A good guideline in politics is that we should never explain as conspiracy an action that can be satisfactorily explained as mere stupidity. But the highly questionable meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport last week tests the limits of that maxim, because it is hard to believe that two seasoned politicians could be that stupid.
Lynch now admits that the meeting with Bill Clinton while his wife is the target of a major FBI investigation has “cast a shadow” over public perception of the independence of that investigation. But both Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton are smart enough to know that their meeting would only trigger a wave of public outrage. So why did they take the risk, especially given Lynch’s insistence that their conversation was limited to personal pleasantries and that they avoided any discussion of the investigation? Was mere chitchat about grandchildren worth the predictable political fallout, including calls for Lynch’s resignation or impeachment?
Lynch’s assurance that she would follow the lead of the professional prosecutors investigating Hillary’s use of a nonsecure, homebrew server may be intended to give the impression that all is now as it should be and that there is nothing to see here. But the question remains: Why would two seasoned politicians walk into a publicity storm that was fully predictable and easily avoided?
Given that stupidity is not a satisfactory answer to that question, we are left with the more plausible answer that Lynch and Clinton knew exactly what would happen and that they planned it that way. In fact, Lynch’s assurance that she will support the recommendation of the professional prosecutors and investigators handling the Clinton case begins to look more like a coldly calculated bet than an amateurish blunder.
What bet are Lynch and the Clintons making? How could this meeting and the resulting political storm actually serve the agenda of the Clintons and Loretta Lynch?
Comments about the meeting by legal expert J. Christian Adams to Megyn Kelly on The Kelly File can help to answer those questions. First, Adams noted that, given what is known so far, “a county D.A. could probably win the case” against Hillary Clinton. Second, he pointed out that Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton sends a clear message to the professional prosecutors investigating the case.
Adams’ bold contention about the clarity of the case against Hillary Clinton is supported by the writing of other legal experts. Judge Andrew Napolitano has written a series of articles detailing both the established facts – approximately 66,000 emails on Clinton’s homebrew server with around 2,200 of those containing state secrets – and the relevant points of espionage law. Napolitano’s conclusion was that Clinton’s legal status is “grave or worse than grave.”
Just from the published facts, it is not only likely that truly independent prosecutors would recommend indictment and create problems for Clinton’s presidential campaign, but also that loss of the White House would be the least of Hillary’s worries. Furthermore, given the concerns about the connections between Hillary’s influence as Secretary of State and money flowing into the Clinton Foundation, there could be uncomfortable questions for Bill Clinton himself.
In light of the legal case and likely consequences for the Clintons, a political firestorm over a brief meeting is a small price to pay if, as Adams contends, that meeting sends the right message to the professional prosecutors.
The message is that Lynch and the Clintons are on the same team, and Lynch is betting that the prosecutors know which recommendation she expects to receive.
It is also a reasonable bet that those prosecutors know what is at stake. The prosecutors and investigators working under Loretta Lynch have mortgages to pay and kids who are planning to go to college. They have reputations to protect, and could ill afford the kind of smear campaign and retribution for which the Clintons are known.
Those prosecutors also know that Barack Obama himself has publicly downplayed the security risks of Clinton’s use of a homebrew server. They also know that the Obama administration is populated with hardened Alinskyites who know how to isolate and target individuals who threaten their agenda. The lessons of the IRS’s targeting of those who merely disagreed with Obama’s policies cannot have been lost on those prosecutors. One can only imagine what would happen to someone who pushed to indict the Democrat’s frontrunner, regardless of the weight of the evidence.
Has the long arm of the law finally caught up with the Clintons? A betting person would have to weigh the fact that there are highly professional and ethical individuals working on the Clinton case against the willingness of the Clintons and the Obama administration to pursue their agenda, as the Alinskyites are fond of saying, by any means necessary.
It appears that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton are betting that the long arm of the law still isn’t long enough to catch a Clinton.