Last Monday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately and secretly with Bill Clinton.
It happened on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Ariz. Clinton boarded her plane and they chatted in private — not just for a brief hello — for 30 minutes.
The problem? Lynch may soon face a decision about whether to seek an indictment against Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s why this meeting was kept as secret as possible, and might never have been discovered if not for a local reporter in Arizona.
Lynch admitted last Friday that it is “perfectly reasonable” for everyone to question what she did. It is not just reasonable, it is necessary. That she agreed to this meeting at all, given the circumstances, was highly inappropriate, as she tacitly acknowledged when she said, “I certainly wouldn’t do it again.”
The meeting does not seem to have been planned, but who knows? It’s not even clear why Clinton was in Arizona. And many a meeting that is presented as merely fortuitous has actually taken careful planning by at least one party.
Did they really just discuss golf and fishing and grandchildren, as claimed? Or did Bill Clinton hint, with his roguish wink, how much his wife would really, really love to appoint the first female black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history? We won’t ever know.
This is why such meetings are not agreed to by ethical and public-minded prosecutors. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., noted Friday, Lynch displayed “at best, extremely poor judgment,” regardless of what was discussed.
That she tried to conceal it from the press is evidence of a guilty conscience, so she understood that she was doing something she should not have been doing.
The evidence that Hillary Clinton violated open records laws and mishandled classified information is overwhelming. Any other federal employee would probably already be facing sentencing for such offenses. But the general expectation is that Clinton will not be indicted.
Some Obama-appointed prosecutors might hesitate out of party loyalty. Others might argue (and it isn’t an entirely meritless argument) that a prosecution would interfere too much with the political process at election time.
But now, any recommendation will be tainted by Lynch’s hobnobbing. A decision not to seek an indictment will raise questions about what Lynch was offered, or even merely whether she compromised herself by being too friendly with the potential defendant’s family. Likewise, a decision to prosecute Clinton on any charge, no matter how minor, will probably also be seen through the lens of this meeting. If Clinton is indicted, her own partisans are likely to complain that Lynch’s hand was forced by the fact that she was caught meeting with the former president.
It was only after this meeting that Lynch publicly affirmed, on camera, that her Justice Department will proceed precisely as the FBI recommends. What other answer could she now give?
This is why such meetings are a no-no. And this is also why Lynch tried to conceal it. Republicans have long called for the appointment of a special counsel to take over the investigation of Clinton, just as Patrick Fitzgerald handled the investigation of the Bush administration in the Valerie Plame affair. Lynch has tremendously strengthened the case for doing so.
Usually when people ask “what are you hiding,” it’s an excuse for imposing additional and unwarranted surveillance. But when public officials act like they have something to hide, as in this case, the question is entirely appropriate.
