ETHICS...OR SOMETHING ELSE? – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  Attorney General Loretta Lynch will play no part in the probe into Hillary Clinton e-mails.  From The New York Times:

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.

The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.

Republicans said the meeting, which took place at the Phoenix airport, had compromised the independence of the investigation as the F.B.I. was winding it down. Some called for Ms. Lynch to recuse herself, but she did not take herself off the case — one that could influence a presidential election.

Ms. Lynch has said she wants to handle the Clinton investigation like any other case. Since the attorney general often follows the recommendations of career prosecutors, Ms. Lynch is keeping the regular process largely intact.

COMMENT:  That's fine, as far as it goes.  But does it go far enough?  Every story I've seen on this today limits Lynch's recusal to the e-mail investigation.  But it's widely believed among informed sources that the FBI is also probing bribery issues involving the Clinton Foundation, and that these issues could involve both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Is Lynch recusing herself from that part of the investigation as well? 

It's possible that the journalistic shorthand found in stories thus far used the "e-mail investigations" as an umbrella for any probe involving the Clintons, but I want clarification.   Reporters must ask.

July 1,  2016