HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Repugnuts ask Loretta Lyn...

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:43 PM

Repugnuts ask Loretta Lynch if she will be "a political arm of the White House as attorney general?”

Loretta Lynch assures GOP she is not Eric Holder, again and again
Cornyn, in the same line of questioning ... wondered if Lynch would consider herself “a political arm of the White House as attorney general.”

Lynch answered, diplomatically: “No, Senator, that would be a totally inappropriate view of the position of attorney general,” Lynch said.


Too bad Lynch didn't become quite frank and say:

"Senator the question is outrageous, insulting, and innappropriate .. unless your a fucking ass-hole." (she knows she's talking to a Republican doesn't she?)

No, she wouldn't have said that ... but how about:
[font color="red"]
"Do you mean in the manner of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who, at the behest of the WH and Karl Rove, dismissed 9 U.S. Attorney's because they did not pursue with sufficient enthusiasm political prosecutions of bogus cases of vote fraud against Democrats? Or in the case of U.S. Attorney, Carol Lam, who nailed corrupt Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and his partners in crime and was replaced by Karen Hewitt who had a résumé with “almost no criminal law experience” and is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. .. is that the kind of 'political arm of the White House' you are talking about?"[/font]


Oh well, in a perfect world, or at least in one where fascists aren't at the throat of our Democracy.


Inside Bush’s prosecutor purge
(emphases my own)

Ever since the Bush administration shocked the legal community by dismissing eight U.S. attorneys in December, Justice Department leaders have vigorously denied that the firings were politically motivated. “I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January.

~~
~~

Suspicions about the unusual purge of eight U.S. attorneys in December exploded into the open across the legal community and on Capitol Hill after McNulty conceded in Senate testimony on Feb. 6 that the U.S. attorney in Arkansas, Bud Cummins, was pushed out for no reason other than to give someone else a shot at the job. Using a little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allowing interim appointments, Gonzales gave the post to Timothy Griffin — who had been both an operative for the Republican National Committee and a deputy to senior White House advisor Karl Rove — in what many believe was a maneuver to sidestep the traditional Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys.

~~
~~

Former officials, legal scholars and U.S. lawmakers from both parties have publicly questioned the administration’s stated rationale for the firings and have suggested troubling theories about the real reasons for the purge, which experts say is without precedent. Some former Justice Department officials say they believe the administration’s moves are a politically driven power grab — aimed not only at a tighter grip on policy from Washington, but also at creating openings with which to reward their friends and build up a bench of conservative loyalists positioned to serve in powerful posts in future administrations.

~~
~~


Experts see a continuing pattern that began long ago: A Bush White House seizing greater executive power to the detriment of democratic principle.

“No doubt this is a threat to the independent stature that the Justice Department as an institution has enjoyed over the years,” said Sam Buell, an associate professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and a former federal prosecutor under the current President Bush. “It goes against the ‘hands off’ tradition, which has insulated U.S. attorneys from criticisms of politics influencing their choices and handling of cases. This doesn’t look like a decision that’s been made in the best interest of law enforcement.”

9 replies, 2046 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Repugnuts ask Loretta Lynch if she will be "a political arm of the White House as attorney general?” (Original post)
Bill USA Jan 2015 OP
Thinkingabout Jan 2015 #1
underpants Jan 2015 #2
Bill USA Jan 2015 #3
underpants Jan 2015 #4
Bill USA Jan 2015 #5
quadrature Jan 2015 #6
Bill USA Jan 2015 #7
quadrature Jan 2015 #8
Bill USA Feb 2015 #9

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:04 PM

1. Like the political arms Ashcroft and Gonzales?

Congress and everyone was political arms of Bush and Cheney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:05 PM

2. She should've pulled an Alberto Gonzales and said "I don't recall"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:40 PM

3. Did anybody ever count up how many times he said: "I don't recall".

Mr. Gonzales, you have been showing up at work haven't you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to underpants (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 05:52 PM

5. thnks, good info for future reference!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:17 PM

6. Eric Holder wants to brainwash people (his words, not mine)

 

what about Lynch?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 04:50 PM

7. uh-huh. no link, no surprise. The Conservative Imaginosphere is fun to float around in isn't it?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 31, 2015, 05:08 PM

8. here ya go. the problem is that progressive oriented websites ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 5, 2015, 06:08 PM

9. Fox Uses 1995 Video To Stoke Obama Gun Fears -

First going to one of your links: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-against-guns/

they did provide a more extensive quote from Holder's 1995 speech given when he was " U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia" ... "charged with the responsibility of enforcing not only federal law, as all U.S. Attorneys Offices are in the country," but also "enforcing the local law here in the District of Columbia." At the time the District of Columbia had a law "that banned the possession of handguns in the District."

Here's a more extensive quotation:
“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

He also said that the school board should have some form of anti-violence or anti-gun message every day. “Every day, every school, at every level,” he stated.

~~
~~

“We have to be repetitive about this,” he said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
(more)

Fox Uses 1995 Video To Stoke Obama Gun Fears(all emphases my own)

[font size="4"]In fact, when Holder gave the speech in 1995, it was illegal to possess a handgun in the District of Columbia. In advocating efforts to teach young people that "it's not hip to carry a gun anymore," Holder, who was the city's chief prosecutor, was basically advocating for a campaign to encourage citizens of his jurisdiction not to break the law.

None of the Fox personalities hyping the tape mentioned this fact however.

[font size="4"]As Holder pointed out at the beginning of his speech, the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is "charged with the responsibility of enforcing not only federal law, as all U.S. Attorneys Offices are in the country," but also "enforcing the local law here in the District of Columbia."[/font] He explained: "I am in essence the D.A. [district attorney] as well as the United States Attorney."

For that reason, Holder was responsible for enforcing the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, the statute that banned the possession of handguns in the District. (In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s handgun ban.) As the one responsible for prosecutions under that law, he was simply supporting efforts to encourage District residents not to break it.

[font size="4"]That none of these Fox figures acknowledged that guns were illegal in D.C. in 1995 and that Holder was U.S. Attorney for the District when he made those comments is hardly surprising,[/font] as Fox figures have been aggressively stoking fears about President Obama's gun policies. [/font]


So, with some more context of speech he was saying:

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”


further:

“We have to be repetitive about this,” he said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”


[hr]

Now, I suppose to a Fox viewer this may be too subtle, but was Holder talking about actual "brainwashing" as in the movie the Ipcress file where ideas and beliefs are planted in someone's brain - against their will - by a diabolical process they have no ability to withstand? So that later they go around thinking the thoughts thus implanted in their brain are there own? [font size="4"]Any rational, sane person knows that Holder was not talking about actually "brainwashing" people. Any sensible person realizes that to say he was talking about actual formal "brainwashing" is Bombastic Bullshit. [/font]

To be a little formal about it he said:

“We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

..... note the word "just"... another way of saying this would have been to say: "we need to IN ESSENCE - brainwash young people about this." ... What he meant by that was a concerted effort to change young peoples minds by CONVINCING THEM - getting them to see - that it is NOT COOL to carry guns. He was not talking about a screwball idea of actually brainwashing young people in D.C.

.... Now, in reality, in a more sophisticated way, Fox has convinced their viewers that many things are true by way of insinuation (as opposed to making an explicit case for a specific idea or proposal) that are indeed NOT true. Such as Eric Holder wants to BRAINWASH Americans - YIKES!! Fox Viewers are not known for independent critical thought - so Fox knows they can make them believe many things to be fact just by suggestion and insinuation. Oh yeah, Fox also just plain lies about many things too, knowing that their viewers won't bother to check with another source to see if what they said was true. THis technique of disinformation is known as The Big Lie.

Media Matters is a good site which has documented countless examples of Fox peddling disinformation by insinuation or by using the Big Lie technique.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread