Obama DOJ Moving Quickly To Quash New Clinton Email Scandal

Loretta Lynch and the Obama Department of Justice aren't wasting any time in moving to try and stomp on and defuse the latest Clinton e-mail scandal.

Remember how slo-oow things moved when congress wanted a subpoena complied with or someone like Judicial Watch wanted a response to an FOIA request?

Now things are going to be rushed with lightening speed in an attempt to save the corrupt Mrs. Clinton and her campaign. They may have claimed it took months to go through what was left of Hillary's emails which totaled out at less than 5% of what they found on Weiner/Huma's 's laptop. But when it comes to the 650,000 emails found on Huma and Weiner's laptop, hey, different story.

The FBI had already said they planned to make a preliminary assessment of those 650,000 emails within several weeks. But the Obama DOJ is cracking the whip on the Bureau. Now they're  telling  us with a straight face that the FBI will have a 'preliminary assessment' of Weiner's 650,000 emails 'within a matter of days!'

And who's in charge of the 'investigation' proves the fix is already in.

Yes, a senior DOJ official has sent a letter to lawmakers responding to their  request for more information about email review, saying the preliminary assessment completed in 8 days. Yes,you heard that right...they'll zip through 650,000 e-mails in 8 days.

 

And that senior DOJ official? None other than Peter Kadzic, one of John Podesta's closest friends!  That's whose going to be in charge of what's supposed to be an impartial investigationof Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton. This is as incestuous as it gets:

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign.

So now we can pretty much guess what's next. Kadzik will make sure only a small portion of the emails are examined, and we'll get a report in five days or so that there's nothing there to implicate Mrs. Clinton or Huma Abedin in any wrong doing, after which the rest of the unreviewed e-mails will be destroyed.

After which the Clinton media will of course trumpet Hillary's 'exoneration.'

This kind of perversion of justice and the law is a great reason to vote against Mrs. Clinton and for a change from this kind of routine corruption all by itself.

Loretta Lynch Makes It Official...Case Closed

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made it official...all charges regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation is to be closed with no charges.


Which means Mr. Bill is off the hook as well, because that  included the investigation into the criminal collusion between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and large donors including foreign countries who had business pending before the State Department...

Well,that didn't take long did it?

 

The obvious corruption involved is bad enough. But what's worse is that most of Hillary Clinton's supporters don't seem to care.

When Justice Just Is Not

"Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." -Mick Jagger,Sympathy For The Devil

"Injustice in the end produces independence" - Voltaire


Well, you can't say I didn't call this one. We no longer live in a country where justice for all means anything.

Hillary Clinton is now officially above the law.

Today FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI would recommend that even though Mrs. Clinton clearly broke the law, she should not face prosecution on criminal charges. And his acrobatics in doing so were something to behold. To summarize, here's what he said:

• He spent the first fifteen minutes or so talking about about how Mrs Clinton broke the law with her private servers, negligently handled classified information including e-mails labeled 'top secret', the highest classification, that she should have known better, that no person in her position should have compromised America's security in that way, that foreign intel services from countries hostile to the U.S. may very likely have hacked her unprotected server.

• That about 800 emails Mrs. Clinton sent to her unprotected private servers contained information that was classified or highly classified at the time they were sent, and another 2000 were up-classified after they were sent. That included eight “Top Secret” chains, 36 with “Secret” information and eight more that were “Confidential.” .

• That the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton refused to turn over to the FBI that were deleted illegally by her lawyers on her orders not only violates federal law and the legal agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she became secretary of state but criminal laws on obstruction of justice

• After spending the first part of his announcement spelling out exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted, Comey dropped the bomb- in spite of her blatant law-breaking, Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, because there's no evidence she intended to compromise national security.

• And to cap it all off, he said that while they will likely recommend criminal prosecution in the future for exactly what Mrs. Clinton did, they won't recommend that Mrs. Clinton be prosecuted.

Let's look at how many hoops Comey was made to jump through here.

For starters, he had to rewrite Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). Notice what I've emphasized:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Well, based on what James Comey had to say, Mrs. Clinton blatantly violated federal law here. And we haven't even gotten to the Records Management Act by Federal Agencies, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31.

She clearly violated § 3101, Records management by agency heads by deleting the e-mails and by, as Huma Abedin admitted under oath, destroying her legally required calendar of meetings and appointments.

§ 3105 - Safeguards, which mandates that the head of a federal agency must establish safeguards against the loss or destruction of federal records, and that 'records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated (accessed by people who shouldn't have them) or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301–3314 of this title.'

And § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records, which speaks for itself.

Mrs. Clinton also likely perjured herself before congress during the Benghazi hearings based on what the FBI director had to say today.

So how did Comey justify saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges? Well, first of all he lied and said he couldn't find any legal precedents. I suppose he never heard of Scooter Libbey, General David Petraeus, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, Edward Snowden and Jonathan Pollard, just to name a few.

And second, he tried to use an old lawyer's trick. He brought up the supposed lack of intent as a reason not to charge Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to divert us from the actual issue, which was criminal negligence.

If a drunk driver runs into another vehicle and kills or injures someone, obviously he or she never intended to do so. Few if any people do, yet they are prosecuted just the same. The laws I've cited above have nothing to do with intent, but with the gross negligence which even James Comey admitted Hillary Clinton was guilty of. That's why congress criminalized gross negligence when it comes to classified material and other official documents.

And intent? Even if it mattered (which it doesn't in this case), illegally destroying e-mails, putting together illegal private servers in the first place, and as even Comey admitted, failing to turn over a number of e-mails when required to certainly looks like intent, at least in my universe.

And James Comey knows this very well. So why the bizarre performance today? Why not just say that based on his investigation, there was no grounds to prosecute instead of spending a quarter of an hour telling the nation exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted before telling us he had no intention of recommending that course of action? Besides, shouldn’t the FBI let the prosecutor decide that without tainting their reputation? Why not just turn over the evidence and usurp the Department of Justice's function?

It's really not that difficult to figure out, at least the way I see it.

The fix was obviously in for some time, and James Comey was fully aware of it. I'm not sure what kind of horse's head the Obama Administration and the Clintons put in Comey's bed to get him on board, but it must have been substantial. And to add to that, he was likely told that even if he did recommend prosecution, Loretta Lynch was going to see to it that it never went anywhere. So why destroy himself for nothing?

 

Meanwhile, he probably felt he had to make at least some attempt to try to redeem his own honor and that of the FBI, so he actually conducted an investigation to keep his agents' morale up... and to send a message to the American people that regardless of the decision he was forced to make, Hillary Clinton really was guilty as charged. That, I think, is why he took the time to essentially make the case for indicting her before swallowing the bitter pill at the end. I'm guessing a bit here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that part of Comey's act was not exactly in the script and he might end up resigning after a few months so as not to make it look too obvious.

So the meeting between our Attorney General and Bill Clinton was simply to get the final details and the timing straightened out. And it's no coincidence that two days after her meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation,which is supposedly being investigated over all those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it.That isn't going to go anywhere either, and never mind that our attorney general met with a potential witness to both investigations. After all, this was a situation where there was a home brew server with classified information in Bill Clinton's basement at the Clinton Foundation. And a back up in somebody's bathroom somewhere.



Needless to say, that investigation of the Clinton Foundation will also fade into the woodwork.

So, where do we go from here?

Mrs. Clinton and her execrable media allies will of course celebrate this as a victory and an exoneration, although even a few of the usual suspects appear to be having some doubts.

As for the other side, I've already heard some of the pious outrage and while I don't disagree with most of it, I have to admit that it surprises me, just a little. We've been ruled by these criminal swine for almost eight years now, and they've amply demonstrated their contempt for us, our country's laws and our Constitution. They no longer even feel the need to attempt to hide it anymore. The Obama Administration is probably the most lawless in our history,and they've gotten away with it countless times, even with 'Republicans' controlling congress. Did anyone expect something different this time? Really?

A lot is going to depend on how the American people react to this, just four months away from an election. Given how common it has become lately to lie to pollsters, we probably won't know until after November when the votes are counted.

There may actually be a silver lining here. It's just possible that enough people may have gotten to the point where they're disgusted enough to no longer even to consider putting this corrupt snake in office. And it's less likely but not impossible that the GOP establishment who have been scheming to sabotage Donald Trump either at the convention or during the campaign are going to finally wake up and realize exactly what a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be like.

Comey himself gave us a good indication of that during his performance today:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

The #nevertrumpers and the GOP establishment had better pay close attention, get their brains together and understand that in a Clinton Administration, they're going to be targeted like never before for the least possible 'infraction' of any laws, whether they actually did anything illegal or not.

As for Donald Trump and whomever his running mate is, they now have some fresh, redolent substance in recent public memory behind the label 'Crooked Hillary.' They need to remind the American public about that at every opportunity. We'll soon see if we keep our Republic.

And here's another thought on the matter.

When those in power engage in this any means to an end Alinskyite hustle, they never stop to think of the message it sends, and how it could backfire.

While it has sometimes been imperfectly administered in practice, America has always been based on the ideal that everyone is equal before the law. Take away that expectation and you lay the seeds not just for contempt for the law but for those whom claim to govern legally. And historically, that has led to some unanticipated consequences for the ruling classes.

The Real Story Behind The Clinton-Lynch Meeting

 

Here's the narrative we're being expected to believe...Bill Clinton and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to run into each other at the Phoenix Arizona airport and had a friendly little chat for 30 or 40 minutes on AG Lynch's private plane about golf and grand kids.

That didn't pass the smell test with anyone but the most gullible true believers. For one thing, anyone familiar with the security arrangement involved in this sort of thing for ex-presidents and a standing Attorney General knows that this kind of meeting is arranged far in advance. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch may want the peasants disarmed and helpless, but they have 24-7 well armed security provided for them by the taxpayers wherever they go and whatever they do. Not only that, but even for private planes takeoff has to be coordinated and scheduled with the airport and kept to that schedule unless there's a major emergency or maintenance issue.

And it's also obvious that the agenda for this meeting was also planned in advance. Chatting about grand kids and golf doesn't take 30 or 40 minutes.And heart patients usually don't subject themselves to triple digit temperatures by choice unless it's something vital.

Even more interesting, our Attorney General meeting with Bill Clinton was highly inappropriate for reasons we'll discuss shortly, and both Clinton, as a disbarred lawyer and Lynch knew that. It's also worth noting that the only reason we know about this is because of a reporter working for a local ABC affiliate reported on this. Not only was this initially ignored by the Ready For Hillary media, but the FBI actually made a cordon around the plane and informed everyone that no photos, no pictures,and no cell phones were allowed, according to Christopher Sign of ABC 15 in Phoenix who broke the story.

In other words, Clinton, Lynch and their media allies did their best to keep this a secret meeting and would have succeeded except for one reporter at a local outlet. Why else have the FBI guarding the meeting order everyone not to make any records of the Lynch and Clinton getting together that might leak out?

 

So, what was on that agenda? What were they talking about?

To answer that question, you have to remember that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton go back aways. It was President Clinton whom picked her out of obscurity and made her a federal District Judge in 1999 just before he left office, and the Clintons and Loretta Lynch have known each other for some time...partners in crime, so to speak. To remotely think that the current FBI investigations weren't discussed is the height of naivete' and defies belief.

While we have no way of knowing exactly what was discussed, we can tell a great deal from the aftermath.

One lie being repeated over and over again in the 'ready for Hillary' media, including the New York Times, of course, is that Attorney General Lynch has now experienced a Road to Damascus moment, and that even though of course nothing illegal or improper was done, she really, really regrets having a chat with the former president. Or to put it more truthfully, she's sure sorry she got caught having a secret meeting with her patron.

So, just to show she's on the up and up, to quote pravda-on-the-Hudson, she's said "she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

Except that's not what she said at all.

Actually, what Loretta Lynch said is that' I FULLY EXPECT to accept their recommendations.' That can mean anything. She could decide (wink, wink) to simply continue to stonewall. She could, for instance, decide to accept some of the charges more easily defended by the Clintons in court and ignore others, something that could be determined by clandestine meetings with the Clintons and/or their legal team...especially since she will have full access to all the evidence against them in advance.

She will also be in charge of the prosecution, deciding which lawyers become prosecutors and how the case is prosecuted, which could mean a poorly prosecuted case as opposed to one designed to actually convict.

By not recusing herself, she remains in control and is letting us know that a deal has been cut between her and the Clintons...a Supreme Court nominations perhaps, a position as dean at a major law school, or simply cold cash. It could be anything.

Another little tidbit that the media is ignoring is that a mere two days after her secret meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation. What's under investigation? All those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it. And whose being investigated? Not only Hillary's minions Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, but ex-president Bill Clinton, the head of the Foundation.

Yes, you got that right. We're not just talking about Mrs. Clinton. The head of America's Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement officer in the nation met secretly with bill Clinton, whose also under investigation by the FBI.

So we're talking about this evidence not being submitted until October 2018, about 22 months into Mrs. Clinton's presidency if she's elected.

And even if the motion isn't granted (unlikely since the judge involved is U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama appointee), just look at how the State Department has already been stonewalling:

Citizens United has sued for emails between a handful of State Department officials and people at the Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm, Teneo Consulting, which has ties to the Clintons.

Among other errors, State officials said than an initial test looking at just 300 emails, which was used to calculate the amount of time necessary to process the emails, neglected to include keyword searches of the messages. Instead, they only searched the “To” and “From” lines of the messages, which failed to catch many emails.

State Department officials also “inadvertently” labeled some email attachments as irrelevant to the open records request, without checking them to make sure.

No wonder their initial estimate that only 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by State Department figures with the Clinton Foundation has now changed to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”

Any honest attorney general would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, and certainly would NEVER have met with someone who's under a criminal investigation. That's not what we're dealing with here.

What we'll see is a long period of stalls and legal gymnastics for the next four months until after the election, when Loretta Lynch will either decide that the evidence is 'insufficient to prosecute' or will file a motion of disinclination to prosecute, just like Eric Holder did to protect CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups from being prosecuted for money laundering and material aid to terrorism.

Don't expect much to come of this. The fix is in.

GOP Senate Informs Obama He Can Get Away With Whatever He Wants

All the bold talk last November about stopping Obama's agenda was revealed today as the sheer hot air (and I'm being polite) that it always was, at least from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the establishment GOP.

Today, he and some of his cronies crossed lines to confirm President Obama's choice for attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

Aside from her genuinely racialist and radical Leftist views, she lacks the one major qualification to be the top law enforcement officer in our government...respect for those laws themselves.

Aside from her vigorous antipathy to any kind of voter ID laws, she made it plain during her confirmation hearings in January that she sees no limit to presidential power when it comes to amnesty by executive order. In fact, she refused to refused to identify to any hypothetical limit to President Obama’s power to stop enforcing existing law via 'prosecutorial discretion' and executive orders.



Senator McConnell as majority leader could have reinstated the filibuster to stop her.

He could have refused to bring her nomination to the floor, just as former Democrat Majorty Leader Harry Reid did with so many things. He didn't.

Instead, he voted for Loretta Lynch's confirmation.

Yes, in the end, the vote was 56-43, with senators Ayotte, Cochran, Collins, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Johnson, Kirk, McConnell, and Portman as the GOP 'yes' votes.

In many ways, this was the ultimate surrender. With Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, there will be no real investigations of the many scandals surrounding the White House. There will never be any kind of special prosecutor named, since that's now all controlled through the Attorney General's office. There will continue to be divisive, racially biased interventions and prosecutions by the Justice Department at every opportunity.

There will be no challenge to this president's unlawful amnesty or to ObamaCare. In fact, the Republican Leadership just signaled to this president that he can literally get away with murder and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

I expect Loretta Lynch to be even more radical, partisan and oppressive then Eric Holder was.There is, after all, a reason why Obama wanted her in the job, and it wasn't her resume.

Surprise! Loretta Lynch Belonged To An Anti-semitic Pro-Terrorist Group at Harvard

In my last article on Loretta Lynch, President Obama's pick for attorney general, I revealed quite a bit of information, including how she was vetted by none other than Al Sharpton.

We also saw how she is virulently against voter ID laws, has an exaggerated sense of racial grievance, and favors race-based standards and selective harassment and prosecutions, i.e towards 'white southern schools' as opposed to all others.

And finally, in a speech she made, we saw how she equated violent terrorism with. 'fighting for your rights' and a Soviet trained self-admitted terrorist like Nelson Mandela with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a true civil rights icon.

After that bit of information, my sarcastic comment was that she probably hearts Che and Arafat too.

It turns out I was entirely correct.

During her time at Harvard Law, Ms. Lynch was a proud member in good standing of the Harvard Black Law Students Association (BLSA) from 1981-1984 when she was a student.

Aside from endorsing a number of frankly racist positions, the group, led by one Mohammed Kenyatta had a major love affair with Yasser Arafat and the violently anti-Israel PLO - and remember, this was pre-Oslo, when they were still considered a terrorist group.The BLSA brought members of the PLO and their allies to campus every year Lynch was a member.

Not only that,but when confronted by Jewish groups on campus protesting this,(which included Allan Dershowitz) Kenyatta and his cohorts reacted with behavior and statement that were borderline anti-semitic.

This was too much even for the politically correct Harvard Crimson which condemned the group's behavior on one of these occasions in 1984:

"The Black Law Students Association (BALSA) committed an unjustifiable and discriminatory violation of student liberties last week when it denied Jewish students an opportunity to participate in a campus forum featuring a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

More than 30 Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA) members attended the panel discussion, outnumbering members of BALSA and the Third World Coalition, the event’s sponsors. But after opening the forum to questions from the floor, BALSA moderator Muhammad I. Kenyatta refused to recognize any of the white hands raised in the audience. BALSA and TWC members were to be given priority, he announced, proceeding to call on a Black student who hadn’t raised his hand.

We defend the PLO’s right to appear in an open forum at Harvard. All groups have a right to present their views; had Kenyatta permitted all students to challenge the speaker with critical questions, the ensuing discussion might have provided a constructive exchange of ideas and opinions.

By stifling debate, however, Kenyatta reduced the event to little more than a propaganda platform for a terrorist organization that has pledged to destroy the State of Israel. His refusal to open the floor to all students views showed a glaring disregard for the principles of free discussion that are vital to an enlightened academic community."

But wait, there's more.

The group made notorious efforts to blackmail white churches for 'reparations', and Kenyatta's specialty was to 'invade' churches and cause damage and chaos.

They spilled blood on the altar of one church, took over church offices, dumped out collection plates, damaged church property, and and on several occasions took over community centers and trashed and vandalized them. One can only presume that Loretta Lynch took part in these activities.

Ordinarily, I think you could make the argument that a lot of people do stupid things when they're young.

Except Lynch wasn't all that young when this occurred, being in her mid to late twenties.And the speech she made earlier this year that I linked to here tells us her ideology hasn't changed much since then.

Like Eric Holder, it looks like Loretta Lynch is an excellent example of what Emmet Tyrell Jr. famously called a 'coat and tie' radical, someone whom  dresses in costume and bores from within.

No wonder Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer raised no objection to delaying her confirmation hearings until after the new congress gets seated in January.

(h/t to Tom at Virginia Right for the head's up)

What We Know About Loretta Lynch So Far - And It's Not Pretty

President Barack Obama has nominated Loretta Lynch as his nominee to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General. She's the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, appointed by President Obama in January of 2010.

The announcement during the lame duck session is an obvious attempt to get her approved and in the saddle before the congress gets seated. That in itself is disturbing, since it indicated that her views are probably radical enough that she would be unable to be confirmed otherwise.

The indications of exactly how radical she might be are limited thus far but revealing. Among other things, she is close to Obama intimate Al Sharpton,who obviously vetted her.

Sharpton bragged publicly back in September that he and his National Action Network were 'working with the White House' on picking a new successor for the departing Eric Holder.

According to one of my sources, Sharpton met with Loretta Lynch twice, once on August 21, 2014 at her Brooklyn office and a second time during the third week of October at Sharpton's offices on 136th street in New York.

The final decision was likely made at a meeting with the president that occurred November 5th, the day after the midterms. The attendees included NAACP President Cornell Brooks, National Urban League President Marc Morial, Sharpton, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation President Melanie Campbell, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights President Wade Henderson and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill.

The White House refused to comment when asked whether a successor to Holder was discussed, but the almost immediate announcement of Lynch's appointment and several stories extolling her virtues and qualifications that appear to have been written and ready for publication by some of the president's media allies tells us that it's almost a certainty Lynch was given the nod at the November 5th meeting.

Aside from her relationship with Sharpton, there are other indications thus far that she's pretty much in the same mold as Eric Holder. For instance, in a very revealing speech in Long Beach, New York earlier this year, she specifically named voter ID laws as racist and accused schools of being 'racist' and disproportionately using zero tolerance policies for drugs and violence to target minorities.

Actually, those zero tolerance policies are now starting to be changed in some schools thanks to the Obama Justice Department. Whites and Asians and in some cases Latinos are going to be suspended automatically under the zero tolerance rules just like before, but blacks will now have a preferred status, and will be subject to additional 'reviews'...in other words, they won't be suspended for the same offenses other students would be.

Her rant on 'voter ID laws and about those supposedly racist Southern schools starts at about 30:10. And note her remarks about Soviet-trained Nelson Mandela, her whitewash of ANC terrorism and her equating conditions here in America with South Africa's Apartheid :



“The dream is still continuing not only in the courts but in our schools,” Ms. Lynch explained. “And we all know, education is the key. And we understand that discipline is important. We understand that rules are important.”

She continued, “But we also know that when we sit and look at schools that have the zero tolerance programs, they are often used, and they take our babies, minority children, black children, Hispanic children, and they put them out of school before they have a chance to learn.

“And so the Department of Justice, this past year, has gone into the South, although we’re looking further, and brought the first prison, school-to-prison pipeline cases against school districts in Alabama.”

Let's see..exaggerated sense of racial grievance? Check.

Hates voter ID laws, because they might help cut down on voter fraud, a Democrat fave? Check.

Typical lefty, who conflates violent terrorism with 'fighting for their rights' and equates a self admitted Soviet-trained terrorist leader with Martin Luther King, a true civil rights icon? Check. Probably hearts Che and Arafat too.

Favors race-based standards and selective harassment and prosecutions, i.e towards 'white southern schools' as opposed to all others? Check.

Hangs with anti-semitic race hustlers like Al Sharpton? Check.

Yes, I'd say she's definitely 'down for the struggle,' wouldn't you? And I have a feeling we're just beginning to find out about Loretta Lynch.