A Toxic Meeting on the Tarmac

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Loretta Lynch's tarmac conversation with Bill Clinton wasn't just stupid, although it was certainly that. It was a colossal misjudgment on both sides, most especially hers.

The encounter was toxic. It adds to the already settled conviction among too many voters that the system is, to use the essential word of the 2016 campaign, rigged. In this view, the fix -- political, financial and judicial -- is in, the playing field irrevocably tilted in favor of the powerful, the rich and the well-connected.

Some of this cynicism may be justified, yet the end result is to further erode trust in public figures and their decisions. To those so inclined, the Lynch-Clinton tete-a-tete offers yet another example of this corrosive coziness.

How fitting that Lynch's folly came on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. The Rolex watch, golf outings, designer clothes and five-figure checks lavished on McDonnell by businessman Jonny Williams seeking a state boost for his nutritional supplement -- $175,000 in all -- were "distasteful" and "tawdry," Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged.

But, he wrote, McDonnell's favors to Williams -- arranging meetings with state officials, hosting events for him at the governor's mansion, contacting state officials on his behalf -- did not necessarily constitute the sort of "official acts" required for a bribery conviction.

OK, although you might wonder: Certainly Williams seemed to think he was receiving ample value for his continuing largesse. The relevant -- and galling -- part of Roberts' opinion comes when he veers into a lyrical, flag-waving ode to representative democracy and the constitutional concerns raised by the McDonnell prosecution.

"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time," Roberts wrote. "The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns -- whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm."

Prosecutors' broad definition of what constitutes an official act "could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame," he noted. "Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse."

Oh please. Everyone understands the pay-to-play aspect of what was going on here. The Supreme Court is said to follow the election returns, but here the justices appear oblivious to voters' concerns about corruption and, once again, willfully naive about the real-world implications of their ruling. The headline for voters might as well be: "High court unanimously upholds rigged system."

Which brings us back to Lynch and the Clintons. What was he thinking: Gee, it would be nice to say hi -- or, more deviously, it can't hurt to turn on a little bit of that old Clinton charm?

A man who was president for eight years knows -- or should -- about the exquisite sensitivity of contact with Justice Department officials when there are pending matters. And, by the way, if Clinton thought he was helping the cause: NOT! He created a firestorm that, if anything, poses a risk to his wife by effectively disabling a layer of adult supervision from youngish prosecutors and characteristically raring-to-go FBI agents.

More important, what was Lynch thinking? That it would have been rude to rebuff a former president? Did it somehow slip her mind that the hottest potato on her department's plate is the email investigation? Appearances, anyone?

Do I think Lynch and Clinton discussed the pending investigation? No. Neither could possibly be so stupid. Do I think the schmooze-fest would influence Lynch's assessment of the case against Clinton? No, but, then again, I've never thought there was much of a case there in the first place.

Even before this appallingly boneheaded incident, there was a risk that a significant chunk of the public would greet a decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified material as incontrovertible evidence of political interference. Now Lynch has irreparably broadened and reinforced these suspicions.

Trust in all three branches of government is at or near historical lows. For those hearing about the Clinton-Lynch meeting, or seeing McDonnell, most likely, walk free, is it any wonder?

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.