About CJA
Our History
Our Mission
Who We Are
Awards & Honors

Published Pieces


Judicial Selection

Judicial Discipline

Test Cases:
Federal (Mangano)
State (Commission)

"Disruption of Congress"
Paper Trail to Jail
Paper Trail from Jail
The Appeals

Judicial Compensation

Informing the Voters

Press Suppression

Suing The New York Times
Background Paper Trail

Searching for Champions:

Bar Associations
Nader & Others

Our Members' Efforts


Join Us!

CJA's Citizen Opposition to Senate Confirmation
of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch as U.S. Attorney General


"Grassley Sets Hearing for Attorney General Nominee for Jan. 28 and 29"

Witness List -- released Jan. 27

CJA's Jan. 29, 2015 e-mail to Professors Turley, Rosenkranz, Legomsky --
"Subject:  Vindicating the Constitution & the Public's Rights: The Rigged Confirmation Hearing of Loretta Lynch at which You are Testifying Today"

Jonathan Turley
Professor & Chair of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School

Stephen H. Legomsky
Professor -- School of Law at Washington University

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz:
Professor of Law -- Georgetown University Law Center
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies -- CATO

*   *   *

JANUARY 28, 2015: DAY 1:
Senate Judiciary Committee video
                   C-Span Video 1 Video 2
Video 3

Chairman Grassley's Opening Statement
"...The public’s business ought to be public. Transparency brings accountability..."

Ranking Member Leahy's Opening Statement

AG Nominee Loretta Lynch's Opening Statement

JANUARY 29, 2015: DAY 2

          Senate Judiciary Committee video
see 1:05; 1:37

                        at 1:05:

Ranking Member Leahy:  ...We have nine witnesses here today.  Will those who oppose Loretta Lynch…would they please raise their hand?...those who oppose her…as attorney general, will they please raise their hand?  Let the record show, no hands were raised.”

                           at 1:34:

Senator Feinstein:   "...This is really a hearing to discuss the qualifications of a nominee, in this case a very distinguished, very well qualified nominee, on virtually any area that one can state.  I really don't want to see that diminished by a critique of various people of the administration.... To me Loretta Lynch is an outstanding role model... Here's the use of a hearing on the qualifications of a nominee to criticize the administration on an area that Loretta Lynch had nothing to do with.  I guess this is the coin of the realm here...So I think we have a very special nominee in front of us... what was said by one newspaper, a combination of 'velvet' and 'steel'...a kind of role model...The role of Loretta Lynch in this day and age, I don't think can be understated.  So the fact that when Senator Leahy asked the question -- I forgot how he put it, which of you is in opposition to Loretta Lynch.    No one raised their hand and I think it's that way throughout the nation."

                        at 1:37:

Senator Whitehouse:   …Let me take my time to sort of review the bidding, where we are.  No witness present today opposes Ms. Lynch as the nominee for Attorney General. 
          Ms. Attkisson is here as a litigant against the United States with her lawyer sitting beside her. Her testimony never mentions the nominee. And I would ask, actually, unanimous consent, that the redacted version of the I.G. report related to her claims, which she now has, be made a matter of record, which, without objection, it will be.  
Mr. Barlow supports the nominee enthusiastically.
          Reverend Newsome supports the nominee enthusiastically. 
          Ms. Fedarcyk, to use her phrase, wholeheartedly endorses the nominee.
          Professor  Legomsky is here mostly to talk about immigration.  His testimony does not make clear whether he or does not support the nominee. May I ask you if you do? 

Professor Legomsky:  I certainly do. Thank you for asking, senator. 

Senator Whitehouse:  Very well.  That's now clear. 
            Mr. Turley says that his interest today is not to discuss Ms. Lynch as much as the department she wishes to lead. But he goes on to say he has no reason to doubt the integrity and intentions of Ms. Lynch who displays obvious leadership and strength of character.
            Sheriff Clarke is here and wishes the nominee well. But he goes on, in his testimony, to say I want to spend some time critiquing Eric Holder's tenure.
            Professor Rosenkranz takes no position on the nominee but comments on the tenure of Eric Holder.  Is that correct, professor?

Professor Rosenkranz:  [nods correct & inaudibly so-states]

Senator Whitehouse:     And Ms. Engelbrecht -- did I say that right?  Ms. Engelbrecht is an advocate for voter identification laws who would like Ms. Lynch to agree that voter identification laws are not efforts to suppress voting but took no specific position on the nominee, is that correct?  

Ms. Englebrecht
No specific positions, sir.  I have all the hope in the world that it will work out.

Senator Whitehouse:  So let me say two things. One, some many years ago. George Washington set for himself what he called his rules of civility and decent behavior.  He wrote 110 rules of civility and decent behavior to help him guide his own conduct in upright and honorable ways.  I think it was rule 89 of those rules of civility and decent behavior that George Washington kept that said the following – “speak not evil of the absent for it is unjust.” There are plenty of forums where the Attorney General would have an opportunity to defend himself. 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, to launch a series of unanswerable attacks. I have no problem with the attacks.  My problem is the choosing this forum for them where 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". With respect to the other issues, I think we will have plenty of time to ventilate those in other forums. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to address immigration, address voter I.D. and voter suppression, address surveillance, address all of those things but once again in this forum, there's no opportunity for another side to be presented.  And I regret that this hearing and this solemn occasion has been co-opted to that extent, and turned into what appears to be a sound bite factory for Fox News and conspiracy theorists everywhere. We actually have a nominee in front of us. She appears, by all measures, to be a terrific person.


"...89. Speak not evil of the absent for it is unjust.
110.  Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."

*   *   *

click here for:
The Senate Judiciary Committee's Sham, Ineffectual Questioning at the January 28-29, 2015 Confirmation Hearing


*   *   *







CJA Site Search Engine Search CJA

CJA Homepage  •  Latest News  •  Join Us  •  Site Search


Post Office Box 8101
White Plains, New York 10602
Tel: (914) 421-1200
e-mail: mail@judgewatch.org