Author Topic: The Clinton-Lynch Meeting: Corruption, Not Bad ‘Optics’  (Read 348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 386,127
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/437374/print

 The Clinton-Lynch Meeting: Corruption, Not Bad ‘Optics’
The Democrats who are groaning don’t do justice to why this is wrong.
By David Harsanyi — July 1, 2016

Attorney General Loretta Lynch tells us that her meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private jet on the Phoenix-airport tarmac was “primarily social” — you know, just two Democrats swapping stories about their grandkids and whatnot.

The nation’s top law-enforcement official and the former president and husband of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee — who is under federal investigation — had a talk. Rather than conceding that such a private encounter is at the very least a conflict of interest, Democrats preemptively complained about the “optics.” Senator Chris Coons (D., Del.), for instance, told CNN that Lynch “should have steered clear” and that the meeting “sends the wrong signal.”

What signal is that? Do Coons and every other politician groaning about the optics of the meeting understand that they’re arguing for Lynch to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation? As Senator John Cornyn (R., Tex.) — who’s been pushing for a special counsel for a while — pointed out, there is a clear ethical duty for attorneys general to recuse themselves at the mere appearance of a lack of impartiality — a standard that this little meeting clearly meets.

As stated in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, “The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality.”

Acknowledging that the meeting was bad “optics” is a way for Democrats to intimate that while some rubes might get the wrong idea, there’s really nothing unethical about it. But they can’t know that’s true, can they? One of the parties involved is Bill Clinton, who has already been impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. The other is Lynch, who has politicized virtually every major case under her watch.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, tweeted: “I take @LorettaLynch & @BillClinton at their word that their convo in Phoenix didn’t touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.” And it’s Axelrod’s prerogative to take the two at their word. “All I can say is Loretta Lynch is one of the most outstanding human beings I’ve ever known,” Senator Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told reporters. “Her ethics are above reproach. No one could ever question her strong feelings about the rule of law, and her ethics are the best.”

Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) added: “So, you have two choices, to say this didn’t matter, or she is lying. I think it didn’t matter.”

Lynch might be Mother Teresa for all we know, but we still have ethical codes for a reason. Any truly impartial attorney general would have said to the former president, “Why don’t we table this meeting until after the high-profile, politically charged criminal investigation of your wife is over?” Would that really have been so difficult?

more
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34