Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

Turley Testimony In Senate Confirmation Hearing Of Loretta Lynch

Loretta_LynchI will have the honor of appearing today as part of the confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Loretta Lynch, nominee to serve as United States Attorney General. Below is my written testimony for the hearing today.


Here is the full list of witnesses appearing today:

Sharyl Attkisson
Investigative Journalist

David Barlow
Partner
Sidley Austin LLP

David A. Clarke, Jr.
Sheriff
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Catherine Engelbrecht
Founder
True The Vote

Janice K. Fedarcyk
Fedarcyk Consulting LLC

Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor
School of Law at Washington University

The Reverend Doctor Clarence Newsome
Cincinnati , OH

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor Of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Cato Institute

Jonathan Turley
Professor, J.B. And Maurice C. Shapiro Chair Of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
Washington , DC

The full committee hearing resumes this morning at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.

Here is my testimony: Statement.Lynch Nomination.Turley Testimony.Senate

561 thoughts on “Turley Testimony In Senate Confirmation Hearing Of Loretta Lynch”

  2. “I would say it is more difficult to imagine a best qualified person to get the job.”

    Exactly Jim; which makes JT’s statement all the more relevant.

  3. Can’t it ever simply be – a discussion upon the merits? Do you not all recognize the fact that this “WE v THEY” (not your crook – our crook is better) simply leaves U.S. as pawns in the winds!

  4. I saw part of the hearing and read JT’s entire statement. I’m not cheering or jeering anyone on, just pointing out that sometimes you blow your own talking points.

    1. Jeff O – Media Matters has infringed the copyright of C-SPAN, unless they paid for this clip. C-SPAN is a private organization which owns the rights to all of this stuff.

      BTW, it must be going badly for Lynch for Whitehouse to go so far out on a limb.

  5. Wow , the guy who keep on saying FBI instead of DOJ starts by asking you about the money you are making from the house lawsuit . What a class !

  7. Excellent statement, JT. That said, IMO, JT, who is not naive, know full well that Ms. Lynch is far from the kind of A.G. we need and want. She’s little more than a shill and protector of all that is wrong with our present state of national affairs. Her beliefs are abhorrent to the millions of Americans who yearn for a more enlightened governance. However, like Condy Rice, she’s a slick, teflon-coated nominee.

  8. “However, I did find out plenty about JT’s thoughts on how bad things are/were under Holder and how it ought to be different. In Virginia courtrooms, we’d call that kind of witness testimony irrelevant and immaterial to the issue at hand.”

    That’s hysterical! Given the incompetency of this branch of government to perform their constitutional duty to only confirm candidates able and WILLING to uphold the rule of law; this kind of testimony is entirely relevant and material to the issue at hand.

    1. Inga – did you actually read ALL of what JT was going to testify to? I did not see the hearing so I did not see the questioning or whether he just submitted for the record, but I did read the document. Did you watch the hearing? Or are you just cheering mespo on as he does his drive-by?

  10. Paul:

    “if you had read JT’s intro you would have read he was not going to talk about her but rather the overreach of the Justice Department”

    **************

    That means he was called to testify purely for political purposes and not for the issue at hand which is … sort of … exactly … what I said. Good on you Paul. You’re learning.

    1. mespo – I am not sure if you read all of JT’s statement, but he did go into his concerns in depth. Basically, that the AG should be less of a lapdog of the President and more of a servant of the people of the United States. I would say he was there for anti-political reasons.

  11. I read JT’s testimony on issue of the advisability of confirming Loretta Lynch as the next AGUSA but found out precious little about her bona fides for the job or even her thoughts on policy issues. However, I did find out plenty about JT’s thoughts on how bad things are/were under Holder and how it ought to be different. In Virginia courtrooms, we’d call that kind of witness testimony irrelevant and immaterial to the issue at hand.

    Here’s the book on some of the other witnesses called by the Republicans to “testify” supposedly on the topic of Loretta Lynch:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/27/the-loretta-lynch-hearing-a-showcase-of-right-w/202283

    1. mespo – if you had read JT’s intro you would have read he was not going to talk about her but rather the overreach of the Justice Department. I know that reading is difficult. And really, MediaMatters??? That left-wing, hit squad? Come on, you used to be better than that. Flowers for Socrates has warped you.
      Is this a drive-by? Elaine did a drive-by yesterday.

  12. Pingback: Obama, His Attorney General nominee and the Congress | danmillerinpanama

  13. Jim22

    It depends on who is defining what “best qualifications” – shall mean.

    Is it “best qualified” to maintain the status quo?

    Best qualified to restore integrity to the Department of Justice?

    Most qualified to assure Wall Street fraudsters continue to loot?

    I’m just sayin…..

  14. “Lynch is pro-Death penalty, pro-NSA surveillance, pro-drone and anti-pot? Just. Terrific.” -bamage

    Yep. Just terrific.

    And what Jill has said.

  19. Leave Weezy alone. She is just another hack in an administration of hacks. Hacks like Hatch and Graham will support her so she is a shoe in. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  20. Efforts of bias, in seeking purity – is repugnant and can never be dispositive!

    Just as U.S. yids are not responsible for a Jewish Bernie Madoff doing a Ponzi

    Nor is anyone’s race, creed, color, religion, sex or any other distinctive, personal, characteristic, to be an issue of who gets to be U.S.A.G.

    For sure Lynch is a lifer and such is automatically suspect (nowadays). But be that as it may – she is qualified to do the task – and Obama has right to choose!

    We can all rest in the assurance that the Professor will (properly) say “I told you so” (forewarned) of the possibility; should she go a dubious pathway.

    Properly and unambiguously, the Professor made a full case against the push for Executive Privilege, contrarily (and oppressive) to Constitutional form.

    You can rest assure – I’m going to push Loretta Lynch – HARD!

Comments are closed.