Attorney General Nominee in Big Scandal: May Jail Lynch ?

Loretta Lynch is in some relatively hot water.

Looks like she has been implicated in allowing one of the world’s largest banks to evade criminal charges after it was found to be guilty of laundering money for all kinds of illicit activity.

World Net Daily originally broke the story back in 2012 before Lynch was looking to assume Holder’s role.

An employee from HSBC bank brought in over 1,000 pages of documentation that showed HSBC was involved in a billion dollar global money-laundering scheme.

The story came and went, and nary a thought given to it.

Until only very recently.

Now the scandal has received more attention from the press, and there is even the suggestion Lynch might have been involved in an illegal deal to help get HSBC off the hook.

Drew Zahn writes, “Obama Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch may have struck a sweetheart deal with the banking giant that Rolling Stone now calls ‘preposterous even by Eric Holder’s standards.’”

So what happened? How did we get to here?

Well, when WND broke the story in 2012, an investigation was launched into the bank’s illegal activity. Rather than pursue criminal charges, Lynch allowed the bank to settle for the sum of $1.9 billion dollars.

But as more people began to dig into the story, it raised some troubling questions….

From American Prosperity News Network –

Christian Florist Defies State Attorney General

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has offered florist Barronelle Stutzman a deal: She can cater to same-sex weddings or she can stop doing weddings altogether.

Of course, there’s always a third option: She can go out of business.

Ms. Stutzman, the 70-year-old owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, is opting for none of the above.

“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about,” Ms. Stutzman said in a letter to Mr. Ferguson. “It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”

Ms. Stutzman rejected Friday a settlement agreement offered by Mr. Ferguson that would have required her to pay $2,001 in damages and legal fees after a judge ruled last week that she violated state law by declining to provide services for a same-sex wedding.

“My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the Defendants’ unlawful conduct and to make clear that I will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement….

Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer representing Ms. Stutzman, said the settlement offer was unacceptable because it would require the florist either to “surrender her freedoms or violate her conscience.”

“Barronelle has always had the option to just stop doing weddings,” Ms. Waggoner said in an email. “The settlement offer offers nothing she hasn’t had the right to do from the beginning. The point is that she must forgo all weddings, the part of her craft that she loves, or violate her conscience.”

Ms. Stutzman has said she has hired gay employees and served any number of gay customers over the years, but her Christian beliefs prevent her from participating in a same-sex wedding. Such services would include “custom design work to decorate the ceremony, delivery to the forum, staying at the ceremony to touch up arrangements, and assisting the wedding party,” the Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.

One of the men who sued her, Robert Ingersoll, had been a client for nearly a decade, she said….

By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times –

Virginia Bill Forces AG To Defend Ban On Gay Marriages

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill on Tuesday designed to require the state’s attorney general or a designee to represent the commonwealth in cases challenging the state’s laws or the state Constitution, a little more than a year after Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced he would not defend the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The measure cleared the GOP-controlled House on a 68-32 vote on crossover day, which is the last day during the legislative session for the House and Senate to act on its own legislation, with exceptions that include the budget bill.

Del. Brenda L. Pogge, James City Republican and original sponsor of the measure, said the bill was not designed to be a political statement, but rather to ensure the state has representation in future cases if similar situations arise.

“It wasn’t the issue of gay marriage so much as the [principle] that we had an attorney general who had sworn to uphold the Constitution of Virginia and was AWOL on our first challenge,” Ms. Pogge said Tuesday.

Soon after Mr. Herring announced his decision last January, a federal judge ended up ruling the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional in February — a decision that was upheld last summer by a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A spokesman for Mr. Herring said he didn’t think the bill was necessary and that it was clearly motivated by Mr. Herring’s “correct determination that Virginia’s marriage ban was unconstitutional.”

….Last August the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to stay the ruling by the 4th Circuit after Mr. Herring petitioned the high court for a prompt review of the case.

In October the Supreme Court then declined to take up appeals from five states with gay marriage bans, including Virginia, which cleared the way for marriage licenses to be issued in the state. The high court also declined to intervene this week after a federal court’s recently ruling Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, leading some advocates to speculate the court will rule that gays and lesbians have a constitutionally protected right to marry when it takes the issue up this term.

The Virginia General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment in 2005 defining marriage in Virginia as between one man and one woman, and voters ratified the amendment with 57 percent of the vote in 2006….

By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times –

No more asset seizure: Eric Holder bans controversial ‘war on drugs’ tactic

State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.

The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country’s war on drugs in the 1980s.

Holder cited “safeguarding civil liberties” as a reason for the change in policy.

The order directs federal agencies who have collected property during such seizures to withdraw their participation, except if the items collected could endanger the public, as in the case of firearms.

By Julia Edwards – Raw Story –

New Oversight Chairman Subpoenas Holder Over Fast & Furious

In his first move as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz has issued another subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious.

The move comes as Holder prepares to leave the Justice Department and as senators ready a confirmation hearing for his replacement, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch. Holder has been subpoenaed over Fast and Furious before and in June 2012 became the first sitting attorney general in history to be held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress for failing to turn over thousands of documents to congressional investigators.

Chaffetz follows in the footsteps of former Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, who pursued a number of Obama administration scandals from 2010-2014.

UPDATE: It should be noted that the new subpoena is identical to subpoenas previously issued to Holder in 2011 and 2013. Subpoenas expire at the end of every Congress and must be reissued.

By Katie Pavlich – Townhall.com –

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Delay Release of Fast and Furious, Holder In Contempt

By Katie Pavlich – Townhall.com –

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates has denied a request from the Department of Justice to delay the release of a list of Operation Fast and Furious documents being protected under President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege.

The list, better known as a Vaughn index, was requested through a June 2012 FOIA filing by government watchdog Judicial Watch. When DOJ didn’t respond to the FOIA request in the time required by law, Judicial Watch sued in September 2012, seeking all documents DOJ and the White House are withholding from Congress under executive privilege claims. President Obama made the assertion on June 20, 2012 just moments before Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt. In July 2014, after two years of battling for information, Judge Bates ordered the Department of Justice to release the Vaughn Index by October 1. DOJ responded by asking for a month long delay in releasing the list with a deadline of November 3, just one day before the 2014-midterm elections. That request has been denied. A short delay was granted and DOJ must produce the Vaughn index by October 22.

“The government’s arguments for even more time are unconvincing,” Bates said in his ruling… “given that this matter has been pending for over two years. The Court will therefore extend the Department’s Vaughn index submission deadline to October 22, 2014—and no further.”

 
Continue Reading