After days and weeks and months of unnecessary delays, Republicans and Democrats have finally agreed that it’s time to have confirmation hearings for Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General.
“I’m glad we can say there is a bipartisan proposal that will allow us to complete action on this important legislation so we can provide help to the victims who desperately need it,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. He said he anticipated a vote on Lynch, who will become the nation’s first black female attorney general, “in the next day or so.”
“Let’s get out of this quickly,” said Democratic Leader Harry Reid. “Let’s get Loretta Lynch confirmed.”
Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, were holding up Lynch’s confirmation because an abortion language in the human trafficking bill. Both sides finally agreed on new language in the bill after President Obama called the Senate’s inaction on Loretta Lynch “embarrassing.”
Lynch, who was nominated by the president last fall, would be the first black female attorney general if she is confirmed.
The reason may not be apparent, but deep down, the thought of the first black female attorney general must make some Republicans quiver in their skin. It has already been 154 days and according to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, there is still no plans to confirm Lynch as the Attorney General of the United States.
McConnell and Senate Republicans explain that the reason for the hold up is Democrats. They want Democrats to vote on an abortion clause in a human trafficking bill. Not sure what the connection is between the Attorney General of the United States and an abortion clause, but, Republicans love talking about abortions. So that is the reason Loretta Lynch has waited longer for the attorney general confirmation than any other attorney general in recent history!
President Obama’s nomination of Loretta Lynch to become the country’s first African-American woman attorney general is a historic pick. Her confirmation, however, is now taking on new historical relevance as her wait for a confirmation vote by the full Senate drags into its sixth month.
The period between the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to confirm and the full Senate vote — which in Lynch’s case has not been scheduled — has lasted longer for her than for any attorney general nominee in recent history. By the time the Senate returns from Easter recess on Monday, it’ll have been longer than the eight previous nominees for the job — combined.
Lynch, currently the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, cleared the committee February 26 by a vote of 12-8, with Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona joining Democrats in sending the nomination to the full Senate.
Obama nominated Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder on November 8, after Holder had announced plans to leave the post weeks earlier.
It’s easy being called an activist when it’s for the right reason, and when you’re a part of an administration whose main goal is working for the people, being called an activist is a good thing.
Eric Holder recognized this fact, and he is embracing being called an activist “1000 percent.”
“If you want to call me an activist attorney general, I will proudly accept that label,” Holder told journalist Juan Williams in an interview published at The Hill.
“Any attorney general who is not an activist is not doing his or her job,” he continued, adding that “the responsibility of the attorney general is to change things [and] bring us closer to the ideals expressed in our founding documents.”
Asked later about his response to critics who claim that the Justice Department houses an activist civil rights division and an activist chief, Holder said “I agree with you 1000 percent and [I am] proud of it.”
There are many stupid people in politics, we’ll call them congressional Republicans. But if there is an individual award for that dubious distinction, then Michele Bachmann will no longer be the undisputed champion.
Louis Gohmert – a Republican representative from Texas and a man John McCain correctly said has no intelligence, would most definitely get the award.
For whatever reason, Gohmert thinks he can match wits with the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. In previous hearings, Gohmert stupidly picked a fight with the attorney general and got his assparagus handed to him.
Huh, you didn’t know about the asparagus?
Back in May 2013, during a House Judiciary hearing, Louie had the masterful idea that he would accuse the attorney general of not doing everything possible to stop the Boston Bombing. Eric Holder slammed Gohmert, informing him that he, as a representative, is not privy to what’s going on in the Justice Department, so making such a dumb accusation was in fact, dumb.
Said Holder;
“You don’t know what the FBI did. You don’t know what the FBI’s interaction was with the Russians. You don’t know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that. And you have characterized the FBI as being not thorough, or taken exception to my characterization of them as being thorough. I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know. That is all.”
After that smack down, Gohmert tried to respond, but his time was up. He managed however, to squeeze in the now infamous phrase, that the attorney general was apparently doing something to his asparagus.
I cannot have a witness challenge my character! The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus!”
And now Tuesday. Another hearing, same ole Louie Gohmert. This time, Gohmert accused Holder of not providing documents he requested. Holder was having none of Gohmert’s nonsense today, and quickly shot down the representative.
ERIC HOLDER: You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, okay?
GOHMERT: I don’t want to go there?
HOLDER: No.
GOHMERT: About the contempt?
HOLDER: You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think that it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust, but never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.
GOHMERT: Well I’m just looking for evidence, and normally we’re known by our fruits, and there have been no indications that it was a big deal, because your department has still not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt.
HOLDER: The documents that we were prepared to make available then, we’re prepared to make available now that would have obviated the whole need. This was all about the gun lobby and a desire to have a —
GOHMERT: Sir, we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious where people died, where at least a couple hundred Mexicans died, and we can’t get the information to get to the bottom of that, so I don’t need lectures from you about contempt, because it is very difficult to deal with asking questions.
HOLDER: And I don’t need lectures from you either.
GOHMERT: As a former judge, I’d never have asked questions of someone who’s been held in contempt. We waited ‘til the contempt was purged, and then we asked questions.
In ending the back and forth, Holder cane back with, “good luck with the asparagus.”
It appears the debate on Drone attacks are really beginning to heat up, but not where you’d expect. No, not internationally, but domestically… right here in the Good ol’ US of A. Now before you get all flustered and began pulling out the ‘registered’ Oozy’s you just purchased at your friendly neighborhood gun show, listen to what the Attorney General of the United States had to say.
Eric Holder
Attorney General Eric Holder said in a press conference on Tuesday that he could see Drone attacks taking place on U.S. soil one day. In fact, he said;
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States, for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”
Rand Paul
Of course, this has riled some feathers, especially from Tea Party Extraordinaire, Rep. Rand Paul. In an interview with the beloved, Fox News, Paul stated;
“The thing about the drone strike program is we’re not talking about someone’s actively attacking America — we’re not talking about planes flying into the World Trade Center. What we’re talking about is you’re eating dinner in your house, you’re eating at a café or you’re walking down the road.”
The two instances Attorney General Holder spoke of were the most dastardly and atrocious attacks on the United States. And let’s not forget about the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma that took place in April of 1995 where 168 innocent people were killed. That was a homegrown attack, cowardly planned and executed by an American. An unimaginable crime against our own people, American citizens. Americans who went to work as they always did on a seemingly, routine day. Some dropped off their kids in a daycare in the same building that was attacked. A routine, uneventful day that was just like a day in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or in New York City on September 11, 2001. They all turned out to be anything but routine.
Here’s my take.
The dynamics have changed. The game has changed. Warfare has changed. I know we are Americans and living on American soil but, as an American, don’t we and shouldn’t we have the right to live in our own country, free from fear? A fear that may one day be generated by one of our very own Citizens that have nothing but terror and terrorism in their heart, like the cowards that attacked the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
The last thing I’d want is for Drones to be used here in America, BUT, if there is a known threat to my family, friends and loved ones, “Drone the H*ll out of Them!”
This shouldn’t be a Debate. IF the public is at risk from a “known” terrorist – American or otherwise – I believe the Government, the President, the Military should use any means necessary to eliminate that threat. So, if that means drones in the United States, So Be It.
Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow’s. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long-term, that’s the answer. That’s the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
That was the message from President Obama, as he delivered his weekly message. The President acknowledged the politics that’s involved in higher energy costs, saying;
Whenever gas prices shoot up, like clock work we see politicians racing to the camera waving three-point plans for $2.00 gas. You see people trying to grab headlines to score a few points. The truth is, there are no silver bullets that can bring down gas prices right away, but there are a few things we could do. This includes safe and responsible production of oil at home, which we are pursuing.
And the President mentioned his request to the Attorney General to launch a task force whose job will be “rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activities by traders or speculators.” The President called again for an end the $4 billion dollars in subsidies the oil companies presently get.
He then continued his call for a sensible approach to reducing the deficit.
Both Democrats and Republicans believe we need to reduce the deficit. That’s where we agree. The question we’re debating is how we do it. I’ve proposed a balanced approach that cuts spending while still investing in things like education and clean energy that are so critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class. It’s a simple idea: we need to live within our means while at the same time investing in our future.
That’s why I disagree so strongly with a proposal in Congress that cuts our investments in clean energy by 70 percent. Yes, we have to get rid of wasteful spending—and make no mistake, we’re going through every line of the budget scouring for savings. But we can do that without sacrificing our future. We can do that while still investing in the technologies that will create jobs and allow the United States to lead the world in new industries. That’s how we’ll not only reduce the deficit, but also lower our dependence on foreign oil, grow the economy, and leave for our children a safer planet. And that’s what our mission has to be.
A sensible approach to a very complicated problem.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
