The New York Times is unequivocal — “Loretta Lynch, Federal Prosecutor, Will Be Nominated for Attorney General”
Agreeing with the Times’ view, the New York Observer notes that “ ... Ms. Lynch might be an easier sell to Republicans than some of Mr. Obama’s other options...”
Two different views of “Fairness” exposed in early debate about Loretta Lynch’s fitness for the Office of Attorney General of the United States — Brooklyn DA Kenneth Thompson’s and Brooklyn and Staten Island Congressman Michael Grimm’s
Was politics too often involved in the way Loretta Lynch conducted investigations and decided on prosecutions as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District ?
By the time most of you read this post, the U.S. Attorney for Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island will have been rolled-out as the nation’s Attorney General Designate. On Friday, the New York Times reported that “President Obama will nominate Loretta E. Lynch, the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, to be the next attorney general, reaching outside his inner circle to fill a key post, the White House said Friday.... Mr. Obama will announce her selection at a ceremony Saturday in the Roosevelt Room. He will be joined by Ms. Lynch and Eric H. Holder Jr., the current attorney general, who has announced his plans to step down....” ( See “Loretta Lynch, Federal Prosecutor, Will Be Nominated for Attorney General” by Julie Hirschfield Davis & Matt Appuzzunov, 11/7/14, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/loretta-lynch-eric-holder-attorney-general.html?_r=0]).
According to the Times, by choosing Ms. Lynch, the president passed over many possible appointees with whom he had closer ties. It was presumed that those potential candidates would have provoked a strong Republican opposition to any one of them that received the nomination. Those on that short list included Thomas E. Perez, the Secretary of Labor; Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the U.S. Solicitor General; and Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House Counsel ( Ms. Ruemmler took herself out of the running last month rather than risk the messy confirmation fight that her nomination might precipitate ). Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who twice recommended Ms. Lynch to the White House as a United States attorney, called for her “swift confirmation” and several key Republican Senators have promised quick consideration of the appointment.
Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson hits sour note with his early suggestion that U.S. Senate hearings might not result in a “fair process” for Loretta Lynch
Many of the people tied into the legal establishment in the Eastern District of New York, including the Kings County District Attorney, have sung the praises of Loretta Lynch. However, something that DA Kenneth Thompson said hit a bit of a sour note. According to the New York Observer, Brooklyn DA Thompson said this: “If anything, she has already been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and she should be confirmed easily this time, if it’s a fair process....” ( See “Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson: Loretta Lynch Would Be ‘Simply Superb’ Attorney General” by Jillian Jorgensen, 11/7/14, NY Observer [http://observer.com/2014/11/brooklyn-da-ken-thompson-loretta-lynch-would-be-simply-superb-attorney-general/][Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook]). These words of DA Thompson show both sides of the coin of prejudice — inferring that two earlier Senate approvals of Ms. Lynch for the lower spot of U.S. Attorney for the EDNY should make their third approval for Lynch as Attorney General automatic, and his implication that the Senate could vote down or delay Lynch’s nomination as AG only if “it’s [not] a fair process.”
NY Observer ties issue of “fairness” to Loretta Lynch’s problematic handling of U.S. Congressman Michael Grimm’s Case — Will U.S. Senators do the same ?
The same New York Observer article that quoted the Brooklyn District Attorney tied that quote to questions of Loretta Lynch’s professional and prosecutorial fairness raised by Congressman Michael Grimm. According to Jillian Jorgensen writing in the Observer yesterday, “At least one person, however, has called Ms. Lynch’s fairness into question: Congressman Michael Grimm, whom she hit with a 20-count indictment on tax and mail fraud. Mr. Grimm’s office has asked the court to toss out the charges, arguing he is the victim of a ‘selective and vindictive’ prosecution. Mr. Grimm, who cruised to re-election Tuesday, has repeatedly called his 13-point victory a ‘referendum’ on Ms. Lynch and the Eastern District [prosecution].”
Interestingly, if the NY Observer’s report of his remarks are accurate, Brooklyn DA Thompson, attempted to rebut the Congressman’s position, with remarks that might have been both factually wrong and ethically questionable (a full and exact quote by Kenneth Thompson is not available at this time).
Another Problem Raised by Congressman Grimm’s Legal Counsel Concerning Loretta Lynch’s Nomination as U.S. Attorney General — Were Political Aspirations of Prosecutors Behind the Grimm Prosecution and Indictment ?
According to a late report in the Staten Island Advance, “ [Grimm’s] attorney, Palm Beach-based lawyer Stuart N. Kaplan, said with Lynch leaving, the trial could possibly take another route. *** He said he is "disturbed and quite concerned" that Ms. Lynch is leaving her post because it means she has been having conversations about it for a while and in doing so, being a political player, which he said presents a conflict of interest. *** If Grimm wasn't a congressman "this case certainly wouldn't have gotten to the point where it's at," and might have been settled before trial, Kaplan said. *** He said the case against the congressman has "more to do with politics" that it does Grimm being "a tax cheat." *** Kaplan is hoping a new prosecutor may be interested in discussing avoiding a trial, something he said Ms. Lynch opposed. *** The lawyer said it's unsettling that people with political aspirations have been involved in the case. First Todd Kaminsky, a former assistant U.S. attorney, was part of the investigation that led to Grimm's indictment. *** The Democrat left to run for Assembly on Long Island. He won the seat on Tuesday. *** Now, Ms. Lynch is leaving to serve in a political role in the cabinet of a Democratic president and Kaplan said it would be nice to have a new U.S. attorney to look at the case with a fresh perspective and be "someone without political aspirations." *** A spokesperson for Ms. Lynch did not return a request for comment....” ( See “Rep. Michael Grimm's attorney 'disturbed' by prosecutor Loretta Lynch leaving office for White House post” by Rachel Shapiro, 11/7/14, SI Advance/ silive.com [http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/rep_michael_grimms_attorney_di.html]).
These were just a few of the issues making President Obama’s selection of Loretta Lynch a problem that the U.S. Senate needs to fully investigate before consenting to her appointment as Attorney General
The US. Senate needs to do its job and fully vet the United States Attorney for the Eastern District Loretta Lynch one more time before letting her step up to her newly proposed position as Attorney General of the United States. From just the three articles mentioned above in this post, it should be clear that contrary to what the White House and the current Democratic leadership in the Senate would want you to believe, her nomination is neither simple nor without controversy. Hopefully the inquiry will be complete and bipartisan; but if it needs be a partisan fight in the Lame Duck session, then let it be.
There will be a follow-up to this post ASAP, when more research on Loretta Lynch’s record as U.S. Attorney has been completed. There are several items of particular interest to those involved with the Brooklyn GOP and general interest to others who follow this this blog that have yet to be discussed.
Please be on the look-out for — "Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. - Part 2" — coming soon to a computer screen near you.
The question that needs to be asked of Loretta Lynch is why for so many years she turned a blind eye to the corruption going on in the office of D.A. Charles Hynes. It was and is her office's obligation to thoroughly investigate the alleged malfeasance under Hynes when allegation were presented to her. There is absolutely no evidence that Loretta Lynch ever proactively sought to root out the corruption on Jay Street. Hopefully, these issues will be raised by the Senate GOP.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough it will be Grimm and Hynes that will cost Lynch her approval from the Senate.
ReplyDeleteCNN just announced that Obama expedited nomination so her confirmation hearings will be before lame duck Senate.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP leadership wants to put it off till after January.
Does Kimba Wood ring a bell?
Kimba Wood. Wasnt there a cartoon about her?
ReplyDeleteI think Harold Carswell is more on point.
Kimba Wood's failed nomination was a direct result of our sexist legal culture wherein women must be twice as good as men to be considered for high level positions. She never broke a law and perhaps should have been lauded for providing honest work to an undocumented immigrant. Further, the fact that she posed for Playboy or something to that effect while in college points to the pressure on young women to live up to an objectified standard of female behavior set by the patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteThe Loretta Lynch nomination is entirely different.
Gail,
ReplyDeleteYou attracteded anew species of bug on your blog a Fema-gnatzie Fly. It keeps hanging around biting at you until you fall asleep.
Didn't Kimba Wood die in a boating "accident" with Bob Wagner and Chris Walken?
ReplyDeleteTo set the record straight:
ReplyDelete1- Kimba Wood was a cocktail waitress at the Playboy club
2- It was Natalie Wood that died in a boat accident
3- If Dorothy got some Wood than maybe she would shut the f*** up.
I agree so much with the comment above, there is so much splendour in grass.
ReplyDeleteInteresting item.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to part 2
UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE "MEMORY HOLE" EDITION
ReplyDeleteBROOKLYN DA THOMPSON AND DAILY NEWS EDITORS "SELL OUT" ON HYNES INVESTIGATION TO BACK LYNCH'S NOMINATION FOR AG
In 2013, while still a candidate, the current Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson issued a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch calling for an investigation into the interrogation and detention practices of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office under D.A. Charles Hynes. “Only through an independent, external investigation, can the public be satisfied that District Attorney Hynes will be held accountable for any violations of the law, and that any ongoing illegal practices will be stopped.” – Report by Charisma L. Miller, BROOKLYN EAGLE, May 31, 2013.
In August 2014, when that investigation finally got off the ground, The Daily News editors gave “Two cheers... for Eastern District U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch” for finally opening a criminal investigation of the former Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes, but took back one of those cheers for looking into Hynes only after he lost his bid for a seventh term in 2013. The News’ editors then laid out twelve years worth of wrongful deeds of former DA Hynes that needed to be looked into. Mostly the Daily News editors showed how Hynes’ abuse of his office had violated so many peoples Civil and Constitutional Rights. 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. — NY DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL, August 18, 2014.
How can Kenneth Thompson now praise Loretta Lynch, who obviously has not pressed any investigation of his charges against DA Hynes from the year before?
How can the Daily News editors yesterday say that “Loretta Lynch will be a great attorney general” and then say “She is an excellent and historic choice” when so far Lynch has dropped the ball on something The News’ editors said was so important just a few months before? What’s worst of all, is that the Daily News editors do an old Stalin era Soviet trick of “memory holing” Lynch's longtime inaction on the whole of Hynes' wrongdoing during her two-term tenure as U.S. Attorney, by saying instead that “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.” NY DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL, November 8, 2014.
Even if Ken Thompson and the Daily News want everybody to forget that Loretta Lynch dropped the ball on Hynes over and over and over again for many, many years, commenters on and readers of this blog and Brooklyn Republicans generally 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 as good as everybody says.
Gale was getting in touch with his feminine side. McGreevy did that too.
ReplyDeleteIts Sunday. You people need to rest.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought, you people need a long long vacation.
Not only Ken Thompson while a candidate but ADA's working in the office under Charles Hynes reported the malfeasance going on in the D.A's office directly to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District. In fact, while walking over to Cadman Plaza to meet with investigators last September one ADA was followed by Joe Hynes' detective Ponzi. The point is Loretta Lynch had first hand knowledge of violations occurring in Hynes' office and as of yet has done nothing about it. Secondly, Hynes often bragged of his close relationship with Loretta Lynch inside the office and if true, perhaps this has compromised the Hynes' investigation.
ReplyDeleteGood comment above.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find odd about the ass kissing reporters covering Lynch is the recent big case the press points to is the Sampson prosecution.
None of these reporters saw last weeks articles where the serious charges against Sampson were dismissed because Lynch screwed up on the statute of limitations.
UPDATE: THE "TO TELL THE TRUTH" EDITION
ReplyDeletePICTURE THE SENATE HEARINGS WITH THREE WOMEN STANDING UP AND SAYING "I'M LORETTA LYNCH" ONE AFTER THE OTHER
Imagine if Senator Goodson Todman asks this question: "How do we know that the Loretta Lynch appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Attorney General is not the Loretta Lynch that represented the Clinton's in the Whitewater scandal?"
Chairman Bud Collyer would have to call a quick recess, go into the hall and explain that just because the Loretta Lynch, who was supposedly from Brooklyn, stood next to Obama and gave a speech at the White House, that doesn't mean that the AG who later gets sworn in won't be the one who was the Clinton's Whitewater Attorney. (Note:If they can switch race horses at the track, in spite of tattooed numbers in their mouths, they can switch Loretta Lynches to be Attorney General [since nobody is allowed to mention race, the fact that one LL is "white," and the other LL is, dare I say it, "black" is not a distinguishing characteristic --- and it should be unlawful to racially profile Attoneys General of the United States]).
This kind of switcheroo has already confused Breitbart News and a couple of other right leaning media outlets to the delight of Media Matters.
As a matter of fact, how do we know for sure that President Clinton didn't actually appoint his Whitewater Loretta Lynch to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York back during in his Administration, and the Loretta Lynch, who is supposedly from Brooklyn, didn't usurp the position from the Whitewater Loretta Lynch. It's not impossible, there was a lot of confusion going on in Washington at the time.
That's why the U.S. Senate has to conduct a complete investigation of BOTH Loretta Lynches. We can't have a "Prisoner of Zenda" situation with respect to the nations top law enforcement officer.
DNA tests need to be performed and submitted to the Judiciary Committee, or else it will be like the Obama Birth Certificate thing all over again.
Goodson Toddman productions were great, and, so was my Nehru jacket.
ReplyDeletenow national media will take a serious look at the Lynch prosecution of Grimm.
ReplyDeleteLynch will fold.
Is anybody going to tell us what happened to the joint probe of former Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Loretta Lynch’s U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York?
ReplyDeleteIt was reported in the New York Post on June 16, 2014. In that article Post reporter Josh Saul said, “Two assistant US attorneys from Brooklyn federal court were deputized by the AG’s office and two assistant AGs were deputized as federal prosecutors last week so they can jointly probe the allegations against Hynes, the source said..... The move allows federal and state prosecutors to freely share information and more easily operate in both state and federal courts if the probe results in criminal charges.”
In the same Post article by Josh Saul, it was also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney’s office had been investigating Hynes’ office about a year earlier than that as the result of a whistle-blower, who had been one of Hynes’ ADAs in Brooklyn that went to Lynch’s U.S. Attorney’s Office with evidence of wrongdoing in the Brooklyn DA’s Office.
RESPONSE: THE “WE WERE ON THE CASE” EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHIS BLOG COVERED THE JOINT NYS-FED INVESTIGATION OF HYNES SHORTLY AFTER IT WAS ANNOUNCED — AT THE TIME ANOTHER NY POST ARTICLE TALKED ABOUT CONVENING A FEDERAL GRAND JURY ON THE MATTERS BEING INVESTIGATED
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, NEITHER THE JOINT INVESTIGATION OF HYNES NOR ANY RELATED FEDERAL GRAND JURY HAS REACHED ANY CONCLUSION ON THESE MATTERS
The material mentioned in the comment above was covered in a related post, dated June 22, 2014, below on this blog (See “Does the Sunday Post Article, “Hynes’ payouts to pals – $$ probe widens” scare State Senator Golden and Golden’s supporters to death ? — It certainly should !” by Galewyn Massey, 6/22/14, “...Fountainhead” [http://galewynmassey.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-sunday-post-article-hynes-payouts.html#comments]).
In my 6/22/14 post, I cited and quoted material from a NY Post article that contained a computer link to Mr. Saul’s article in the Post that was mentioned in the comment above ( See “Hynes probe looks at payments to cronies” by Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein, 6/22/14 [http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/hynes-probe-looks-at-payments-to-cronies/]).
The Post's Vincent-Klein article is especially interesting, because the article specifically stated that “...a federal grand jury has been convened in Brooklyn...” to look into the Hynes matters under investigation.
The whistleblower was paid off. There are no Hynes investigations happening. - Conway Stapleton
ReplyDeleteContrariwise, said Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE & QUERY: THE “57 KINDS OF HYNES’ IRISH PENNANTS” EDITION
ReplyDeleteSO MANY QUESTIONS — SO LITTLE ... [BUT NOT NOTHING] — MAYBE, NEXT TO NOTHING [BUT NOT NOTHING]
I bet former DA Hynes remembers “Irish pennants”.... Usually, they came in various shades of green; and their presence was announced with a line like “What’s this ?”
Comment maker Anon. 5:10 AM said, “The whistleblower was paid off. There are no Hynes investigations happening. - Conway Stapleton....”
“The whistleblower was paid off....” — Who would know that ?
“... There are no Hynes investigations happening....” Why would anybody say that, when both N.Y.A.G. Eric Schneiderman and U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch said their were investigations, and the Post said a source indicated there was a Federal Grand Jury working on the case ?
“ – Conway Stapleton...” Who knows about that reference — and its connection to the Hynes inner circle ?
Next to nothing [but not nothing] !
Breitbart is the poor mans Matt Drudge.
ReplyDeleteThe National Review and The Daily Caller have no articles about Lynch.
ReplyDeleteStrange.
BACKFILL: THE “PILING ON BREITBART” EDITION
ReplyDeleteANDREW BREITBART NOT TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE — SOMEBODY WOULD BE CONTENT WITH THE MAKING THE CORRECTION AND GETTING THE ATTENTION
Somebody, reportedly Warner Todd Huston, and/or some other somebodies, at Breitbart.com screwed up on a few key facts about Obama’s Attorney General Designate Loretta Lynch, in their Saturday report on the nominee — “Well, ex-CUUUUUUUUUSE ME !” Actually, what happened was the researcher(s) and/or writer(s) for Breitbart.com came across another Loretta Lynch, a California lawyer, who was part of the Clintons’ Whitewater legal team back in the day, and took some of her press clippings (reportedly from the NY Times) and applied them to the Loretta Lynch, who twice has been U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and whom President Obama has selected to be the next Attorney General of the United States. In any case, Breitbart News and Breitbart.com corrected their mistake in due course (See “LORETTA LYNCH: A QUALIFIED--BUT POLITICAL--CHOICE” by Joel Pollack, 11/9/14, Breitbart.com/ Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/09/Loretta-Lynch-A-Qualified-but-Political-Choice][albeit with some interesting mid-course corrections, as reported in the Media Matters article cited below]). As an addition at the end of the article that now appears is the following notation: “Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Loretta Lynch as having represented the Clintons during the Whitewater scandal. That portion of the article has been removed.”
In spite of that several left wing outlets have chosen to do features about Brietbart’s earlier erroneous report about Loretta Lynch. Those negative reports appeared in the following: The Huffington Post (See “Breitbart Criticizes Wrong Loretta Lynch” by Andrew Hart, 11/9/14 [10:50 pm EST Updated: 11/10/14 1:59 pm EST] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/breitbart-criticizes-wrong-loretta-lynch_n_6130372.html]); and Talking Points Memo (See “Breitbart Attacks The Wrong Loretta Lynch for Purported Tie to WhiteWater” by Caitlin MacNeil, 11/9/14, TPM/ talkingpointsmemo.com [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-attacks-wrong-loretta-lynch]). The original report on the error occurred in Media Matters (See “Breitbart's Attack On Obama Attorney General Nominee Goes After The Wrong Loretta Lynch” by Timothy Johnson, 11/9/14, Media Matters for America Blog [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/09/breitbarts-attack-on-obama-attorney-general-nom/201511]).
The Media Matters report opens as follows: “Following publication of this, Breitbart.com added corrections to the articles that confused the two attorneys, noting at bottom that "[t]he Loretta Lynch identified earlier as the Whitewater attorney was, in fact, a different attorney." Later on November 9, Breitbart.com removed the article by Warner Todd Huston.... [Along with a link to the original Breitart report by Warner Todd Huston].”
So far there aren’t very many mea culpas coming from Brietbart & Co., who seem to be content with their corrections of the error, thus far.
Breitbart lives....
ReplyDeleteThat is all that matters.
UPDATE: THE “LEFT-CENTER-RIGHT ANTI-BANKING BARKERS” EDITION
ReplyDeletePOST ON ANTI-BANKING BLOG IS FIRST TO REALLY TAKE A BIGHT OUT OF LORETTA LYNCH
SHE IS TAKEN TO TASK FOR HER DEFENSE OF BIG-BANKING CRIMINALS — WHILE SHE WAS U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF N.Y.
According to some guy named Carl Gibson, Republican senators will love Loretta Lynch
(See “The Republican Senate Will Love Loretta Lynch” by Carl Gibson, 11/9/14, Zero Hedge/ Reader Supported News [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-10/who-loretta-lynch]).
This will give a taste of what follows about Lynch on the anti-bankers blog: “... My more cynical readers commented that Obama was too much of a corporatist to nominate [a strong anti-bankers AG] and that whoever Holder’s successor would be, they would be completely subservient to the banks. And after the news of Lynch’s nomination and looking into her past, I can say with confidence that those readers were right.... *** .... Drawing on her past experience of standing up for white collar crooks, Lynch has spent the last four years treating big banks with kid gloves. Under Lynch’s oversight, the U.S. government allowed HSBC to pay a fine that amounted to five weeks of profit for the bank after they admitted to laundering $800 million for Mexican drug cartels. Lynch was also responsible for Citibank paying a $7 billion settlement-- $3.8 billion of which was later billed to U.S. taxpayers – rather than going to jail over misleading millions of investors about mortgage-backed securities that were doomed to fail.” Like I said, some guy named Carl Gibson said that; and you gotta like a guy for all of that....
The comments that followed Mr. Gibson’s post seemed to be from a mix of Anti-big-banker commenters across the political spectrum. It was all a bit of a hoot.
UPDATE: THE “WHICH SIDE IS ERROL LOUIS ON ?” EDITION
ReplyDeleteDID ERROL LOUIS COME TO BURY LYNCH OR TO PRAISE HER ?
LOUIS SEEMED TO BE PREDICTING A “FIGHT” OVER LORETTA LYNCH’S NOMINATION — FROM THE LOOKS OF IT, IT MIGHT AS WELL BE WITH HIM
New York 1's host of Inside City Hall, Errol Louis, writing a feature article for CNN, went on at some length to extol Attorney General Loretta Lynch and to highlight and burnish her credentials for the top legal job in the country ( See “Loretta Lynch, get ready for a fight” by Errol Louis, 11/11/14, CNN Opinion [http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/opinion/louis-loretta-lynch/index.html?eref=rss_topstorie]).
After a lot of good stuff about the good woman, who is up for a pretty good job, Errol Louis did what so many have done; he turned around and gave a pretty good look at what the “other side” might have to say. Here is the biggest part of it:
“She will now find herself caricatured and criticized by power brokers in Washington who are determined to hamstring the president. One likely avenue of attack is Lynch's time in the private sector: Between 2001 and 2009, she worked as a corporate attorney specializing in compliance work for big banks and briefly served on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. *** "She swims in the same pool as the moneyed elite, and her actions don't pressure them too deeply," writes David Dayen in Salon [Gee, so far I missed that one] echoing the oft-heard complaint that even multibillion-dollar settlements of the kind Lynch negotiated rarely result in any specific person going to prison [ although one of the ones that I did talk about did say that]. *** "It's just not that likely Lynch would have the will to crack down on malfeasance in the executive suites, which could implicate her colleagues and friends," writes Dayen. "It's not corruption, more like mindshare." *** That sort of criticism unites left-of-center Occupy Wall Street activists and conservatives who -- determined to find fault with anything Obama does -- accuse the White House of crony capitalism and aim special venom at ex-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (whose rise to his pre-Treasury job of president of the New York Federal Reserve was aided by Lynch; as a board member, she cast a vote to give Geithner the post). *** So Obama's nominee is in for a wave of criticism that might drag confirmation proceedings into 2015. We shall see if Lynch -- who has locked up enough terrorists, gangsters and political crooks to fill a few subway cars -- has the grit and gumption to master political combat inside the Beltway the way she has mastered legal battle in the courtroom....”
It sort of looks like Louis is warning Loretta Lynch about a possible fight, while he is holding the coat of one of the guys that wants to fight.