverage. Many even reported Trump's statement as if the deal was done.

But it's not.

At the time the story was published this morning, the FEC showed no filing from the Trump Campaign forgiving the loan. An FEC official also told NBC News this week that there was no digital or paper filing from the Trump Campaign forgiving the loan. And the campaign has repeatedly declined requests to share the legal paperwork required to execute the transaction.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... se-n601596

fate

What kind of transparency is there when they talk for 30 minutes and no one is permitted to record anything?

Bill should never have met her in private.... But the meeting hardly matters if Lynch accepts the FBI recommendation as written.

She should recuse herself or accept whatever the FBI recommends. Period. Full stop

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest.

So what? She's taking foreign money.

rickyp wrote:fate

She should recuse herself or accept whatever the FBI recommends. Period. Full stop

Your news sources don't keep you current do they?

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she expects to accept the recommendations of prosecutors and FBI investigators on whether to bring charges after their probe into Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail server, while acknowledging that her meeting on Monday with Bill Clinton “cast a shadow” on the inquiry.
At the same time, Lynch seemed to contradict her own suggestion that she would automatically accept the findings of career prosecutors when she said the Clinton e-mail case would be “handled like any other.” Earlier Friday, a top Justice Department official told Bloomberg that Lynch would reserve her right to overrule prosecutors’ recommendation -- an option attorneys general typically possess, but rarely use, in criminal cases.

fate

So what? She's taking foreign money.

Foreign contributions to her campaign? Where are hearing this?

At the same time, Lynch seemed to contradict her own suggestion that she would automatically accept the findings of career prosecutors when she said the Clinton e-mail case would be “handled like any other.”

Earlier Friday, a top Justice Department official told Bloomberg that Lynch would reserve her right to overrule prosecutors’ recommendation -- an option attorneys general typically possess, but rarely use, in criminal cases.

But she emphasized that she wouldn’t recuse herself from her role in reviewing and acting on prosecutors’ findings.
“A recusal would mean that I wouldn’t even be briefed on what the findings were, or what the actions going forward would be,” Lynch said. “While I don’t have a role in those findings and coming up with those findings or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I’ll be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations.

The Clinton Foundation took many millions from countries her State Department had business with.

rickyp wrote:Fate

At the same time, Lynch seemed to contradict her own suggestion that she would automatically accept the findings of career prosecutors when she said the Clinton e-mail case would be “handled like any other.”

Earlier Friday, a top Justice Department official told Bloomberg that Lynch would reserve her right to overrule prosecutors’ recommendation -- an option attorneys general typically possess, but rarely use, in criminal cases.

But she emphasized that she wouldn’t recuse herself from her role in reviewing and acting on prosecutors’ findings.
“A recusal would mean that I wouldn’t even be briefed on what the findings were, or what the actions going forward would be,” Lynch said. “While I don’t have a role in those findings and coming up with those findings or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I’ll be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations.

”
Bloomberg is making distinctions that don't seem to make a difference.
It will come down to what Lynch actually does. Surely you conspiracy theorists are willing to wait a week or two?

Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest.

Fate

The Clinton Foundation took many millions from countries her State Department had business with.

The Clinton Foundation is a highly regarded> Hillary is not the Clinton Foundation. Nor, is there any evidence what so ever that contributions to the Clinton Foundation had any effect whatsoever on decisions at State or elsewhere.... I don't doubt that some of the donations had the hope of influencing Clinton.... That doesn't mean they had any effect whatsoever. Innuendo and conspiracy theories .... don't match the facts ... See below.. (You'll see much of the innuendo noted comes from Donald Trump. He of the birther BS. Surely you understand the level to which you have to sink to agree with that con?)

The charity has taken initial steps toward regaining a rating by Charity Navigator, a major charity watchdog that assesses over 8,000 organizations on a scale of zero to four stars.
The Clinton Foundation, headed by former President Bill Clinton, indicated on May 10 that it is interested in receiving a rating and is looking into whether it can provide the needed financial information, CNNMoney has learned.
"If Charity Navigator determines it's possible to rate us, we'd welcome it because we're extremely proud that our programs have improved the lives of millions of people around the world," The Clinton Foundation confirmed to CNNMoney in a statement. "We are working with them to understand and provide the information they need."
Charity Navigator says it evaluates a charity's financial health, transparency and reporting results. "It's the equivalent of having a Moody's rating in the financial world," said Charity Navigator's CEO Michael Thatcher. A high rating "is a recognition of a well-run organization."
It last rated the Clinton Foundation in 2014 and stopped because the Foundation changed its reporting structure. At the time, Charity Navigator said the foundation was operating with an "atypical business model." http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/12/news/ec ... navigator/

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

That was less than two months ago. And, there is reason for concern about its worthiness:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation

Here’s what the Charity Navigator site actually states:
Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.
The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.
She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)
“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”
Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity.