• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lynch to Remove Herself From Decision Over Clinton Emails, Official Says [W:225]

Frank Apisa said:
Hey, Mycroft...how ya doing.

Really straining at this.

She has put some distance between her and the decision.

She CANNOT fully be away from the decision, because her job REQUIRES her to sign off on it.

She has said that she probably will accept the decision of the investigators and the prosecutors...but there may be some conflict in that decision that she WILL HAVE TO resolve.

Sorry you are so up tight about this. (Well...maybe not completely sorry.)
Click to expand...
please show us where the "distance" is that lynch has told us she placed between herself and this decision
 
justabubba said:
please show us where the "distance" is that lynch has told us she placed between herself and this decision
Click to expand...


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. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.

“People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business,” Ms. Lynch said at an Aspen Institute conference in Colorado. “My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0

If you do not see some distance in that...you need glasses.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Hey, Mycroft...how ya doing.

Really straining at this.

She has put some distance between her and the decision.

She CANNOT fully be away from the decision, because her job REQUIRES her to sign off on it.

She has said that she probably will accept the decision of the investigators and the prosecutors...but there may be some conflict in that decision that she WILL HAVE TO resolve.

Sorry you are so up tight about this. (Well...maybe not completely sorry.)
Click to expand...

LOL!!

I STILL can't decide if you are just naive or if you are complicit. But it's clear that you won't come to a definite conclusion. One moment you say, "Yeah, I'm wrong. She hasn't put any distance between herself and the decision." and the next moment you say, "She has put some distance between her and the decision."

The fact is, though, she hasn't put ANY distance between her and the decision. None.

In any case, I'm not "up tight". I'm realistic.
 
Frank Apisa said:
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. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.

“People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business,” Ms. Lynch said at an Aspen Institute conference in Colorado. “My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0

If you do not see some distance in that...you need glasses.
Click to expand...

there is NO distance

lynch has all of the authority to support or oppose indictment as she possessed before the acknowledged inappropriate meeting with bill clinton

optician, heal thyself
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

I STILL can't decide if you are just naive or if you are complicit. But it's clear that you won't come to a definite conclusion. One moment you say, "Yeah, I'm wrong. She hasn't put any distance between herself and the decision." and the next moment you say, "She has put some distance between her and the decision."
Click to expand...

Make up stuff much these days, Mycroft?

At no point have ever written what you "quoted" up above...EVER.

You made it up.

Check what I actually wrote.

The fact is, though, she hasn't put ANY distance between her and the decision. None.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she has so. She fully expects to accept the decision of the investigators and the prosecutors. She cannot go much further. Her job requires that she sign off on the final decision.

But there is some distance...and it was conceded that she fully expects not to exercise prerogatives that she could have exercised.

That is "some distance."

(Let's see if you can acknowledge that you are wrong here.)

In any case, I'm not "up tight". I'm realistic.
Click to expand...

You sound very up-tight to me.

Reminds me of a joke. Ice cream cone says to the Popsicle:

"Maybe if you could relax a little and not act like you've got a stick stuck up your butt...people would like you more."
 
Here's another example of Lynch blowing smoke up the public's ass. It has to do with these "career investigators and prosecutors".

"They are acting independently, they follow the law, they follow the facts."
Click to expand...

Now let's be serious here. Does ANYBODY think it really makes a difference if the decision-maker is a career person or if the decision-maker is Lynch, herself? The decision will ultimately come from Obama and will be based on political advantage or disadvantage...not on the law or the facts.
 
justabubba said:
there is NO distance

lynch has all of the authority to support or oppose indictment as she possessed before the acknowledged inappropriate meeting with bill clinton

optician, heal thyself
Click to expand...

There is some distance. She is not going to exercise prerogatives she could have exercised.

But I know you guys cannot acknowledge that...so...we'll just banter back and forth about it for a bit.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is some distance. She is not going to exercise prerogatives she could have exercised.
Click to expand...
you WANT to believe that, but nothing she has said or done assures us of this result
she could - and should - recuse herself from any further involvement in this matter as her participation will be tainted by her inappropriate discussion with bill clinton

But I know you guys cannot acknowledge that...so...we'll just banter back and forth about it for a bit.
Click to expand...
actually, it is you who owns an unwillingness to examine the reality of this
your reality would have to tell you that bill clinton delayed his flight just so he could go visit lynch in her plane to discuss janet reno, grandkids, and bill's golf game
 
justabubba said:
you WANT to believe that, but nothing she has said or done assures us of this result
she could - and should - recuse herself from any further involvement in this matter as her participation will be tainted by her inappropriate discussion with bill clinton
Click to expand...

I think she has done more than enough.

I understand others think she should do more.

actually, it is you who owns an unwillingness to examine the reality of this
your reality would have to tell you that bill clinton delayed his flight just so he could go visit lynch in her plane to discuss janet reno, grandkids, and bill's golf game
Click to expand...

If people want to make a major thing out of this...let them make it.

What is happening here is the "cry wolf" syndrome.

Everything Hillary or Bill does...there is a segment of people making it into something horrible.

Okay...I understand. It appears she is going to win this next election...and your side SHOULD do everything it can to stop that.

So keep at it.

I am seeing diminishing returns from all the efforts...and unintended consequences, so I kinda hope you guys keep it up.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Precious little difference...and the lies of Bush and Reagan were of greater world consequence, Eo.

There were no WMD found in Iraq. That is nonsense...and is little more than a smokescreen to hide the fact that our leaders do lie to us occasionally.

The lies of Ronald Reagan on the Iran/Contra matter were massive...and easily put aside by your side./

That the way this stuff works.
Click to expand...

You completely miss the difference in the intent.

Obama's intent was to mislead the people and get his ObamaCare passed. Lying for personal gain. Not so with the others. That is a significant difference, the intent behind the action. Of course, intent is meaningless in 'whatever it takes' attitude, which will in fact lead one pretty quickly to ill intent, such as demonstrated by Obama and his administration, the liars that they are.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I appreciate you sharing what you "believe" with me, Eo...but I think I understand American conservatism better than you.

And, YES...it disgusts me.

That was not always the case. There was a time when I had a healthy respect for American conservatism...when I thought it was something helping America be a great country.

I just do not any more.
Click to expand...

I think a more accurate statement is that what you believe American conservatism to be disgusts you. That's not the same as what American conservatism actually is.

So feel free to continue to disgust yourself. It makes no matter to me that you do so.
 
eohrnberger said:
You completely miss the difference in the intent.

Obama's intent was to mislead the people and get his ObamaCare passed. Lying for personal gain. Not so with the others. That is a significant difference, the intent behind the action. Of course, intent is meaningless in 'whatever it takes' attitude, which will in fact lead one pretty quickly to ill intent, such as demonstrated by Obama and his administration, the liars that they are.
Click to expand...

You are being extremely naive here, Eo. Not like you at all.

I am sure all three, Reagan, Bush, Obama, lied often to the American public. All three did it to advance their agenda.

So you do not especially like Barack Obama...and want to pillory him. Fine.

I do not especially like Ronald Reagan...so I give him the business.

As for George W. Bush...I thought he was a worthless president...but my respect for him has grown since he left the office and has conducted himself with dignity and honor. Whatever negativity I felt for him...I no longer feel.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think a more accurate statement is that what you believe American conservatism to be disgusts you. That's not the same as what American conservatism actually is.

So feel free to continue to disgust yourself. It makes no matter to me that you do so.
Click to expand...

I do not do "believing."

What disgusts me is what I see of American conservatism.

I will continue to do so.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I do not do "believing."

What disgusts me is what I see of American conservatism.

I will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Fine. Whatever.

It's like trying to have an intelligent and developing conversation with parrot that only has a few lines that it can repeat.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You are being extremely naive here, Eo. Not like you at all.

I am sure all three, Reagan, Bush, Obama, lied often to the American public. All three did it to advance their agenda.

So you do not especially like Barack Obama...and want to pillory him. Fine.

I do not especially like Ronald Reagan...so I give him the business.

As for George W. Bush...I thought he was a worthless president...but my respect for him has grown since he left the office and has conducted himself with dignity and honor. Whatever negativity I felt for him...I no longer feel.
Click to expand...

Address the difference in intent behind these instances please.

Here, I'll help you get started by giving you a definition:
[h=1]Intent[/h]A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.
Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.
The legal importance of what an individual intended depends on the particular area of law. In contract law, for example, the intention of the parties to a written contract is fixed by the language of the contract document.


Intent legal definition of intent
Click to expand...

Suffice it to say that intent is significant and in the given examples the intent was very much different. One was for personal gain (Obama), the other was an intent on protecting the country (Bush), and the last instance (Regan) was made clear when actions of other were beyond his knowledge and without his direction.

Surely you can see the significant differences here.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fine. Whatever.

It's like trying to have an intelligent and developing conversation with parrot that only has a few lines that it can repeat.
Click to expand...

It is what happens when you can't defend the indefensible
 
Higgins86 said:
It doesn't matter, rules have been broken. Why is it ok to handle classified documents via a private email vs a private server. Both don't follow protocol.
Click to expand...

Let me explain on a private email account like Yahoo.com you can't go and erase any e-mail you want. Like none of them. Now having your own server you can erase all you want. And that is exactly what Hillary did by erasing some 30,000 emails and the FBI took her server and hard drive in and attempt to recapture those erased e-mails.

Now do you get it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fine. Whatever.

It's like trying to have an intelligent and developing conversation with parrot that only has a few lines that it can repeat.
Click to expand...

Then stop conversing with me if you feel that way.
 
eohrnberger said:
Address the difference in intent behind these instances please.
Click to expand...

There is no difference.

They all wanted to lie.

Here, I'll help you get started by giving you a definition:


Suffice it to say that intent is significant and in the given examples the intent was very much different. One was for personal gain (Obama), the other was an intent on protecting the country (Bush), and the last instance (Regan) was made clear when actions of other were beyond his knowledge and without his direction.

Surely you can see the significant differences here.
Click to expand...

If you want to think their intent was significantly different...think it.

If you want to find someone to indulge you in that fantasy...find someone.

I am not that person.
 
The thing is, Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of "changing the way Washington works", of stopping the lies, the backroom deals, and having a transparent administration. He gets an "F" in all of the above.
 
Lynch's cohorts cling desperately to the counterfeit image she painted of herself.

Now everyone knows that Loretta Lynch is a 'call girl', a lady of the tarmac.
 
Moderate Right said:
The thing is, Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of "changing the way Washington works", of stopping the lies, the backroom deals, and having a transparent administration. He gets an "F" in all of the above.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Anyone who voted for him...or anyone else who claims they will change the way Washington works...or stop the lies and backroom deals...

...is a fool.

No one is going to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom