Posted on 11/17/2014 11:29:42 AM PST by jazusamo
Loretta Lynch, President Obama's choice to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General, has an especially weak record of investigating and prosecuting political corruption. Moreover, her longstanding ties to the New York political machine have limited her independence as a prosecutor.
Lynch, who currently serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, has watched as Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the neighboring Southern District of New York, has prosecuted case after case. And Bharara would not have acted except for a slew of newspaper headlines about political corruption generated by the National Legal and Policy Center.
We conducted these investigations from afar, based primarily by an examination of public documents, without the benefit of tools available to prosecutors. Loretta Lynch had nothing to do with exposing all this corruption that was taking place right under her nose.
To his credit, Bharara is also investigating New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the wake of Cuomo disbanding the so-called Moreland Commission. A New York state law from 1907 named for its sponsor, Sherman Moreland, allows the governor to appoint investigators with subpoena power to seek out corruption in state government. Cuomo established the Commission last year in response to the wave of corruption, but closed it down after it started to look at his friends.
Beginning in 2010, we reviewed public documents connected to U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and his political network. Meeks was involved with a nonprofit called New Direction Local Development Corporation. Among other irregularities, the group raised money for Hurricane Katrina victims who never received the money. Newspaper headlines about New Direction, starting with a New York Post exposé on January 31, 2010, apparently prompted a series of often overlapping investigations. Here is a summary:
The most prominent case here prosecuted by Lynch is Sampson. Although Sampson is facing serious charges, we have always feared that Sampson was about to get off easy, perhaps with a plea deal that would result in a minimal sentence.
Sampson had a mole in Lynch's office named Sam Noel, a paralegal who worked there for 22 years. Sampson asked "Noel the Mole" for names of potential witnesses in a related case so he could "take them out." Noel was caught but the unanswered questions are how long he had been doing favors for politicians and how he got away with it for so long.
Sampson allegedly embezzled $440,000 while serving as a court-appointed referee for the sale of foreclosed properties. There is no way Sampson could not have pulled off his scheme without the knowledge and contrivance of others in the court system. Corrupt judges and other court officials are important actors in New York machine politics. They provide the grease that keeps the wheels of graft running smoothly. Lynch has talked tough about Sampson, but she has indicted no other officials. There is no evidence of a broader investigation.
The connection between real estate fraud and political corruption was richly illustrated in the Edul Ahmad case. A Guyanese-American businessman, Ahmad pleaded guilty in 2012 in a multimillion dollar mortgage fraud scheme. Sampson served as Ahmad's lawyer in real estate transactions and received an unsecured personal loan from Ahmad of $188,500 that Sampson used to try to cover his embezzlement.
Ahmad also "loaned" money to Meeks. After the FBI started to scrutinize Meeks finances in 2010 after the New Direction stories, Meeks amended his Financial Disclosure Reports to show a $40,000 payment from Ahmad in 2007. Meeks claimed it was a loan, but there were no notes or payments until several years after the payment was made.
Ahmad was prosecuted by Lynch's office, but Meeks has not been indicted. One would think that Ahmad, facing years in prison, would have to provide information about his dealings with New York politicians as part of any plea deal. For instance, he could confirm that the payment to Meeks was what it looked like - an illegal gratuity.
The prosecution of a sitting member of Congress requires the approval of the Attorney General. It appears that Meeks has enjoyed the protection of Eric Holder, with whom he shares personal and political ties. (Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican who represents Staten Island, apparently enjoys no such protection. He's been indicted by Lynch.)
Meeks office put out a statement calling Lynch's nomination "welcome news." It certainly is for Meeks. It will preclude his arrest if Lynch is confirmed. Lynch was groomed by Holder to take his place, a plan that apparently was in the works for several years.
In 2012, Lynch announced a $1.9 billion settlement with the bank HSBC. The event is significant for two reasons. First, Lynch's office had little to do with the investigation or the eventual settlement. Instead, the investigation was conducted by the office of William J. Ihlenfeld, II, the U.S. Attorney for Northern West Virginia. Holder, however, arranged for Lynch to make the announcement in New York. The press conference was a bit of an embarrassment for Lynch. After her remarks, no reporter had a question for her.
Ihlenfeld's office was about as diplomatic as it could be, putting out a press release that began, "One of the largest settlements of a criminal case in the history of the American justice system was reached in large part because of the efforts of federal prosecutors and agents from Northern West Virginia."
Second, while Holder may have wanted to showcase Lynch, the settlement was really nothing for any prosecutor to be proud of. Here's how it was described by Juan Gonzalez of the radio program Democracy Now during an interveiw of investigative journalist Matt Taibbi :
The banking giant has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda. The bank reportedly supplied a billion dollars to a firm whose founder had ties to al-Qaeda and shipped billions in cash from Mexico to the United States despite warnings the money was coming from drug cartels. Earlier this year, a Senate investigation concluded that HSBC provided a, "gateway for terrorists to gain access to U.S. dollars and the U.S. financial system."
Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the Justice Department has allowed the bank to avoid prosecution and pay a $1.9 billion fine. No top HSBC officials will face charges. While it's reportedly the largest penalty ever paid by a bank, the deal has come under wide criticism. Officials reportedly agreed to seek the fine over concerns that criminal charges would have hurt the global financial system.
The HSBC episode raises another question. Why would Lynch have to barnacle on to a case pursued by a West Virginia U.S. Attorney when she was sitting there in New York, the financial capital of the world? Lynch assumed office in 2010 in the wake of the financial meltdown. It would seem like an opportune time to go after the perpetrators of crisis, which was based on fraud on top of fraud. Not one executive of a major banking center firm, however, has been prosecuted for their roles in the near-collapse of our financial system.
Contrary to the rhetoric of Obama and Holder, no administration in history has been better for Wall Street and the big banks. Dodd-Frank institutionalized the "too big to fail" doctrine and insulates money center banks from competition. A policy of easy money guarantees profitability and has artificially buoyed the stock market. The unwritten deal is that the financial services industry will get risk-free profits in return for absorbing administration shots. It looks like Loretta Lynch would fit right in, and that's the problem.
Related articles at link.
There is only ONE reason this Loretta Lynch is Obama’s choice. To cover up crimes that Obama and Holder committed.
Ya think?
The Obmaadork doesn’t nominate anyone who didn’t take at least 4 undergrad and 5 grad courses on how to be corrupt and get away with it.
Oh, and special bonus points for taking “Community Organizing 101,” even though that course is there for especially low IQ idiots.
> Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch is Soft on Political Corruption
To paraphrase Forest Gump, “Corrupt is as corrupt does.”
Yep, and she was groomed for it.
If she wasn’t corrupt, Obola wouldn’t nominate her in the first place.
Not just that. She worked for Hillary during Whitewater. She will use the full force of the DOJ to kneecap Hillary’s opponents.
The same DOJ that we now discover is using airplanes for phone eavesdropping.
> There is only ONE reason this Loretta Lynch is Obama’s choice. To cover up crimes that Obama and Holder committed.
I was going to say duh but you beat me to it. Hey ya know since Obama keeps electing black people and Muslims to work for him isn’t he being racist? Can whiteys start getting their affirmative action benefits too? If not, why not. Hey turnabout’s fair play!
Loretta E. Lynch : the AG Nominee seized $904 Million in Private Property through Civil Asset Forfeiture in Fiscal Year 2013. ... policing for profit.
The combined joint collections and asset forfeiture recoveries for the Eastern District total of more than $2.2 billion exceeds the appropriated $1.86 billion operating budget for all U.S. Attorneys’ Offices nationwide.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3227201/posts
Hatch wants her too.......
Extortion, the Chicago (0bama) way.
Lynch, it seems, is rather more prejudiced towards the voter id laws but not in a fair way. She puts race in that belief. So, what does that say. Holder approved.
So that means she’s soft on black on white crime I bet too?
Like Holder?
Great post and link. Thanks.
She IS a democrat, after all.
Black + female + leftist means the nominal political opposition party will be terrified to vote against confirmation and reluctant to investigate wrongdoing by the DOJ.
>>There is only ONE reason this Loretta Lynch is Obama’s choice. To cover up crimes that Obama and Holder committed.
Yes, while carrying right on with Holder’s plan. Black suppression / i.e. lies these people use as their cover to advance the retransformation / pay back. If Holder gets in trouble, she can’t save him. Obama can pardon. She will cover for Obama, no doubt. But we will see the likes of McCain and others praising her. Did they control Holder, with his overreaches and lies, no. Any changes here, no.
Well stated.
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.
