Lynch meets Clinton right before JD files motion to withold Clinton Foundation emails

[Stacyrect]

This is the fun circular reasoning part. When you don't have any actual evidence you just create it out of nowhere because "well they're suspicious people, so obviously they were doing wrong!"

- - - Updated - - -



Sounds like you have some proof you'd like to share.

Proof? How about invoking some common sense. How many people do you know meet up in airports on private planes to talk about their grand children? I hear ignoring every form of communication is all the rage for the wealthy when discussing mundane things.

[Orlong]

LOL we do?

Oh you mean in the insane, conspiracy-theory-ridden right blogosphere. Gotcha.

Yeah, that crazy right wing blogoshpere like NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and HuffPost

[NYC17]

Proof? How about invoking some common sense. How many people do you know meet up in airports on private planes to talk about their grand children? I hear ignoring every form of communication is all the rage for the wealthy when discussing mundane things.

Just to highlight this, you posted with incredulity when asked for proof of something .

"Proof? Are you kidding me? Why the fuck do I need that when I have my suspicions???"

Fuck this election.

[Spectral]

You are obviously not reading right, I never said that. I am talking about the right wing turning every single impropriety into a vast democratic conspiracy. It's one thing to point out failure, short comings and mistakes but that's not how they are all being portrayed.

When you're categorizing things like having meetings with attorney generals and putting servers in your bathroom as "mistakes", you're just being flatly disingenuous. A mistake is when I forget to buy coffee. A deliberate action that takes a significant amount of effort isn't a "mistake" or a "shortcoming" - it's blatant corruption.

[Nynax]

I'm no right-wing conspiracy guy.

But it is exactly this kind of behavior from the Clintons that makes her seem so untrustworthy, whether she actually is or not. It's like the voting scandal in NYC during the primaries, or the $500,000 speeches that she wont tell the public what they are about, and yes the emails... combined with never seeming to change her stance on something until it is "safe" to do so (raises questions of integrity) it all just gives off this slimy feeling you can't quite place. There may be no proof for outright distrust, but theres lots of examples where she doesn't act like a trustworthy political figure.

[Stacyrect]

Just to highlight this, you posted with incredulity when asked for proof of something .

"Proof? Are you kidding me? Why the fuck so I need that when I have my suspicions???"

Fuck this election.

This one time I left my daughter alone in the living room for a few minutes while I was taking a shower. When I came back the dogs had crayola marker all over them. I suspected my daughter did something but I didn't have any proof.

"Proof? Are you kidding me? Why the fuck so I need that when I have my suspicions???"

Fuck this election

[Ghostpanther]

I'm no right-wing conspiracy guy.

But it is exactly this kind of behavior from the Clintons that makes her seem so untrustworthy, whether she actually is or not. It's like the voting scandal in NYC during the primaries, or the $500,000 speeches that she wont tell the public what they are about, and yes the emails... combined with never seeming to change her stance on something until it is "safe" to do so (raises questions of integrity) it all just gives off this slimy feeling you can't quite place. There may be no proof for outright distrust, but theres lots of examples where she doesn't act like a trustworthy political figure.

Because she isn't. And perfectly explains her high disapproval rating. You can fool some of the people sometimes, but not all the people all the time. :P

[NYC17]

This one time I left my daughter alone in the living room for a few minutes while I was taking a shower. When I came back the dogs had crayola marker all over them. I suspected my daughter did something but I didn't have any proof.

"Proof? Are you kidding me? Why the fuck so I need that when I have my suspicions???"

Fuck this election

This is not a 1:1 comparison. To use a correct comparison, there is no marker on any dog that you can see. In this situation you'd be creating the marker in your mind because "you just believe it so hard!!", and attributing blame to your daughter based on the idea that if there actually had been marker on your dog, it's her fault. That'd be a pretty weird thing for you to do, along with making you a shitty parent. Now, since you haven't actually done that your parental skills obviously aren't shitty, but you seem quite happy with your analytical skills being somewhere south of dogshit.

That's how comparisons work

[Utinil]

To people saying it really was just a chance encounter, you don't stay on the tarmac for a chance encounter. There are a lot of problems with this.

[Sunseeker]

Well a communications with the Clinton Foundation wouldn't be a national security issue, there's no reason to disclose them.

If you were being investigated about your dogs, what purpose would talking about your goldfish do?

[Stacyrect]

This is not a 1:1 comparison. To use a correct comparison, there is no marker on any dog that you can see. In this situation you'd be creating the marker in your mind because "you just believe it so hard!!", and attributing blame to your daughter based on the idea that if there actually had been marker on your dog, it's her fault. That'd be a pretty weird thing for you to do, along with making you a shitty parent. Now, since you haven't actually done that your parental skills obviously aren't shitty, but you seem quite happy with your analytical skills being somewhere south of dogshit.

That's how comparisons work

My my my, how aggressive we become when we are challenged. Being the little ray of sunshine you are, you must be a real pleasure to live with. Can just imagine how all the conversations in your house go, the walls in your house must love you.

Technically, in this comparison the marker on the dog is the meeting with AG lynch as it is a "conflict of interests" considering his wife's practices are being investigated by the FBI, the justice department itself and whom AG Lynch is the "ultimate deciding factor".

Sounds like your parents didn't teach you about personal responsibility and right from wrong.

[Tomservo]

If Clinton and Lynch only talked about grandkids, Hitler sent the Jews to summer camp to make macaroni pictures.

[Wildtree]

Oh look, the conspiracy fans on it again..

FFS, if there was something to be secret about, then it would have happened in secrecy..
What is it guys? Tell me.
Are the Clintons the masterminds that are able to amass a huge wealth through shady connections with the regimes of this planet, without EVER being caught for any severe crime. Smart enough to disguise themselves for decades, to remove themselves from the hammer of the law?
Well, if it is that, then why would such meeting happen in front of everyone?
There is a plethora of ways to meet someone without anyone else ever becoming aware of it.
There was no super secret thing going on.
Now, with that said...
I am not getting very smart out of the incident.
I'm torn.
Either Bill has a blond moment and didn't realize how this isn't appropriate to do. Which makes it a very dumb move, for a diplomat.
Or, he's a fucking genius.
One thing's sure, the event dragged the entire investigation crap into the forefront and might as well cause a speed up, that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
It would sure be a genius move to get things settled once and for all, without interfering through other, not so legal ways.

I really don't know which one of the two it was.

[Stacyrect]

Oh look, the conspiracy fans on it again..

FFS, if there was something to be secret about, then it would have happened in secrecy..
What is it guys? Tell me.
Are the Clintons the masterminds that are able to amass a huge wealth through shady connections with the regimes of this planet, without EVER being caught for any severe crime. Smart enough to disguise themselves for decades, to remove themselves from the hammer of the law?
Well, if it is that, then why would such meeting happen in front of everyone?
There is a plethora of ways to meet someone without anyone else ever becoming aware of it.
There was no super secret thing going on.
Now, with that said...
I am not getting very smart out of the incident.
I'm torn.
Either Bill has a blond moment and didn't realize how this isn't appropriate to do. Which makes it a very dumb move, for a diplomat.
Or, he's a fucking genius.
One thing's sure, the event dragged the entire investigation crap into the forefront and might as well cause a speed up, that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
It would sure be a genius move to get things settled once and for all, without interfering through other, not so legal ways.

I really don't know which one of the two it was.

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

[NYC17]

My my my, how aggressive we become when we are challenged. Being the little ray of sunshine you are, you must be a real pleasure to live with. Can just imagine how all the conversations in your house go, the walls in your house must love you.

Technically, in this comparison the marker on the dog is the meeting with AG lynch as it is a "conflict of interests" considering his wife's practices are being investigated by the FBI, the justice department itself and whom AG Lynch is the "ultimate deciding factor".

Sounds like your parents didn't teach you about personal responsibility and right from wrong.

There's no aggression. You made a shit comparison and it was pointed out to you.

Since you seem intent on continuing with that, the marker on the dog would be some sort of improper discussion regarding the FBI investigation. You're assuming it happened. You created the discussion in your head.

Perhaps if you knew the difference between what you fabricate in your mind, and what you actually know happens, you'd rate a sunnier disposition on my part.

For now I think I'll stick to letting you draw conclusions about things based on your vast..."knowledge".

[Dr Assbandit]

It's funny seeing the left go bonkers with hyperbole whenever Trump does something silly when it should be expected of him by now as his modus operandi is obvious.

It's equally funny seeing the right trying so desperately to pin something on Clinton in the hope that something sticks while excusing literally everything Trump says or does in the most imaginative ways possible.

I don't have nearly enough popcorn for this election.

[Wildtree]

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

What does that have to do with anything?

Fact, ever since the Lewinsky incident, there's a mission going on to get Bill. This expanded over time onto her, Hillary. If we can't get him, let's see if we can get her at least.
That's over 2 decades of scrutiny and surveillance. If your name is Clinton, you cannot take a shit in a public restroom without the public knowing about it. Without any conspiracy popping up, whether the janitor was bribed to hand out cozy toilet paper others won't get.
That is a fucking fact. The Clinton's are under observation for every damn move they make.

If you think that given those factual circumstances, either Clinton would not use their undoubtedly existing arsenal of tools to have a private meeting/conversation with someone like Lynch, and instead does it without even trying to hide anything at all, if you think that, you're a world class idiot in my books.

[Stacyrect]

There's no aggression. You made a shit comparison and it was pointed out to you.

Since you seem intent on continuing with that, the marker on the dog would be some sort of improper discussion regarding the FBI investigation. You're assuming it happened. You created the discussion in your head.

Perhaps if you knew the difference between what you fabricate in your mind, and what you actually know happens, you'd rate a sunnier disposition on my part.

For now I think I'll stick to letting you draw conclusions about things based on your vast..."knowledge".

Pretty sure the therapist that would help you with that anger issue would disagree. But, anywho..

In the real world if a prosecutor knows someone or has associations with people who know someone who was under investigation they would recuse themselves as that relationship would jeopardize any investigation/proceeding. It is hands down law 101 unethical.

While at first glance the meeting might look like something of chance however clinton waited for Lynch. Clinton's plane was scheduled to leave before the arrival of lynch. A host of special concessions are made to transport both of these people. Their was no airport enforced delay, clintons motorcade arrived at the airport where his plane was ready for take off almost an hour before lynchs arrival.

Considering the busy schedule of both parties, todays technology of easy communication, the hassle in shutting down multiple air lanes at an airport, to simply have a discussion about travel, golf, and grandchildren seems pretty far fetched to me.

[Wildtree]

P
While at first glance the meeting might look like something of chance however clinton waited for Lynch. Clinton's plane was scheduled to leave before the arrival of lynch. A host of special concessions are made to transport both of these people. Their was no airport enforced delay, clintons motorcade arrived at the airport where his plane was ready for take off almost an hour before lynchs arrival.

The only source for that nonsense is
Observer.com.
Who owns that? Jared Kushner..... Who is that? Ivanka Trump's husband.

[Stacyrect]

The only source for that nonsense is
Observer.com.
Who owns that? Jared Kushner..... Who is that? Ivanka Trump's husband.

Try every major news network. Do you have any source that has proof otherwise?