Clinton’s Judgment

by Mike Kimel

Clinton’s Judgment

Via the Washington Post, this quote from the NY Times:

Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015.

The Post article goes on:

about the appearance of impropriety: Lynch remains the person responsible for reviewing and signing off on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

Since then, of course, the FBI (which reports up to Ms. Lynch) has recommended against pressing charges and of course, Justice will be following FBI’s recommendation.

But which is the tail and which is the dog here? The FBI statement doesn’t exactly come off as a clean bill of health. In fact, it reads as if the FBI director was ordered to let a perp walk, and decided to vent about it. About the nicest thing he said about Mrs. Clinton was this:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

NBC did a fact check, which included this gem:

A look at Clinton’s claims since questions about her email practices as secretary of state surfaced and how they compare with facts established in the FBI probe:

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton’s server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.

Sounds an awful lot like saying she lied, doesn’t it? And the mention of “classified at the time they were sent” contradicts a statement Clinton made to the press about the emails being upclassified later.

And the emailing of classified material denial was done more than once, as NBC’s piece goes on:

CLINTON: “I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.” NBC interview, July 2016.

THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.

Now, Clinton would probably have at least considered keeping Lynch on regardless of the whole email investigation. But to announce Lynch is being considered right before the findings are released? If Clinton were, in fact, trying to influence Lynch to lean on the scales, this would be the most shameless possible way to do it short of handing over a suitcase full of cash on live television. And as far as I can see, there are only two explanations why anyone would act in a way that perfectly mimicked a transparent attempt to influence the AG:

1. The person doing so is trying to influence the AG
2. The person doing so has incredibly poor judgement

Am I missing something? Is there a third option?