Right wing attacks on Obama’s selection of Loretta Lynch after recommendation by Al Sharpton will not be effective in stopping her from becoming Attorney General of the United States
The Daily News’ recent admonition of Loretta Lynch for her failure to pursue former Brooklyn DA Hynes over the years and recently might prove more useful as ammunition against her confirmation
Not long ago a Daily News Editorial cut their praise of U.S. Attorney Lynch off at only “One Cheer” — for not going after Hynes while he was still the Brooklyn DA — Now, it looks like she’s again, or is that still, not going after him, after she had announced that she would
The routinely expected rightist attacks on President Obama’s choice to be Attorney General of the United States focus on things like the supposed selection of Loretta Lynch was made by MSNBC host and National Action Network operator Al Sharpton ( See “Did Al Sharpton Just Pick The Next Attorney General?”
By Patrick Howley, 11/7/14, Daily Caller
[http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/07/did-al-sharpton-just-pick-the-next-attorney-general/]; picked-up in the John Birch Society’s “New American” ( “AG Pick Puts Spotlight on Sharpton as White House ‘Insider’ ” by Jack Kenny, New American [http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19501-ag-pick-puts-spotlight-on-sharpton-as-white-house-insider]); for being a doctrinaire radical supporter of Obama’s program, such as open immigration (See “Immigration Threatens Loretta Lynch’s Confirmation” by Steven Dennis, 11/8/14, Roll Call [http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/immigration-threatens-loretta-lynchs-confirmation/?dcz=]); and/or unalterably opposed to certain Republicans initiatives like Voter ID Laws, making Lynch "... just as dangerous as Holder to American justice and electoral integrity...." (See “Loretta Lynch Attacks Voter ID Laws in Video” by Drew MacKenzie, 11/10/14, Newsmax [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Loretta-Lynch-attorney-general-nominee-video-voter-ID-laws/2014/11/10/id/606374/]).
Those and similar arguments might be convincing and even satisfying to many conservative Republicans, however they are not likely to convince a majority of U.S. Senators that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as the AG of the USA. Something more subtle, thoughtful, and ultimately persuasive needs to be considered — something that is actually tied to Loretta Lynch’s performance as a U.S. Attorney. Some of that can be gleaned by a retrospective examination of the Daily News coverage and editorial commentary about Loretta Lynch.
Look to the Daily News, which looks like it is generally supportive of the Loretta Lynch nomination for AG of the USA.
In “...Part 1” of this series of posts about President Obama’s recent selection for U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, I presented three views of the Lynch nomination to AG, one from the NY Times, another from the New York Observer, and the third from the Staten Island Advance ( See my 11/8/14 post “Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. — Part 1” below on this blog). By way of quick comparison, I want you to take a look at three Daily News features about Ms. Lynch.
To this observer, the New York Daily News was quite reserved in its initial coverage of the President’s announcement of Brooklyn, New York’s Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General of the United States. Not only were the insights evenhanded, the News’ writers circumscribed all of the encomiums and upbeat presentations about her nomination to AG with the ominous caveat — “[If she] is approved by the Senate.” This strongly suggested that the Obama nomination and/or nominee might be in some way PROBLEMATIC. Then when President Obama nominated Ms. Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the United States, the Daily News Editors did what appeared to be a “volte face” for their paper — And they lavished praise on their new-found local crush on the national scene, Ms. Lynch — All as if Loretta Lynch’s nomination were completely NOT PROBLEMATIC IN ANY WAY.
Three recent views of Loretta Lynch from the Daily News
The first article is from last Saturday, it was a short, unembellished and to the point article — in it, the President said a little of this about Loretta Lynch; and then Loretta Lynch said some of that in response to the President and the public (See “Brooklyn’s Loretta Lynch formally introduced as Attorney General nominee by President Obama – The President called top Brooklyn federal prosecutor Lynch ‘tough, fair and independent.’ ” by Larry McShane, 11/8/14, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-names-loretta-lynch-attorney-general-nominee-article-1.2003845]). Just a few of the President’s remarks were quoted in the article by Larry McShane, it started with this: “It’s pretty hard to be more qualified for this role than Loretta.... She’s not about the flash, she’s about the substance....”; continued with this: “Loretta’s spent her life fighting for fair and equal justice.... I can think of no better public servant to be our next attorney general....”; and the News article ended with this quote by the President: “Loretta might be the only lawyer in America who battles mobsters and drug lords and terrorists and still has the reputation for being a people person.” McShane’s report of Ms. Lynch’s remarks was equally succinct; and McShane’s other observations were kept to a minimum as well.
Another earlier News article about the nomination of Loretta Lynch by President Obama was done by a troika of News writers last Friday after the first word that the U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of New York would be the President’s nominee for AG (See “Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be named Obama's top choice for new Attorney General – Lynch, 55, would become the nation’s first black female attorney general if approved by the Senate” by Dan Friedman, Eli Rosenberg & Larry McShane, 11/7/14, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-attorney-loretta-lynch-set-replace-g-eric-holder-article-1.2002786]). That article was almost unique in that it reported the following as a negative sounding item about the nomination, placing it prominently among the generally effusive and laudatory comments by others: “Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, took a small shot at Lynch’s resume in congratulating the nominee. *** ‘U.S. attorneys are rarely elevated directly to this position, so I look forward to learning more about her,’ the Republican said....” Other papers and media characterized Grassley’s remarks in a more positive light, but the News drove its point home with it’s sub-headline “Lynch, 55, would become the nation’s first black female attorney general if approved by the Senate....” That line, “...if approved by the Senate...”, sticks out like a clunker; and that did not seem to be in any way accidental.
That’s one of the reasons why the Daily News editorial boards’s shout out to and about Loretta Lynch came as such a surprise (See “Doing New York proud – Loretta Lynch will be a great attorney general,” Daily News Editorial, 11/8/14, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-new-york-proud-article-1.2003449]). According to the News’ editors, “Brooklyn-based federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is President Obama’s pick for the next attorney general of the United States. *** She is an excellent and historic choice. *** Lynch has built a stellar legal career in private practice and government service — including leading the successful prosecution of the Abner Louima police brutality case. ***
She has served with distinction in two stints as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York — first under Bill Clinton, and now under Obama — putting away more than her share of terrorists, thugs and corrupt politicians. *** The fact that she has twice won Senate confirmation by acclamation — and, unlike outgoing AG Eric Holder, has no personal connection to an unpopular President — should smooth Lynch’s path to the nation’s top law enforcement job....”
The News’ editorial’s praise of Obama’s nominee was so unequivocal and complete, that the final line in the editorial thumped like a Paukenschlag at the end of a movement in a symphony perhaps signaling a change of key for the theme from a major to a minor — “If confirmed, Lynch would head to Washington with New York’s best wishes. Our loss would be the country’s gain.” — Again, the whole comment was pregnant with the reservation, “... IF CONFIRMED...”; a concept that subtly re-cast the whole editorial into a subjunctive contra-factual conditional fantasy of sorts.
Prior Daily News Editorial — Admonishing Lynch — Upon Opening Joint Investigation of DA Hynes
A clue to what might be nagging at the Daily News’ editors in their very recent near-endorsement of Loretta Lynch can be found in another opinion piece that they did not so very long ago. In August 2014, when a joint investigation of former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes appeared to have gotten off the ground, at long last; the Daily News’ editors gave “Two cheers... for Eastern District U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch” for opening a criminal investigation of Hynes after many, many years of obvious wrong-doing. However, the New’s editors took back one of those cheers, because Lynch only began to look into Hynes after he lost his re-election bid for a seventh term in 2013 (See "Hynes catch-up - Wide and deep probe needed for rogue DA" by Editorial Board, 8/18/14, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/hynes-catch-up-article-1.1905439]).
The News’ editors then laid out twelve years worth of wrongful deeds of the former Brooklyn District Attorney that needed to be looked into Loretta Lynch, as the U.S. Attorney covering Brooklyn. Mostly the Daily News editors showed how Hynes’ abuse of his office had violated so many people’s Civil and Constitutional Rights, and other more venal pursuits.
The News’ editors concluded by saying “The bottom line, as we wrote this year in “The shameful DA,” is that “the misuse of money and potential criminal liability” that Lynch is reportedly looking into “is the least of Hynes’ crimes.” The editors of the Daily News closed by saying that they would see soon enough if U.S. Attorney Lynch had done a proper investigation into former DA Hynes — with particular emphasis on all the matters raised by the New York Daily News editors over the years that Mr. Hynes was Brooklyn DA - AND- Ms. Lynch was the U.S. Attorney.
How can the Daily News’ editors say in November 2014 that “Loretta Lynch will be a great attorney general,” and then say “She is an excellent and historic choice”; when so far, she appears to have dropped the ball on something the News’ editors had said was so important just a few months before in August ? Clearly, the Daily News would not want everybody to forget that Loretta Lynch looks like she again dropped the ball on Hynes; just like she did over and over and over again for many, many years before.
Brooklyn Republicans, and readers of this blog in particular, have to get the word out to Senator Chuck Grassley and others in the U.S. Senate that, as U.S. Attorney for those of us in Brooklyn, Loretta Lynch’s record is not nearly as good as everybody says — AND SPECIFICALLY MENTION HOW SHE HAS WALKED OUT ON HER PART OF A JOINT INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER BROOKLYN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH SHE OPENED WITH SUCH FANFARE JUST IN THIS PAST SUMMER OF 2014.
10 comments:
MODERATOR'S COMMENT: THE "FIFTY SHADES OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE ISSUE"
A PRIOR COMMENT IN THIS SPACE HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN TO ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF ITS CONTENT AND MODERATION OF SOME PROBLEMATIC ELEMENTS WITHIN THE COMMENT....
Holy Smokes again!
Please rename this blog to:
FIFTY SHADES OF MALARKEY
As in Vice President Biden's eloquent response to that Ryan idiot during a debate: "You're a bunch of malarkey."
RESPONSE: THE "BROKEN BIDEN BRAIN" EDITION
Vice President suffers from serious brain damage secondary to trauma, brain surgery and implanted medical devices. It causes him to occasionally act erratically and to lack appropriate insight into certain conversation. "...a bunch of malarkey..." is one of his better formulations; and for Biden it is actually quite eloquent.
Censorship of comments.
A true libertarian.
MODERATED COMMENT: THE "FIFTY SHADES OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE ISSUE 2" EDITION
The following comment was posted earlier today. After the exchange of several emails with its original author, it is re-posted here as I have moderated it with [ ] marks:
"Anonymous said...
In the EDNY, Loretta Lynch has been one of the biggest proponents of civil asset forfeiture wherin the government can legally seize the property of its citizens. It is frought with many problems. I think Lynch has claimed over 900 million in seized assets. There is no reason at all to think this is not legitimate according to the federal statutes presently in place. One of the things the Money Laundering Bureau under Hynes never wanted to do was to participate in what is called the "federal adoption" of assets. In this way the D.A.'s office would share any funds they seized with the EDNY. The Manhattan D.A.'s office does this all the time with the SDNY. The folks in Money laundering [...] wanted to keep it in the office so as to reap the benefits of secrecy. It is one of the reasons we never ever reported tax crimes to the NY Tax Commission which we were obligated to do. If we reported to the Commission then [the office] had to share in the "take". By not reporting, we were able to shake down the defendants for more funds - preferable cash. It was done frequently and with much financial success. These are financial crimes allegedly committed during Hynes tenure that Loretta Lynchs' office knows about. It is surprising that she has not more vigorously gone after Hynes on this. Other malfeasance was brought to her office's attention such as allegations of mismanaged property throughout Brooklyn and coerceing law enforcement to lie and sign false affidavits under oath. Perhaps these are small ethical matters for the EDNY. But the larger issues of theft of public money seems to be something that she should be going after with vigor. *** November 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM"
Big bucks involved in being a prosecutor. Funny how you never see that on Law and Order episodes.
There's an interesting article in the NYT's today on a federal indictment against Abraham Rubin. This is the same Abraham Rubin that former District Attorney Joe Hynes promised no jail time to "If and only If" Rubin could secure for Hynes both a meeting with Rabbi Teitelbaum and the promise of his Satmar faction's votes in the primary against Ken Thompson. Rubin held two huge fundraisers for Hynes during the early part of the summer or maybe it was the spring. The former Deputy DA Dino Amoroso was extremely satisifed with the amount of money raised but not so satisfied as to keep Rubin completely off the hook. I think he got thirty days for the felony charges. Hynes did get the Rabbi's votes and, no, this is Williamsburg so it is not "One man*, one vote" It is "One Rabbi, seven thousand votes." Happily, the case is now with the feds so Rubin will finally have to face the consequences of his alleged criminal behavior. Joe Hynes always called the Satmar community "worse than the mafia." He said it in public and in the office - as did others. Funny though because to me it was Hynes himself who brokered the best mafioso deals.
* not gender neutral but it might changes the meaning if corrected.
Comment above gives an idea of how bad the corruption was with Hynes.
Are we ever going to find out what scam Marty Golden had?
Correction to the above: Aron Rubin who yesterday was charged by the feds with stealing thousands of dollars in medicaid and welfare (receiving fraudulent payments) was given NO jail time under the Hynes administration. Dino thought it would look bad politically if he got a free pass and in light of the money he raised for Hynes' campaign it was a difficult situation. Hence, the office delayed the case of Rubin until after the general election and by that time the place was in tatters as Republican Joe lost. Rubin was subsequently sentenced under the new D.A. in February 2014. Incidentally, the fund raisers for Hynes in Williamsburg by members of the Satmar community took in money via brown baggies filled with cash. Literally. It is these kinds of actions on the part of Hynes that should have infuriated especially local Republicans who I always suspected find particular outrage in theft of public money and government corruption. Instead, well, we know the story, the local Reps got on board the "Let's go Joe" bus to nowehere. It will never make any sense to me.
RESPONSE: THE "FOLLOW CLOSELY NOW" EDITION
Charles "Joe" Hynes led the Republican-Conservative ticket in Brooklyn in 2013. I predicted that he would; and that's the reason that I thought the GOP should endorse him just like they did in the past.
Post a Comment