Deep into this New York Times puff piece about the wonders of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency, we learn that “Democrats close to 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.” Clearly, Team Clinton is dangling before Lynch the prospect of remaining attorney general provided, of course, that the Justice Department doesn’t indict Hillary in the coming months.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat “close to Mrs. Clinton” (sort of). As we know, he recently spent half an hour conferring with Lynch. It is far from fanciful to suppose that Bill himself dangled before Lynch the prospect of remaining attorney general in a Clinton administration. That’s a far more plausible reason for Clinton to have engineered the meeting than the desire to talk about his grandchildren.
Being mentioned in the New York Times as a possible attorney in a Hillary Clinton administration is nice. Being told about this prospect by Bill Clinton is far more enticing.
The Clintons are shameless — that’s long been clear. Offering the prospect of high office to the government official in charge of a criminal investigation against Hillary (and possibly Bill, if the Clinton Foundation is under DOJ scrutiny) writes a new chapter in this squalid tale. That’s true whether the high office is dangled during an airplane chat or in a newspaper article.
The Times’ puff piece is worth a look for other reasons. We learn, for example, that Clinton “would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.”
Clinton should have no trouble finding common ground with Republicans on immigration. The Republican Senate passed amnesty legislation a few ears ago, and Speaker Paul Ryan is itching to get in on the act.
Nor is finding common ground with Paul Ryan on immigration at all inconsistent with the urge “to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.” Indeed, nothing would twist the knife more lethally than the passage of bipartisan amnesty legislation. Such passage would offend the Republican base so grievously that it’s doubtful the Party would remain intact.
On a more amusing note, the Times reports that in a Hillary administration, “Bill Clinton would keep a low public profile, granting few interviews and avoiding any moves that could create headaches for his wife.” Wishful thinking makes fools of us all.
Equally amusing is the Times’ prediction view that Hillary will disarm Republicans by drinking with them. According to the Times, Clinton has an “instinct for patiently cultivating the enemy.” This helps explain the great success of her health care reform initiative in the 1990s.
Joking aside, I believe that, unlike Barack Obama, Clinton would reach out to Republican legislators, and not just on immigration. I also believe that the first time a Republican with whom she has imbibed does something Hillary doesn’t like, all hell will break loose and continue for the remainder of her presidency.