I 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
Thanks, Jeff O. for the excerpt and reminding us of the graciousness and honorable ways was of both Mr. Washington and Sen. Whitehouse. Washington has always been a favorite of mine as he is for many Virginians and his example still echoes around here even in the halls of our “Dixie” courtrooms. Whitehouse would make a fine Virginia lawyer and I’d nominate him for such.( His legal training at Mr. Jefferson’s school is evident to me.) The rest of that firing squad panel seated below the gentleman from Rhode Island, not so much. I know now why Washingon despised political parties and their ways.
mespo – Washington was a failed British want-to-be officer. He had never won a battle in his life before the Revolution started. He was rather fond of flogging his troops for minor infractions and shooting them for major ones. He is hardly the one to look to for advice on political parties, he basically ran unopposed. Let us not forget how he handled the “Whiskey Rebellion.”
Nick Spinelli
We be the kick ass gang.
=======================
We be the
kickkiss ass gang.fixed it for ya, nikki
Nick,
It is so nice that you finally admitted what your true intentions are.
Sam Fox,
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
When the Republicans call witnesses of their choosing, you know it is political.
Professor Turley was there, by his own admission, to highlight what problems he claims AG Holder created or made worse. While I agree with some of those errors on the part of Holder, that is not what the confirmation process is all about when it comes to Holder’s successor.
To think that this majority in the Senate can be upset about any AG candidate in light of who they have nominated in recent years is amazing. What gets lost in all of this politics is that this nominee will continue to rubber stamp the intrusive spying with little or no oversight. Did anyone ask if the Koch Brothers are in favor of this nominee, because it is obvious that they are calling the shots?
Laser,
As you can see–some things never change.
Now. I’m done w/ the grammar school teacher. And, I suggest the banter cease.
Now. I’m done w/ the grammar school teacher.
Thats Paul….self describing
Again…,,
We be the kick ass gang.
It appears that the kiss ass gang from this blog get their knickers in a knot when folks they dislike comment here.
😉
Paul, Their jealousy of JT, Darren, and this blog is palpable.
Sad. Like the college graduate returning to campus and hanging out, trying to relive the “glory days.” How about a HuffPo link?
What Mespo said! (Sound of towel slap) Yeehaw!
The old malcontents slapping each other on the back. Did I hear a little towel slap in the old men’s locker room as well? LOL. We need rafflaw w/ one of his patented “What mespo said” or “What Chucky said” and the circle will be complete.
Supporting 0bama: Who is that far gone? Some one not been paying much attention…To many easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons in the country. I mean, 0 has not even been vetted. If he has, show me where. I couldn’t find the proof.
0 been busy alright.
Double US national debt. Check.
Increase govt spending. Check.
Increase welfare roles per Cloward And Piven Strategy [a book] in an effort to collapse the US economy. Check.
Is a Muslim. Check [out, Is Obama A Muslim, on YouTube. ]
As a Senator lied about being against raising the debt ceiling. Check.
Opposes school choice. Check. [Support the dumbing down of school kids any one? US test scores are a disgrace!!!]
As Senator opposed the Patriot Act he now upholds. Check.
Signed indefinite detention of untried US citizens into law, nullifying due process. Check.
Unlawful, UN-Constitutional govt bailouts up the wazoo. Check.
Traded a deserter for savage enemies of the USA. Yup. [Goes along with Is 0 A Muslim…]
0care? Did the Constitution get re-worked by lawyer street thugs via revision & bogus reinterpretation or what??? And JT supports that load of manure??? Founder’s intents? They never wanted the fed govt to be that big!!
Ahh, I give up. The list is just sooooo long…if you like the dude, go for it. Benedict Arnold would be proud of ya. All I know is that the Republic our Founders gave US, we couldn’t keep. B Franklin had that one down.
If 0 puts out a nominee, it’s dollars to cookie crumbs the nominee will NOT be good for US.
SamFox
Been out all day. Just now checking things and see this post by Mespo. I’ll be the first to admit I have not read all the comments in this thread. For the most part, comment threads are tendentious recitations of already known positions, and I rather dislike repetition. Ergo, if I missed somebody’s self-proclaimed work of genius, I guess I’ll just have to forge ahead in blessed ignorance. I agree with the analysis and conclusions by mespo. Well said, counselor.
The kiss ass gang from Flowers from Socrates are here. If it was all guys we could call it a circle jerk.
Ok, Darren, at first when you didn’t feel the need to be the crown’s champion you quite rightly said:
“That is why it is paramount for the Senate to consider what will likely be the result of any candidate offered. If the candidate’s past experiences show true objectivity and adherence to roles, rules, or the constitution, that would be a welcome asset. But if the candidate just “says so” and to promises that we should trust her that she will adhere to the constitution and equal administration of justice, giving what we have seen in the past that is insufficient evidence of the nominee being suitable to be considered.”
Then, when I implicitly agreed with your point that the paramount issue was the candidate’s past experiences and actions (ie her qualifications) as evidence of the likelihood of her adherence to the Constitution and then went on to point out that JT’s testimony addressed none of that and was hence irrelevant to the stated inquiry, you graced us with this little contradiction of your own initial point:
“The confirmation of any candidate for an appointed position is truly under the prerogative of the Senate and not those who testify in the manner used during this hearing. In my view this approach by these speakers shows objectivity and actually a form of respect in the Senate. Had a position as to whether or not Ms. Lynch is suitable for the position nominated it could taint the objectivity of the testimony for which each of the speakers presented their concern. In other words, the information is presented solely as in the furtherance of their individual position.
Now it could surely be inferred by offering requests and insights into ways the Senate could evaluate a nominee shows a bias with regard to the subject posed to the Senate, but in fact that constitutional right of the speaker to provide their action. They are not necessarily getting personal with Ms. Lynch, but they are seeking an evaluation of their concern of any nominee for the position of Attorney General.”
Now I don’t claim to understand the import of this dense drivel unless you are now saying it’s not that important to know where the nominee stands on the issues based on her past performance. Instead when my review came in on the emperor’s new clothes, it’s became more important to you that the Senate be told how to objectively (love the irony here) evaluate her as if the folks we elect to do the job aren’t bright enough to do this on their own. If so, we don’t need them in the first place. And the objectivity of the witness matters not at all to a bunch of dolts. In fact, they are counting on that lack of objectivity to further their own ends. Did you read the CVs from the rest of that Republican gaggle of “witnesses”? Still want to tell me about their objectivity and scholarly dissection of the political nomination process?
Ok so what’s more important to you my infinitely accommodating friend? Qualifications of the candidate or a slanted lecture in political philosophy that is more concerned with slamming the nominator than analyzing the nominee?
And by the way, no one has the constitutional right to testify before the Senate of the United States. That seat is reserved for the invited guests who have all manner of reasons for the testimony — most of them totally unrelated to the public business being conducted that day as we all saw and read today.
“The history of the present [President of the United States] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” Declaration of Independence [modified]
If “alleged” was unnecessary for Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the signers then I certainly won’t wait around for SCOTUS to bless us with their decision.
Seriously, what if SCOTUS fails in its duty; are we to simply grab our ankles? If we don’t demand a more enlightened electorate than that, then we truly are undeserving of this constitutional republic.
Olly
Until the SCOTUS rules, they are alleged. Hey if Reagan got away with Iran-Contra, anything is possible. Of course he could have been asleep for the duration.
Well I vote for her for these reasons: “On matters of policy, Ms. Lynch called capital punishment “an effective penalty” and said she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s statements that marijuana was no more harmful than alcohol. She called the National Security Agency’s collection of American phone records “certainly constitutional, and effective.” (NYTimes)
Obama campaigned regarding cannabis, “We have bigger fish to fry w/ terrorism.” Then his DOJ assaulted cannabis dispensaries in Ca. and Colorado. It isn’t about cannabis, IT’S ABOUT CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVT. The US Atty. in San Diego has closed down every dispensaries in San Diego. They are poised to reopen in the Spring.