i understand why the young turks is pushing this argument, but i think that the totality of events actually undermines the narrative that has been developing in the independent press and the independent press needs to take a step back on it. what you want to see is that it's a democratic administration colluding with a democratic candidate to help the democratic party. but, then, how'd it get so far into the process in the first place?
what lynch was trying to broadcast in the video was that she has no actual influence in the matter. she could in theory send down a set of directives from the top, but that would be completely illegal. the matter is being dealt with by career justice department people - the civil service - and not by the elected administration. that's why it doesn't matter.
further, what the department is broadcasting is that the meeting was not planned on her behalf - rather that clinton tracked her down and ambushed her at the airport. is that realistic? if it is, it just demonstrates the seriousness of the indictment. which again brings us to the question of why exactly it is that this is an issue in the first place.
as far as i can tell, the evidence we have before us actually strongly suggests that clinton was out to cut some kind of dirty deal, and he got snubbed.
read into that what you will. but, it seems to have at best backfired.
multidinero
On the contrary. The reality of things is that as the chief prosecutor on the case, she is the ultimate power in what is brought forth and used against HRC in the case. If it's not already public knowledge or decided to be not used by the prosecution to strengthen the case, they will essentially stymie their own case to make it seem not as valid. Frankly, being crooked in action or giving the feeling of possible impropriety only makes the whole Democratic party and its countless acts of corruption and staking the deck against those who would ultimately "Rock the boat", look more valid and separates them from The People even more. Though, of course, they think the masses are too stupid to notice.
jessica
the attorney general only interferes in these matters under extreme circumstances. ironically, just about the only time an attorney general would interfere would be due to political pressure - something political like a case against edward snowden or mumia or something. in almost all cases, the documents that her office signs off on are examined by bureaucrats and signed off by staff.
for her to send a letter down from the top demanding that a certain outcome be adhered to would not be lawful.
multidinero
For the DNC to collude with HRC before and during her presidential campaign was also not lawful. For HRC to coordinate with the SuperPacs that help her is also not lawful. Yet, she did it without hesitation. Why wouldn't she cosign this action? Legality is not part of her ultimate concerns, as the powers that be are still ultimately behind her.
jessica
oh, i have no doubt that clinton was looking to cut a deal. what doesn't seem to me to fit the evidence is the idea that lynch was willing to play ball. as stated: i think he got snubbed, and the fall out is going to make the situation that much harder for her.
the process appears to be going ahead.
---
jessica
jimmy, when you get tracked down on the tarmac by a former president, you can't just tell him to fuck off.
he's not just the presumptive nominee's husband. he was president for eight years.
she can't know why he's there ahead of time. what if the strike codes are being launched? no, this is for real. it's out of protocol. but she has to grant the audience.