Clinton 'rejects premise' husband meeting AG Lynch on tarmac critically hurt campaign

 

Hillary Clinton rejects the idea that a June 2016 meeting between her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch critically damaged her White House bid.

“I just don’t buy that,” Clinton said in a PBS interview aired Friday evening to promote her new book, “What Happened,” about her loss last year to Donald Trump.

As Clinton has in several other, recent interviews promoting the book, she heaped much of the blame on then-FBI Director James Comey.

Comey led the Justice Department investigation into Clinton’s use of private email servers as secretary of state, after Lynch stepped back in the probe, as a result of her allowing Bill Clinton into her airplane to talk while on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport.

“My husband and Loretta Lynch said they didn’t say a word" about the probe, Clinton told PBS. “I honestly reject that premise, partly because there’s a chain of command in the Justice Department.”
Clinton points out that Lynch had a deputy attorney, Sally Yates, whom she called “a woman of experience and integrity.” And she seemed to suggest that Yates could have run the email probe. However, Clinton never really made clear in the interview why Yates didn’t take over the investigation.

She also argued that Comey, appointed by then-President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat, was under “political pressure” from inside and outside of the FBI to make a case out of the criminal investigation into the matter of her emails and use of the private servers.

Comey in July 2016 said Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified and other emails on the servers but recommend no criminal charges -- a conclusion Lynch accepted.

However, Clinton argued in the PBS interview that Comey delivered an even bigger blow to her campaign in late-October 2016, days before voters went to the polls, when he effectively re-opened the case to review new information.

"OK, that was over on July 5. Right,” Clinton said.
“That, I thought, was a breach of professional ethics and responsibility and a rejection of the protocols within the Justice Department. It was over. And we were doing fine going forward. What really was costly, and what I believe was the proximate cause of my defeat, was his October 28 letter, which has never been adequately explained or defended, had nothing to do with what happened, you know, months before.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/17/clinton-rejects-premise-husband-meeting-ag-lynch-on-tarmac-critically-hurt-campaign.html

Clinton: It's time to abolish the Electoral College, You Know Hillary The Party Out of Power Say The Same Thing Go Back And Look At 2008 And 2012 That Just What Many Republican's Were Saying , Nice Try!

 



Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election.

Clinton, in the interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, displayed her animus for fired FBI Director James Comey, reflected on her love for the people -- namely former President Bill Clinton -- who helped her get through the crushing loss and blasted the arcane election body that she believes helped Donald Trump win the presidency.

 

"I think it needs to be eliminated," Clinton said of the Electoral College. "I'd like to see us move beyond it, yes."

Are the 1990s Culture Wars Over? The Answer In No, They Are Not Today S.J.W's Re Trying To Re Win The Culture Wars , They Lost In The 1990's That It! In 1992 Bill Clinton would impose “abortion on demand, alitmus test for the Supreme Court” and “homosexual rights.?

 

 

 

I’m old enough to remember watching the 1992 convention speech by Pat Buchanan in which he described a culture war taking place in America. Twenty-two years later, are those battles on their way to being settled?

That night in Houston in 1992, Buchanan highlighted a couple socialissues of great concern, directly contrasting George Bush with candidate Clinton. Buchanan described Bush as “a defender of right-to-life, and a champion of theJudeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which America wasfounded.” On the other hand, Clinton would impose “abortion on demand, alitmus test for the Supreme Court” and “homosexual rights.”

Progressives (who were called liberals back then) feigned shock at the idea there was a culture war taking place, though Buchanan and many who heard him that night probably felt their side was merely playing defense in that conflict.
Twenty-two years later the ground has shifted on both of those issues. Gay marriage (which has been a major goal for gay rights advocates) was supported by 27 percent of Americans in 1996, four years after Buchanan’s speech. This year that number had risen to 54 percent, exactly double what it was. And since the young tend to consider gay rights a given rather than an issue to be debated, the trend will likely continue.
On abortion, the shift has been less sweeping but it is clearly there. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who called themselves pro-life was at about 33 percent in 1996. In 2012, that figure hit 50 percent versus 41 percent who considered themselves pro-choice. The young tend to be more pro-life than their elders, meaning that trend will also likely continue.
State laws and Supreme Court decisions insure both of these issues will be tied up in courts for another decade or more. But as of right now the momentum is pretty clear. It appears the country has decided to split the difference on the 90’s culture wars. That may be little consolation to either side but it does seem worth pointing out that the popular momentum has swung pretty clearly on both issues.