Jake Tapper gets into a case of apples and bananas over that Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting

The thing about asking a question on Twitter is that someone is going to answer it.

On Wednesday’s “The Lead,” CNN’s Jake Tapper shared his thoughts on Bill Clinton’s meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona and Jim Comey’s claim that President Trump demanded “a pledge of loyalty.”

And how about Trump reportedly asking Andrew McCabe who he voted for? Is there a double-standard at play among these “casual conversations”? (Video at the link.)

Thoughts on Clinton and Lynch versus Trump and Comey/McCabe https://t.co/csECxDBYwi @jaketapper on @TheLeadCNN

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 24, 2018

Tapper previewed his on-air piece with this question on Twitter … not that we suspect the answers were going to alter his piece.

Can someone explain to me how one can think Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch on tarmac stinks (a proposition i am not arguing) but *not* POTUS asking Comey for loyalty and asking McCabe for whom he voted? Thanks

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 24, 2018

As a matter of fact, a lot of people were able to explain the difference.

And here we go… https://t.co/QAmBggwlM4

— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) January 24, 2018

Actually that is easy. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump is head of the unitary executive and can hire/fire leadership (w/ rare exceptions) at his whim or according to his policy designs. Happens often. 42 was private citizen whose spouse was under investigation. These are very different. https://t.co/y9Qq5703BT

— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) January 24, 2018

Trump is the boss of the executive branch. At that point in time, Clinton was a private citizen. You're welcome https://t.co/6P8V7MN1xg

— (((Aaron “Worthing” Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) January 24, 2018

Because Trump is their boss. I literally had to sign a loyalty oath at a law firm where I used to work that I would not say negative things about the firm in public. This is not rocket surgery. This is also not even remotely an honest question. To quote Ms. Zito, be better. https://t.co/G820tnBZBY

— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) January 24, 2018

GP Former: Lynch didn't work for Clinton and has duties to America, not them.

Latter: Both Comey and McCabe work for the president and serve at his pleasure (for the most part). The president is entitled to know whether his employees are on the same page. https://t.co/g9UAFe7XWx

— The Gormogons (@Gormogons) January 24, 2018

Trump is the president.

In case you don't know how the government works, that makes him Comey & McCabe's boss, as the FBI is part of the executive branch and subject to the authority of POTUS.

Bill Clinton, as a private citizen, has no such authority. https://t.co/do6bDrywVm

— Whousedallthenames (@whousedallnames) January 24, 2018

The primary difference would be that FBI officers are part of the Executive branch, so under POTUS chain of command – no way for them to be 100% independent, whereas the tarmac meeting was a clear conflict. Scary you don't understand this. https://t.co/MD7jVxMMCO

— Scott (@ScottnotJames) January 25, 2018

Easy. Loretta Lynch didn't work for Bill Clinton. Comey and McCabe worked for and served at the discretion of POTUS. @jaketapper @benshapiro https://t.co/SSkAoCfQKw

— William J. Ryan (@ryanjwilliam) January 24, 2018

https://twitter.com/GenAugustoP/status/956279619153481728

First involved spouse under active criminal investigation. Meeting was only made public by a reporter. If innocent friends chatting, why hide it? We have no idea what Bill was doing in AZ. Idea they talked about golf & grandkids is laughable. DoJ whipped up memo to cover for it. https://t.co/3nWDgZlK7s

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) January 24, 2018

Easy. Clinton's wife was UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI! https://t.co/IIqUH2NS4Q

— Kevin Jackson (@KevinJacksonTBS) January 24, 2018

https://twitter.com/notthefakeDH/status/956311845853450241

Hillary was under criminal investigation by the FBI. Her husband, a former US President, had a shady meeting with the one woman who could affect the outcome of that investigation. Hope this helps, but you really shouldn’t even have to ask the question. https://t.co/SmgJsMd3KY

— Mr T 2 (@GovtsTheProblem) January 24, 2018

https://twitter.com/GenAugustoP/status/956277653878829057

We know what Trump said, do we know what Clinton and Lynch discussed specifically? I'd want to know that before anything, frankly. https://t.co/gDaRl2bKcG

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) January 25, 2018

Apples and Bananas @jaketapper . #1 Actually happened and was verified.

Comey directly denied #2 in testimony. And #3 is a rumor from an anonymous source (likely with a vested interest). When you worked at ABC (WHCA) you used to know difference between Apples and Bananas. https://t.co/ggAwh46SDs

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) January 24, 2018

https://twitter.com/Heminator/status/956196865296551938

Because there's a heavy suspicion that what occurred at the tarmac meeting was criminal, Jake. As in felonious. Think, guy. https://t.co/QEge1lSMcJ

— J Robert Smith (@JRobertSmith1) January 25, 2018

You can't differentiate without transcripts, but potentially one of these events could simply have been in bad taste & the other event could have been highly illegal. If only we had journalists who would objectively investigate, it'd be nice, but instead we have #CNN. https://t.co/4aHnyI9B1k

— Storieswithnoclimax (@twallforall) January 24, 2018

Sure, Jake. One was illegal, the latter was not. https://t.co/J6YgXsc0dr

— Another Young American (@Confused_Indy) January 25, 2018

https://twitter.com/AlphaKruse/status/956267868974325760

That's easy.
Trump and Comey both disclosed the content of their meeting.
Trump and Comey had legitimate reason to meet.
Trump and Comey met in a usual manner in a usual setting. https://t.co/7posiUxMwV

— Los Angeles 1992 (@rvolt24) January 24, 2018