Ho hum ~ another day/another "conservative media" screw up ~ but this one is a sloppy ethics joke ~ ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

No, not that Loretta Lynch
11/10/14 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

About five years ago at this time, conservative media outlets were eagerly pushing assorted anti-Obama stories, all of which were pretty silly, and which major news organizations were generally inclined to ignore. But some thought that might be a mistake – the Washington Post’s then-ombudsman, for example, questioned whether legitimate journalists were too quick to dismiss “news” right-wing activists considered important.

Around the same time, senior editors at the New York Times agreed to deliberately focus attention on “bubbling controversies” that originated in conservative media.

The problem, however, is that “bubbling controversies” from far-right outlets turn out to be wrong a little too often. Take this weekend, for example.


Even taken at face value, it’s hard to see why this would be controversial for an attorney general nominee. More than 20 years ago, Loretta Lynch helped defend a president against baseless allegations. That’s basically a footnote in an accomplished lawyer’s lengthy c.v.

But that’s not the real problem here. Rather, the reason “few are talking about” this is that Breitbart.com had the wrong Loretta Lynch.


Apparently some people share a name. It’s a problem that’s tripped up conservative media before, and now it’s happened again.

Breitbart.com initially added an amusing one-sentence correction to the piece before eventually pulling it down, but not before it had already been picked up by other far-right websites – including conspiracy-theory sites like WorldNetDaily.

There’s no denying that everyone in media makes mistakes sometimes, and over the years, I’ve made my share. When it happens, the only responsible course is to acknowledge the error, correct it, and try to do better next time.

But as we discussed over the summer, the recent troubles for conservative media in particular have made it that much more difficult for professional journalists to take seriously the “bubbling controversies” coming from the far-right fringe.

Remember “skewed polls”? How about “Friends of Hamas”? How many in conservative media were caught up in payola controversies? How many believed The Daily Caller’s discredited coverage of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)?

The list, which is no doubt familiar to regular readers, just keeps growing. Conservative media ran reports about Obama’s non-existent library using Reagan’s childhood home as a parking lot. And said Hillary Clinton may have faked a concussion. And uncritically ran with all kinds of strange conspiracy theories about Benghazi, the IRS “scandal,” Fast & Furious, imaginary voter fraud, birth certificates, ACORN, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For those involved in conservative media, it’s probably past time to pause, take stock, and figure out to get on track. For those who rely on conservative media as a reliable source of accurate news, it’s also time for renewed skepticism.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/no-not-loretta-lynch

I can't decide if this is the "best correction since forever" ... or the worst ~ ~ Sooz

Breitbart Issues Best Correction Since Forever
By Josh Marshall Published November 9, 2014, 7:22 PM EST

I generally don't like harping on other outlets' errors or the always mortifying process of issuing a correction. It's a mix of 'there but for the grace of God' and, in this case, look at the source. But I think here we may have perhaps the best 'correction' in the long storied history of 'corrections', especially ones stemming from errors no remotely careful journalist ever would have made in the first place.

As noted a bit earlier, on Saturday Breitbart published an exclusive pointing out that President Obama's Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch was part of the team that defended President Clinton during the Whitewater investigation - not a bad little scooplet. Only it wasn't the same Loretta Lynch, which kind of takes the punch out of the story.

Breitbart then issued a 'correction'. But like I said, it's a correction for the ages.

As you can see, the headline and the entire article is intact, replete with various references to Lynch's time in the early 90s defending the Clintons. There's a little "[Corrected]" tacked on to the headline, even though the headline stays the same. And that's it.

Until you get all the way down to the bottom of the piece.


The best I can say in defense of this comical 'correction' is that it would be challenging to amend the piece in light of the categorical collapse of the article's central assertion. I mean, how do you correct it? I guess you just don't? Which is pretty much what they did here.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-correction-since-forever

Well, looky here ~ Breitbart found a way to make its error even worse ~ ~ Sooz

TPM LIVEWIRE
Breitbart Removes Article That Attacked Wrong Loretta Lynch For Whitewater Ties
By Catherine Thompson Published November 10, 2014, 9:20 AM EST

Breitbart has removed an article that incorrectly identified Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, as a member of the team defending President Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation.

The article, which was published Sunday, carried the headline "Obama's Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Represented Clintons During Whitewater." The problem was that the Loretta Lynch who's been tapped to head the Justice Department is not the same Loretta Lynch (pictured below) who represented Clinton and also served as California Public Utilities Commissioner.

After recognizing its mistake, Breitbart first appended "(Corrected)" to its headline on the piece and and added a correction at the very bottom of the article. The body of the piece, which referred to the attorney general nominee as a member of Clinton's defense team, was left intact.

"Correction: The Loretta Lynch identified earlier as the Whitewater attorney was, in fact, a different attorney," the correction read.

But as of Monday morning, the article had been removed from the website entirely.

A second Breitbart article published Sunday, titled "Loretta Lynch: A Qualified--But Political--Choice," also referred to the attorney general nominee's purported ties to the Whitewater investigation and was corrected.

As of Monday morning, that second piece is still live on the news site. The correction at the bottom of the piece has been updated to read "An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Loretta Lynch as having represented the Clintons during the Whitewater scandal. That portion of the article has been removed."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/breitbart-removes-loretta-lynch-whitewater-article

wait, isn't Loretta Lynch a country singer? ;]

Out in the parking lot, standing by her van. No wait, that's Tammy Wynette.

Loretta Lynch is a great candidate who is highly qualified for the job, and I would hate to see her become the GOP/TPers' pawn ~ but SHHH: SHE'S BLACK ~ if they insist on delaying a confirmation vote until the "new" Senate is seated, I'm not sure what they are gaining since Eric Holder [SHHH: HE'S BLACK] will stay on until a new AG is confirmed ~ ~ Sooz

Cruz, Lee push for delay in A.G. confirmation process
11/11/14 10:08 AM—Updated 11/11/14 10:18 AM
By Steve Benen

It’s been several days since the White House announced U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch is President Obama’s choice to serve as Attorney General, and so far, the administration’s critics just haven’t had much to say about her. The bigger fight seems to be about the calendar, not the nominee’s qualifications.

It’s possible, of course, that Lynch’s detractors plan to push areas of potential controversy once the confirmation process begins in earnest, but so far, the right’s one attempted knock at her background didn’t go well. By all indications, she remains well positioned to succeed Eric Holder.

What Republicans are eager to talk about, however, is when that might happen.


“President Obama’s Attorney General nominee deserves fair and full consideration of the United States Senate, which is precisely why she should not be confirmed in the lame duck session of Congress by senators who just lost their seats and are no longer accountable to the voters,” the far-right senator said.

On Twitter, Cruz added, “Democrat senators who just lost their seats shouldn’t confirm new Attorney General.”

It’s not a good argument. In 2006, senators confirmed a new Defense Secretary – with bipartisan support, no less – during a lame-duck session. In 1998, Republicans were comfortable impeaching a president during a lame-duck session, and some lawmakers who’d just lost their seats cast their votes. So why delay Lynch just for the sake of delay?

Apparently because Cruz and Lee oppose lame-duck sessions on a conceptual level.

I haven’t seen this verified elsewhere, but The Hill reported that Cruz and Lee actually endorsed a letter calling for the cancellation of this year’s post-election, lame-duck session altogether.

The simple fact remains that senators serve six-year terms, not five-and-three-quarter-year terms, Why should a senator be able to vote on a cabinet nominee after losing? Here’s a good reason: because they’re still senators.

The Cruz/Lee argument is that lawmakers who are “no longer accountable to the voters” should no longer be able to cast votes on Capitol Hill. But that’s silly – by the same reasoning, every member of Congress who plans to retire should also refrain from voting on bills and nominations since they won’t be “accountable to the voters,” either.

To be sure, it’s not yet clear if the outgoing Democratic majority even intends to try to confirm Lynch before the new Congress begins in January. But those demanding a delay will need better arguments than the ones Cruz and Lee have come up with.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cruz-lee-push-delay-ag-confirmation-process#break

Why am I NOT surprised? ~ what does surprise me is how brazenly the GOP/TPers lie and manipulate when they know how easy and how immediate fact-checking can be and is done ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

GOP readies partisan circus as Lynch hearings begin
01/28/15 08:35 AM
By Steve Benen

The first sign that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) may not have been the best choice to lead the Senate Judiciary Committee came two weeks ago. The conservative Iowan boasted that, since his promotion, the Senate had already confirmed 11 judicial nominees. The actual number was zero: Grassley was counting confirmation votes from the last Congress, pointing to nominees he opposed.

The second sign that Grassley is probably the wrong man for the job came around the same time, by way of a deeply odd response to the terrorist violence in Paris.

But the third piece of evidence will arrive this morning.


Attkisson has become a rather tragic figure in recent months, undermining her own reputation with genuinely bizarre allegations, strange conspiracy theories, and commentary on journalism that really didn’t go well. Grassley, or at least the Grassley staffers who help him make decisions, has decided this far-right media figure is the best person to make the case against an Attorney General nominee? What, were the folks at RedState.com busy?

Is this really what passes for grown-up Senate oversight in a Republican-led chamber?

It’s not just the Attkisson invitation that rankles; the rest of the GOP’s witness list is troublesome, too.


I saw a report the other day that Lynch should expect a “grilling” and a series of “tough questions” as part of her confirmation process. Obviously, nominees should expect nothing less – the position of Attorney General, the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, is one of the most important in the federal government. With the Justice Department fiascos of the Bush/Cheney era still lingering in our memories, senators in both parties have a responsibility to ensure Lynch is qualified and capable.

But Grassley’s witness list suggests the Republican majority is organizing a partisan circus intended to impress conservative media, if no one else.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-readies-partisan-circus-lynch-hearings-begin

Cruz is like a 10yo bully ~ big enough to do some damage but dumb/egotistical enough to pick the wrong causes ~ he needs to grow up ~ Sooz

Cruz & Co. launch doomed bid to derail Lynch
01/29/15 09:25 AM—Updated 01/29/15 09:31 AM
By Steve Benen

Those tuning into the first day of Loretta Lynch’s confirmation hearings, looking for high drama, were probably disappointed. President Obama’s nominee to succeed Eric Holder as the nation’s Attorney General not only seemed unflappable, but Republicans didn’t seem all that interested in pressing her with tough questions.

On the contrary, GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seemingly unaware of the point of an A.G. confirmation hearing, spent much of the day “venting” about their disagreements with Holder. As the day progressed, it seemed increasingly obvious that Lynch will receive majority support in the chamber.

That’s not to say her confirmation will be unanimous.


For the right-wing Texan, the strategy appears to be built around two main points: (1) Cruz opposes Lynch because of her own views, including her belief that President Obama’s immigration policy is permissible under the law; and (2) Cruz’s belief that if the Senate refused to confirm any nominee for the post, maybe the White House would give in and destroy its own immigration measures.

“For several months now, I’ve called for us to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in the president’s illegal action. That includes using the confirmation power given by the Constitution as a direct check on the executive,” Cruz added yesterday.

I think it’s safe to say this isn’t going to work. Indeed, it’s probably going to fail spectacularly.

The point isn’t that Lynch will win over far-right senators. She won’t. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has also vowed to at least try to tear down her nomination – his reasoning is still a little vague – and it’s likely that many of the Republican senators running for president will also oppose her, just for the sake of saying no to the president.

But when it comes to the full Senate, enough Republicans are going to come to a different realization: Lynch is obviously qualified; the right won’t like Obama’s next nominee any more than it likes her; and the longer the GOP blocks confirmation, the longer Eric Holder, whom they hate, remains as Attorney General.

In fact, John Stanton reported late yesterday that the far-right’s efforts are already failing.


I've never been impressed with Cruz’s ability to think strategically, but the smart move here would be to dial down the anti-Lynch initiative. It’s about picking one’s battles to maximize efficacy: if he’s going to lose, Cruz doesn’t do himself any favors picking a big, pointless fight, shortly before launching his own bid for national office, in which his own party ignores him and sides with the White House’s A.G. nominee.

Whether the Texas Republican fights on or not, Stanton added that Lynch is on track for a floor vote in two weeks and a swearing-in ceremony by the end of February.

[Video accessible via the end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cruz-co-launch-doomed-bid-derail-lynch#break

Good for Sen Whitehouse ~ ~ about time the GOP/TPers are called out publicly on their atrocious behavior ~ Sooz

WHOA: Dem. senator rips GOP for turning AG confirmation into a ‘soundbite factory for Fox News’
David Edwards | 29 Jan 2015 at 13:04 ET

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) attempted to shame Senate Republicans on Thursday, saying that they had turned confirmation hearings for the next attorney general into a “soundbite factory for Fox News.”

On the second day of hearings for the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s pick to head the Department of Justice, Whitehouse noted that Republicans were more focused on attacking current Attorney General Eric Holder and the administration than the business at hand.

Whitehouse pointed out that one of the witnesses believed that there was a government conspiracy to hack her computers over Benghazi, one witness was concerned that the Obama administration had overstepped its executive authority, a sheriff was invited to “critique Eric Holder’s tenure,” and a conservative activist was on hand to insist that requiring IDs to vote did not suppress minority voters.

“There are plenty of forums were the attorney general would have an opportunity to defend himself,” Whitehouse explained. “This is not one. There is no forum here, there is no opportunity here for Attorney General Holder to answer these various charges that have been made. I think that is fundamentally unjust. And I think it is frankly beneath the dignity of this committee at a time when we have a very significant and solemn charge before us to determine the fitness of a specific individual to be attorney general of the United States.”

“I have no problem with the attacks,” he added. “My problem is choosing this forum for them when the other — the individual in question has no chance to answer, I think fails President Washington’s test that one speak not evil of the absent for it is unjust.”

“I regret that this hearing and this solemn occasion has been co-opted to that extent, and turned into what appears to be a soundbite factory for Fox News and conspiracy theorists everywhere.”

Watch the video below from C-SPAN, broadcast Jan. 29, 2015.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/whoa-dem-senator-rips-gop-for-turning-ag-confirmation-into-a-soundbite-factory-for-fox-news/

The GOP/TPers are yet again proving themselves to be inept bozos ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Will Republicans scuttle Lynch’s A.G. nomination?
02/17/15 08:40 AM
By Steve Benen

President Obama nominated U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch as his choice to be Attorney General on Nov. 8. Nearly a full month later, he nominated Ash Carter to be the Secretary of Defense. Both sailed through their confirmation hearings with ease, both are eminently qualified, and both have impressed observers on both sides of the aisle.

And yet, it was Carter who was easily confirmed last week, while Lynch, despite being nominated a month earlier, continues to wait for reasons that are not entirely clear.

In late January, BuzzFeed reported that Lynch had ample, bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, which was set to advance her nomination by Feb. 13. A confirmation vote would follow soon after, and Lynch was poised to replace Eric Holder “before the end of February.” Everything I was hearing from the Hill pointed at the identical conclusion.

As of now, however, circumstances have inexplicably changed.


Senate Democrats are, by all appearances, genuinely surprised. During the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings, Lynch was as impressive an A.G. nominee as anyone can remember. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) organized an unfortunate clown show, filled with witnesses called to testify against Lynch, but none of them actually had anything negative to say about the nominee.

So what in the world is going on here?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wants to block her because, well, he’s Ted Cruz. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is using similar rhetoric, but he seems primarily interested in using Lynch’s nomination to collect names and contact information for his presidential bid. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is going after the A.G. nominee as part of an odd attempt at posturing in advance of his gubernatorial campaign later this year.

But in recent weeks, the idea that Lynch’s nomination might actually be derailed seemed silly, largely because there’s no reason for it. It doesn’t even serve the far-right’s interests – the more Republicans play games, the longer Eric Holder remains the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, and the GOP makes no secret of its wild-eyed hatred for Holder.

So why balk at Lynch?


Grassley, you’ll remember, had no qualms about confirming Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s woefully unqualified White House counsel, as Attorney General. But Lynch gives him pause. Hmm.

I’m trying to imagine what Lynch is supposed to say to convince Grassley, beyond her already impressive responses during her confirmation hearings. I half-expect Grassley to tell her to send him a notarized letter saying, “I super-duper swear not to be Obama’s ally.”

Indeed, given the larger context, Republicans have an extra incentive to support Lynch’s confirmation – after a series of recent controversies, backing the first African-American woman to be ever be nominated for Attorney General would, if nothing else, be a good p.r. move for the congressional majority party.

There’s no upside to the Senate GOP strategy. They look bad confirming Carter quickly, but slow-walking Lynch. They’re keeping Holder in office. They’re exacerbating partisan tensions. They’re dragging out a fight that gets them nothing except the appearance of being petty, knee-jerk partisans. And yet, Republicans are doing it anyway.

Grassley, who seems eager to prove Bruce Braley right about his unsuitability to run the Judiciary Committee, has already delayed the committee vote to Feb. 26, ostensibly to give Lynch more time to say more things that will make more Republicans happy.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/will-republicans-scuttle-lynchs-ag-nomination

i think they will eventually confirm her, after making the senate a circus, as you might expect.

It's what clowns do.

Channeling Forrest Gump, I can only say "stupid is as stupid does." ~ ~ Sooz

February 23, 2015, 05:14 pm
House Republicans urge AG nominee's rejection
By Cristina Marcos

More than 50 House Republicans are calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Loretta Lynch's nomination for attorney general.

In a Monday letter spearheaded by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 51 House GOP lawmakers warned that she would echo her controversial predecessor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to vote on Lynch's nomination on Thursday, and is expected to send Lynch's nomination to floor.

"We appreciate Ms. Lynch for her many years of outstanding service to our nation. Nonetheless, having observed her nomination hearing testimony, we can only conclude that she has no intention of departing in any meaningful way from the policies of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has politicized the Department of Justice and done considerable harm to the administration of justice," they wrote.

Lynch faced many questions from GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at her confirmation hearing about how similar she would be to Holder.

“You’re not Eric Holder, are you?” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

“No I’m not, sir,” Lynch replied to laughter.

Holder has had a contentious relationship with Congress since Republicans took over the House in 2011. The House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress in 2012 after the Justice Department refused to make documents available regarding the Fast and Furious gun-tracking program.

The House Republicans further raised concerns about Lynch's compliance with President Obama's executive actions, including to shield certain illegal immigrants from deportation.

"Our larger concern is with Ms. Lynch's apparent willingness to stand up to the president and his unconstitutional efforts to circumvent Congress and enlarge the powers of his office," they wrote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233535-gop-lawmakers-urge-senate-judiciary-to-oppose-lynch-nomination

Just because some GOP/TPers believe everything Obama does is "unlawful" does NOT make it so ~ ~ Sooz

Loretta Lynch's Nomination For Attorney General Moves To Full Senate
By ERICA WERNER Published February 26, 2015, 12:26 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Loretta Lynch won approval from a key Senate committee Thursday to serve as the nation's next attorney general, as divided Republicans clashed over her support for President Barack Obama's immigration policies.

The 12 to 8 vote in the Judiciary Committee sent Lynch's nomination to the full Senate. Three Republicans joined all committee Democrats in voting "yes."

"The case against her nomination, as far as I can tell, essentially ignores her professional career and focuses solely on about six hours that she spent before this committee," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as he criticized fellow Republicans for using Lynch's testimony in support of Obama's executive actions on immigration as a reason to oppose her nomination.

Timing is uncertain, but Lynch is all but assured approval by the full Senate as well, under new rules that will require only a majority vote instead of the 60-vote margin required for most legislation.

But she appears unlikely to win confirmation resoundingly, as Thursday's debate demonstrated that many Republicans will oppose her over Obama's executive actions granting work permits and deportation stays for millions of immigrants in the United States illegally.

"We should not confirm someone to that position who intends to continue that unlawful policy," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Lynch, 55, now serves as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She would replace Eric Holder and become the first black woman to hold the nation's top law enforcement job.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/loretta-lynch-senate-approves-nomination

Here's more detail ~ Sooz

Loretta Lynch clears hurdle, heads for Senate floor
02/26/15 03:31 PM
By Steve Benen

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been eager to express his frustration with how Loretta Lynch has been treated by the Republican majority. “I’ve been here 40 years and no attorney general – no attorney general – has ever had to wait this long for a vote,” he said this week.

Lynch’s wait, however, may soon be over.


There was some doubt about whether Lynch would get committee support, though she needed three Republican votes today and that’s exactly what she received. On the Senate floor, the A.G. nominee will need at least five GOP votes to get confirmed, which means finding two more Republicans, assuming Hatch, Graham, and Flake don’t change their minds.

At this point, I’d say her odds are quite good. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has suggested she’s likely to back Lynch, as might Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

That said, none of this has been – or will be – easy. As Politico noted this morning, several Republican senators who met privately with Lynch and said they were inclined to support her – a group that includes John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), among others – have since reversed course without explanation.

After sailing through her confirmation hearings, Lynch appeared to be on track for an easy confirmation vote. For reasons even Republicans struggle to explain, she’s now just hoping for a narrow majority.

For more on Lynch, note Rachel’s segment from last night, which obviously pre-dates today’s Judiciary Committee vote.

[Video accessible via end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/loretta-lynch-clears-hurdle-heads-senate-floor

The GOP/TPers are once again living up to their vow of "obstructing everything" by stalling on confirming a supremely qualified and competent AG ~ in the meantime, they don't seem to recognize that their 2d most hated official [Eric Holder] is remaining in control until a new AG is confirmed ~ kind of like the dog chasing its own tail ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Loretta Lynch’s A.G. nomination goes down to the wire
03/13/15 11:36 AM—Updated 03/13/15 12:01 PM
By Steve Benen

As of this morning, Loretta Lynch was nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney General 118 days ago. By some measures, the federal prosecutor, the first African-American woman ever to be nominated to the post, has waited longer than any previous Attorney General, for reasons Senate Republicans have struggled to explain.

What’s more, it’s been more than two weeks since Lynch cleared the Judiciary Committee, a move that ordinarily prompts the Senate leadership to schedule a confirmation vote on the floor soon after. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, delayed the vote for no reason, and still hasn’t said exactly when the vote will be, other than a vow to bring the nomination to the floor “next week.”

Will she prevail or not? At this point, the votes are probably in place – there are 46 Senate Democrats and four Senate Republicans who support her (Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and Orrin Hatch). That’s 50, with Vice President Biden breaking the tie.

Roll Call’s David Hawkings noted this week that this will very likely be the closest-ever vote for an A.G. nominee.


It’s almost as if Senate Republicans believe if they defeat Lynch, Obama will nominate an A.G. who opposes the White House’s immigration policy. (He won’t.) But as Hawkings added, “The single biggest reason Republicans oppose Lynch is that she disagrees with them on a single matter of public policy.”

The Senate simply isn’t supposed to work this way. Indeed, it’s never worked this way before, and it arguably can’t effectively work this way now.

Greg Sargent explained yesterday:


I’d just add that there’s no real upside to the Senate GOP strategy. They look bad confirming Ash Carter quickly, but slow-walking Lynch. They’re keeping Eric Holder in office – and if they derail Lynch, that just leaves the A.G. they despise in office even longer. They’re exacerbating partisan tensions. They’re dragging out a fight that gets them nothing except the appearance of being petty, knee-jerk partisans, with no payoff at the end.

Republicans are doing it anyway.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/loretta-lynchs-ag-nomination-goes-down-the-wire

The GOP/TPers are a nothing more than a gang of 3d grade bullies ~ ~ Sooz

GOP senators ‘in a quandary’ over Loretta Lynch
03/30/15 11:23 AM—Updated 03/30/15 12:12 PM
By Steve Benen

In late 2007, then-President George W. Bush’s Attorney General nominee, Michael Mukasey, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, at which point Republican senators demanded a vote.

“Judge Mukasey has waited almost seven weeks for a vote,” then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at the time. “This process has gone on long enough.”

That was nearly a decade ago. Now, Loretta Lynch A.G. nomination has been waiting 142 days – more than 20 weeks – and Mitch McConnell believes the process should drag on even longer. Indeed, with the Senate giving itself time off this week and next, Lynch will have waited more than 22 weeks by the time the chamber gets back to work in mid-April.

The New York Times reports that when it comes to replacing Eric Holder, the Senate Republican majority doesn’t actually want to defeat Lynch, so much as they want to avoid voting for her.


The article quoted Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) conceding that President Obama is going to “nominate someone who’s most likely aligned with his policy positions,” but Tillis is opposed to Lynch. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) added that she could hardly expect a better nominee, “not in terms of qualifications or personal attributes.”

But Capito will also vote no.

It’s reached a point that’s practically farcical – Republicans can’t find anything wrong with Lynch; they’re impressed with Lynch’s qualifications and background; they believe she’s more than capable of doing the job; and they’d be pleased to see Lynch replace Holder.

They just don’t want to vote for her.

The last head count suggests there are only four GOP senators – Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch – who would confirm Lynch. Those four, when combined with the 46-member Senate Democratic caucus, should get Lynch to 50, with Vice President Biden breaking the tie.

This arithmetic was made slightly more complicated last week, however, when Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), facing a possible criminal indictment on corruption charges, said he might abstain from voting, which would leave Lynch one vote short.

Graham said late last week that he thinks Lynch may yet pick up “a couple more” Republican backers, with Mark Kirk, Dean Heller, and Lisa Murkowski receiving the most attention.

In the meantime, as Rachel noted on the show on Friday, “Free Eric Holder” bracelets have become a lovely fashion accessory. [Video accessible via end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-senators-quandary-over-loretta-lynch

I am totally disgusted by the GOP/TP games that affect peoples' lives ~ they REALLY NEED to grow up and do their jobs OR be voted out of office ~ either/or ~ FTR, I expect Mark Kirk to be totally schizoid by the time next year's election rolls around ~ a lot can change in the next 20 months, but he's in serious trouble with the voters here ~ Sooz

Loretta Lynch secures majority support in Senate
04/02/15 04:49 PM
By Steve Benen

As the week got underway, Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, who was nominated 145 days ago, seemed to have enough votes to be confirmed, but there was some lingering uncertainty. As of Monday, most head-counts put Lynch at 50 votes – 46 Democrats and four Republicans – which would put Vice President Biden in a position to break the tie.

But such a narrow margin left no room for error. When Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), facing federal corruption allegations, said he might abstain from voting on Lynch altogether, it raised eyebrows – if he followed through on this, the A.G. nominee would fail.

But today Lynch’s path to confirmation appears clearer. For one thing, Menendez is now on board, his criminal indictment notwithstanding.


For another, this afternoon Lynch picked up one additional Republican supporter.


Kirk, who’s facing a difficult re-election bid in a blue state next year, joins Sens. Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Flake as the only GOP members publicly committed to backing Lynch’s nomination.

Kirk’s announcement also brings Lynch’s total number of supporters to 51, eliminating the need for tie-breaking vote from Biden.

If Lynch’s nomination ever reaches the floor, that is.

Let’s not forget that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) publicly vowed to allow the Senate to vote on the A.G. nominee the week of March 16. The Republican leader then broke his word and imposed hostage-style politics on the Lynch nomination – if Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Lynch, McConnell said, Dems would have to vote for an unrelated human-trafficking bill with anti-abortion language.

Dems, not surprisingly, balked and GOP leaders have kept the would-be Attorney General on ice ever since.

Remember, Senate Republicans have raised no substantive objections to Lynch, her background, her qualifications, her credentials or her temperament. What’s more, GOP senators have been willing to confirm other executive-branch nominees, including some who were nominated after Lynch.

And yet, here we are, watching Lynch receive Senate treatment to A.G. no nominee in American history has been asked to endure. Indeed, as we discussed the other day, in the Bush/Cheney era, Mitch McConnell personally condemned Senate Democrats for delaying a vote on an A.G. nominee for seven weeks.

By the time the chamber returns to work on April 13, Loretta Lynch will have been waiting for 22 weeks.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/loretta-lynch-secures-majority-support-senate

The GOP/TPers are disgraceful ~ having said that, I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton ~ and I wish he'd just sit down and shut up ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

GOP obstructionism on Loretta Lynch becomes farcical
04/16/15 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

Take the last seven U.S. Attorney General nominees and add together how long they had to collectively wait for a confirmation vote. Then double that total. Loretta Lynch has waited longer than that.

President Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder has now been waiting 159 days – nearly 23 weeks – and everyone involved in the process agrees that Lynch has the votes necessary to prevail.

But the Senate Republican leadership, which is allowing other confirmation votes, still won’t allow members to vote on Lynch. As Politico reported, some civil-rights advocates are taking their frustrations to the next level.


Sharpton, of course, is the host of msnbc’s “Politics Nation.”

GOP leaders continue to insist that Lynch, who’s being subjected to treatment without precedent in Senate history, will not receive a vote until Democrats meet the Republicans’ demands: advancing an unrelated bill with anti-abortion language in it. The Democratic minority said again yesterday that holding Lynch’s nomination hostage like this is ridiculous – a position that has the benefit of being true.

Making matters slightly worse, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said yesterday the chamber will soon move on to a measure related to Iran policy, which means delaying work on the human-trafficking bill, which in turn means delaying Lynch even further.

Remember, this has never happened before. We’ve never had a cabinet nominee sail through confirmation hearings, get voted out of committee, secure the votes necessary for success, but then face a hostage-style gambit imposed by the Senate majority. This isn’t politics as usual – it’s much, much worse.

Let’s also not forget that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) publicly vowed to bring Lynch to the floor the week of March 16. He then broke his word, and a month later, he’s still offered no explanation for promising one thing and delivering another.

This is the same Mitch McConnell who personally condemned Senate Democrats in the Bush/Cheney era for delaying a vote on an A.G. nominee for seven weeks. Lynch’s delay is now more than three times as long – despite the fact that Republicans have raised no substantive objections to Lynch, her background, her qualifications, her credentials, or her temperament.

If there’s a defense for such irresponsible behavior, I can’t think of it.

[Video accessible via end link]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-obstructionism-loretta-lynch-becomes-farcical

She's wating longer because she's black, IMO.

That could easily be a part of it, oskar ~ but the GOP/TPers did not pull the same crap with Eric Holder ... and he's black too ~ you'd think the GOP/TPers, who made Holder their #2 enemy [behind Obama], would be anxious to get rid of him ~ but they keep tripping on their own egos ~

Sooz

I'm hoping the GOP/TPers will do what they always do: rebel against Obama's comments ~ that might be the fastest way to CONFIRM Loretta Lynch ~ we'll see ~ Sooz

TPM LIVEWIRE
Obama Rails Against 'Embarrassing' Senate Dysfunction, Lynch Vote Delay
By Caitlin MacNeal Published April 17, 2015, 1:24 PM EDT

President Obama tore into Senate Republicans on Friday for delaying the confirmation vote on Loretta Lynch's nomination to be the next attorney general during a joint press conference with the Italian prime minister.

"We’ve actually seen some outbreaks of bipartisanship and common sense in Congress over the last couple of weeks," Obama said. "And yet what we still have is this crazy situation where a woman who everybody agrees is qualified ... has been now sitting there longer than the previous seven attorney general nominees combined."

Obama blamed the delay of Lynch's confirmation vote on partisan politics. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that the Senate will not vote to confirm Lynch until the Senate passes a human trafficking bill that includes provisions related to abortion.

"Nobody can describe a reason for it beyond political gamesmanship in the Senate on an issue that’s completely unrelated to her," Obama said about the vote delay.

"What are we doing here?" Obama asked. "I have to say that there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes to far. This is an example of it. It’s gone too far. Enough! Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote. Get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job. This is embarrassing, a process like this."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-loretta-lynch-senate-embarrassing

This is very "iffy", but just might be the way to go ~ ~ Sooz

Reid Will Force Vote On Attorney General Nominee ‘Very, Very Soon’ If McConnell Doesn’t Bring Her Up
by Ian Millhiser Posted on April 16, 2015 at 4:59 pm

Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, who would be the first African American woman to lead the Justice Department if confirmed, has all the votes she needs for confirmation — if she actually receives a vote, that is. Two weeks ago, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) said that he would vote to confirm her, bringing the total number of senators who support her confirmation to 51. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that he will not bring her up for a vote until after the Senate resolves a dispute over abortion-related provisions attached to a sex trafficking bill — a dispute that remains at a stalemate.

A spokesperson for Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tells ThinkProgress, however, that Reid will invoke a procedural maneuver that will force senators to vote on whether to consider her nomination “very, very soon.” According to Adam Jentleson, Reid’s Communications Director, “any senator can make a motion to proceed to any nomination on the executive calendar, triggering a vote on that motion.” Should Reid make such a motion to proceed to a vote on Lynch, that will trigger the kind of labyrinthian sequence of votes on votes that can only exist in the United States Senate:


Jentleson adds that “[a]ll votes in this sequence are simple majority votes,” and that the “only thing Senator Reid needs to file cloture is a petition with 16 signatures on it, which can be all Democrats.”

While Lynch ostensibly has the votes to be confirmed, it remains to be seen whether the Republicans who say they support her nomination will actually do so if Reid decides to work around McConnell’s unwillingness to schedule a vote. Lynch previously cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 12-8 vote, with Republican Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona joining the majority.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/16/3648124/reid-will-force-vote-attorney-general-nominee-soon-mcconnell-doesnt-bring/

it is so great that the GOP is in charge of the Senate. they can no longer say it is Harry Reid's fault.

Fewer whackadoodles at the time Holder was confirmed.