Jump to content

Shouldn't Lynch Recuse

baddog

By baddog
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Peppermint Patty
Peppermint Patty

I am white. I would not receive that same privilege.  This is about power and politics, not about race.

team first
team first

Thanks to the Hillary Clinton investigation, I've finally witnessed white privilege 

Hagar
Hagar

Just happened to meet!   Just talked primarily about grandchildren!   Male bovine feces.   As George Strait sang, I got some ocean front property in Arizona. He probably handed her the list of th

Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

Just happened to meet!   Just talked primarily about grandchildren!   Male bovine feces.   As George Strait sang, I got some ocean front property in Arizona.

He probably handed her the list of the 50 or so "convenient" deaths of people associated with the Clintons, and ask her if she wanted her name added to it. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shovel

shovel

Posted
Posted

The corruption here is flagrant.  Of course, the Clinton Foundation has been flagrant all along. Nothing will happen as long as the Democrats are in control. As the lying, commie, crooked female dog says "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Nothing to see here, move along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
On June 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, stevenash said:

TXHoops- what is your opinion regarding this situation?

If anything was discussed regarding the investigation, she has a legal and ethical obligation to appoint a special prosecutor.  If it was small talk and pleasantries, no such obligation exists.  

Obviously when an AG has to investigate the President who appointed them, a special prosecutor should be appointed due to the inherent conflict.  However, many will do so in situations like this to avoid the "appearance of impropriety."   Ultimately though, all they need to do is get someone appointed who is "friendly" to their particular party and the appointed one does not hold office and is actually has less at stake professionally.  The effect is often just passing the buck to accomplish a certain end without the public scrutiny to the officeholder.

So to answer the question, first it really depends on what was said (legally and ethically).   Second, if nothing was discussed about the investigation, whether Lynch believes she can do the job she was appointed to do without bias (which is a moral issue to me).  And I think we can safely assume her position there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted

Oh, and I realize that was a technical and somewhat cynical answer, Nash.  If you're asking me what I would do, I don't know the intricacies of her relationship with the Clintons.  I think once you get past the initial legal issue, it becomes a personal moral one.  To put it in perspective, I would not feel comfortable leading an investigation involving you, REBgp, or a number of people on this site who I know and with whom I am friendly.  It would not be a legal obstacle but certainly a moral one to me.  Therefore I would absolutely recuse myself from the situation and appoint someone independent to do the job.  

 

And hopefully one with more of a moral compass than Ken Starr ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Oh, and I realize that was a technical and somewhat cynical answer, Nash.  If you're asking me what I would do, I don't know the intricacies of her relationship with the Clintons.  I think once you get past the initial legal issue, it becomes a personal moral one.  To put it in perspective, I would not feel comfortable leading an investigation involving you, REBgp, or a number of people on this site who I know and with whom I am friendly.  It would not be a legal obstacle but certainly a moral one to me.  Therefore I would absolutely recuse myself from the situation and appoint someone independent to do the job.  

 

And hopefully one with more of a moral compass than Ken Starr ;)

Heck no, if it's me, no recuse!  And every time I'm called before you, I'll be wearing burnt orange :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

If anything was discussed regarding the investigation, she has a legal and ethical obligation to appoint a special prosecutor.  If it was small talk and pleasantries, no such obligation exists.  

Obviously when an AG has to investigate the President who appointed them, a special prosecutor should be appointed due to the inherent conflict.  However, many will do so in situations like this to avoid the "appearance of impropriety."   Ultimately though, all they need to do is get someone appointed who is "friendly" to their particular party and the appointed one does not hold office and is actually has less at stake professionally.  The effect is often just passing the buck to accomplish a certain end without the public scrutiny to the officeholder.

So to answer the question, first it really depends on what was said (legally and ethically).   Second, if nothing was discussed about the investigation, whether Lynch believes she can do the job she was appointed to do without bias (which is a moral issue to me).  And I think we can safely assume her position there.  

I am really struggling with the "suggestion" that one of them landed and waited 30 minutes on the tarmac for the other to land to simply exchange "pleasantries"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, stevenash said:

I am really struggling with the "suggestion" that one of them landed and waited 30 minutes on the tarmac for the other to land to simply exchange "pleasantries"

Yep, just happened to meet.  As the church lady on snl use to say, "How convenient".  I'd be curious to know when the last time was that Bill & Loretta just sit down and had a personal conversation.  Just the two of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted

It was pure coincidence that Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Lynch landed at the airport almost at the same time.  It also was pure coincidence that the FBI had their extended interview with Mrs. Clinton shortly after that meeting.   TxHoops, do these two have, as you say, a good "moral compass"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, stevenash said:

It was pure coincidence that Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Lynch landed at the airport almost at the same time.  It also was pure coincidence that the FBI had their extended interview with Mrs. Clinton shortly after that meeting.   TxHoops, do these two have, as you say, a good "moral compass"?

And these two go way back...I'm sure Bill feels she "owes" him.

This is the hidden content, please

From the article:

In 1999, she was nominated by President 

This is the hidden content, please
 to serve as the 
This is the hidden content, please
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...