lynch

The Senate has put a hold on Loretta Lynch’s nomination to take over for the ethically challenged Eric Holder.  Interestingly enough, the GOP overlooked Lynch’s involvement with a con man who turned state’s evidence.  Lynch allowed the con man to keep 40 million he stole from clients and did not notify the victims that a plea bargain had been reached, which is required by law.

The thing that’s holding up Lynch’s nomination is the settlement with HSBC for money laundering.  It seems they were money laundering for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations and Medicare fraudsters.  Even though it was their third violation of US laws in less than ten years, Lynch did not prosecute any of the officers of the bank.  Had any been convicted, that would have set into motion the eviction of HSBC from the American banking scene.  Instead, they paid nearly 2 billion in fines.

This brings up another interesting question.  In several banking settlements in the United States, Eric Holder and Barack Obama used the settlements to finance liberal organizations such as La Raza and NeighborWork America (ACORN).  If CitiCorp and Bank of America could divert money to those two entities, why not HSBC that has so much experience at money laundering?  It would be nice if our senators would look into that.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

At the time of the settlement, democrats as well as republicans were screaming their heads off.  But today, democrats are fighting for Lynch’s confirmation, with the entire HSBC fiasco forgotten in their minds.  Just like Obama’s amnesty plan, dissenters are now fighting for the program.  Now, would any of you liberals want to tell me again how democrats hold the high moral ground?  How can you have the high moral ground, when your leaders place party above the interests of their constituents?

Democrats could have confirmed Lynch during the lame duck session, but chose not to, which leads me to believe they had doubts about her and decided to let the republicans do the heavy lifting so they could then blame them for rejecting a “highly qualified minority and woman.”  They could then play the race card and republican war on women at the same time.

Courtesy of Red Statements.