Posted on 01/30/2015 8:15:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind
On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”
– From the New York Times article: Criticism of Holder Dominates Hearing on Loretta Lynch, Attorney General’s Possible Successor
Eric Holder made a career out of protecting and coddling financial oligarchs (his 1999 memo essentially invented “Too Big to Jail”). This was such a lucrative decision for Mr. Holder, that it allowed him to climb all the way to the top of his profession. The dividends that supporting this man ultimately paid to Wall Street criminals were priceless. Not only were they bailed out despite wrecking the U.S. economy, they have since funneled all of the wealth gains since 2008 to themselves, while remaining above the law. This truly remarkable heist is what both Barack Obama and Eric Holder will be remembered for by history. Congratulations guys.
When Eric Holder announced his resignation, many of us breathed a sigh of relief thinking it can’t get much worse, but not so fast. The authoritarian streak and rampant cronyism of the Obama administration is a well oiled machine. You didn’t think you’d get off that easily did you? Enter Loretta Lynch.
I’ve touched upon Mrs. Lynch’s record previously, in the post, Wall Street Journal Reports Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Has Been Involved in $904 Million in Asset Forfeitures. Here’s an excerpt:
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Naturally, that was just the tip of the iceberg. What we have learned from her ongoing confirmation hearing is that she’s a lover of NSA spying and the death penalty, while disagreeing with the statement that “marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol.”
I wonder if she has much personal experience to base this opinion on, or if it’s just more of the same we “know what’s best for you plebs, despite the fact that we have no idea what we are talking about.”
Meet the new Attorney General, same as the old. From the New York Times:
Ms. Lynch had steeled herself for tough questioning from a new Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, particularly on her views of President Obama’s immigration policy. But the questioning was mostly cordial, and, most important, the Republicans on the committee who hold the key to Ms. Lynch’s confirmation — she needs three of their votes to proceed to a vote by the full Senate — showed little opposition.
Of course it was cordial. Other than perhaps immigration, she basically espouses complete and total neo-con principals.
On the issue of immigration, Ms. Lynch said she found it “reasonable” that the Justice Department had concluded it was lawful for Mr. Obama to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Holder similarly endorsed that view.
Democrats see some Republicans, such as Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona, as possible confirmation votes. Mr. Flake said he had made no decision on Ms. Lynch but had come away with a favorable impression and expected that she would be confirmed.
On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat on the panel, said she had given “a flawless performance.” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, called her testimony “among the most accomplished and impressive that I’ve seen as a member of this committee.”
Oh, but there’s more. As if you needed proof that Ms. Lynch shares Eric Holder’s financial oligarch coddling tendencies, the International Business Times reports that:
WASHINGTON — In advance of her nomination hearing, Loretta Lynch did what every cabinet nominee is required to do: fill out a questionnaire listing all her media interviews so lawmakers can evaluate her candor. But the questionnaire U.S. attorney general nominee Lynch submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee has a notable omission. Lynch failed to include an interview in which she defended the controversial settlement she orchestrated with the bank HSBC.
The bank was accused of knowingly allowing Mexican drug cartels to launder money and of allowing violations of economic sanctions against countries including Iran, Libya, Sudan and Cuba. Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the bank to avoid prosecution in 2012 by paying a $1.9 billion fine and submitting to a monitor for five years to oversee compliance. Critics slammed the deal as an example of the Obama administration’s pattern of going easy on the financial industry. In the Dec. 11, 2012, interview she did with CBS News, Lynch endorsed the settlement and dismissed criticism of the deal as “shortsighted.”
Lynch’s boss at the time of the HSBC deal, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who was then head of the Department of Justice’s criminal prosecution division, resigned after a scathing Frontline piece that highlighted Justice’s failure to try any of the banks tied to the recession and the risky trades that led to it. It was during a discussion of HSBC before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Attorney General Holder famously said some banks — although not HSBC specifically — were too big to prosecute.
Well there you have it. This woman, like Eric Holder, will be an unmitigated disaster for freedom in America.
That’s what “liberal” looks like in today’s America.
Has she been RINO rubber-stamped yet?
Did anyone ever see Holder and Lynch together? Are we sure that “Lunch” isn’t just Holder in drag?
Posted earlier on FR:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/27/obama-attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch-started-sorority-with-holders-wife/
With Obama, everything is about his cronies...
And so I have a question.
No one could be stupid enough not to see how radical she is and how she would be Holder on steroids.
Also any sane person would use this confirmation to put the heat on obummer, even killing it to show him that congress is real and has powers that need to be respected.
So why are the repubs in the senate acting like she is OK?
Is there a back room deal of some kind or are they really that stupid?
I am afraid to hear the answer.
For some strange reason...whenever I hear the name “Loretta Lynch” my mind plays tricks and converts it to “Loretta Lynn”.
It confuses me. :)
Don’t you nean his comrades?
One thing for sure- she’s definitely not a Coal Miner’s Daughter.
 |
Like Eric Holder, Obama nominated for for one purpose - to protect the black man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Holder was there to protect the President, not lead the justice department.
She is Eric Holder in a skirt, on steroids.
LOLOLOL.
The hearing was all an act for Loretta, she sounds like a different person when she isn’t on stage. She IS a different person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.