Why does Pat think Loretta Lynch could be more extreme than Eric Holder?

January 29, 2015

Writer

Could Obama's nominee for Attorney General be more radical than Eric Holder? With this administration, Pat thinks anything could be possible. During her confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to nail down some questions about her stance on gay marriage which she managed to sidestep. But when questions came up about her stance on torture, she was unequivocal. Why one and not the other?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

PAT: Yesterday there was a lot of -- a lot of discussion about the attorney general. The attorney general nominee. Loretta Lynch. At first I thought they had nominated Loretta Lynn, the country singer, but it turns out the coal miner's daughter wasn't up for that. She wasn't interested. Is she even alive?

STU: I don't know.

JEFFY: Yeah, she is.

PAT: I don't think she wanted the gig. They went with Loretta Lynch.

JEFFY: She is only in her 80s. Don't worry about it.

PAT: Loretta Lynn?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: She's spry compared to say Robert Byrd.

STU: Or compared to Jeff Fisher, whose birthday is here today at 109 years old.

PAT: Happy birthday, Jeffy. You don't look anything over 203, I'd say.

STU: Yeah. That's fair.

JEFFY: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[laughter]

PAT: All right. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin down Loretta Lynch, our attorney general nominee. This woman is at least as extreme, I think, as Eric Holder.

STU: That's possible.

PAT: Yeah. It's possible. And in this case, with the Bush -- with the Obama administration, it's likely. Because everybody -- everybody that comes into this administration is an extremist, it seems. Can you name a moderate that he's appointed to any position. I can't think of one.

STU: I think people would point to people like Chuck Hagel who was a Republican at one point.

PAT: Chuck Hagel, that's right.

STU: There's been a couple -- secretary of defense holdover. I don't know. Not many. Few and far between.

PAT: No. Not many at all. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin her down on the difference between -- okay, so the same-sex marriage thing is before the Supreme Court. So he was trying to get her to say, all right, is polygamy the next domino to fall because it would seem likely it is. Here's how that exchange went.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages bans are unconstitutional and violates the US Constitution for a state, try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that's clearly the law of the land, unless there's a constitutional amendment to change it.

What legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy? What's the legal difference between a state, a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional, but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. So -- and I'm not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.

PAT: Okay. So she wasn't involved in the argument or the analysis. All right. You know, they're going to say that every time they don't want to answer a question. But she wasn't involved in the argument or analysis. So then they asked her about waterboarding.

VOICE: Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and that it's illegal?

LYNCH: Waterboarding is torture, Senator.

VOICE: And thus illegal?

LYNCH: And thus illegal.

PAT: Wait. I don't think she was involved in the argument or analysis of that either, but she still had an answer somehow on that, that waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal. How can you say that definitively when you weren't involved in the argument or the analysis of that?

STU: I don't know.

PAT: That's kind of weird.

STU: Yeah. I was not involved in the argument or analysis of every episode of Law and Order, but I always have an opinion how it's coming out.

PAT: I don't know why Graham -- well, he sucks.

STU: You mean that he gave up on that?

PAT: Yeah. You don't give up on that. You just push her. Well, I know you were not involved in the argument or analysis, but you've stated an opinion on everything else. Why won't you answer this? The answer to that is, no, there should be no legal barrier to polygamy at the point where same sex becomes the law of the land. Why wouldn't polygamy? I don't understand that. As long as they're consenting adults, I don't understand it. Right?

Because that's the argument for all the other stuff. Why not this too?

STU: Yeah. I think there's a very strong argument to be made there. And, you know, the correct argument I think is, this is why you don't have the government getting involved in people's love life at all.

PAT: At al. Get them out of straight marriage, homosexual marriage. Everything.

STU: Yeah. Do you on your anniversary send a card to the place that gave you the marriage license. Do you make sure that they're a part of the ceremony with you? Do you make sure they're part of the ceremony, and every time we celebrate, do you take them out to dinner as well?

PAT: I have to say, I've been so inconsiderate. I have not done that.

STU: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. After all they've done for you.

PAT: Throughout my marriage, yeah.

STU: Which is nothing. They don't do anything for anyone.

PAT: Well, they gave us a piece of paper.

STU: To think of this, to allow you to express your love for your wife.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They gave you -- of thing this as a conservative. We are allowing a system in which we say, okay, government, please give us a piece of paper so we can express who we love. Why don't why do we care about that at all?

PAT: We talked about that quite a few times over the last couple of years. Really it's the only position that makes sense. And glenn has articulated it many times. Get government out of all marriage. Let church handle it. It's a church institution anyway. And if you're an atheist, then go to city hall and do a justice of the peace, so what? Who cares.

STU: Yeah. And you don't have to worry about that if they're out of marriage. You can find someone else you like to do the ceremony for you.

PAT: Like a humanist person.

STU: Right. Weren't you and Glenn at one time ministers in a specific church that may or may not have had a physical location in Modesto, California, perhaps?

PAT: I believe we still are. There's not an expiration.

JEFFY: Once you are, you're still in good standing.

PAT: We can still marry people. And we have in the past.

STU: Yes. And you did it to married people. Think about that again. Okay, so you have to get another license, you have to be a licensed minister so that you can join a union between two licensed people who like each other so you can license their love. Conservatives are like, oh, this sounds great. Really?

PAT: It's been the wrong position from the beginning. We screwed up on that one at the beginning, just like we screwed up on the immigration thing. Should not have fought against illegal immigration. We should have fought for legal immigration. That should have been the battle cry the whole time. And get the government completely out of it.

The Libertarian stance on marriage is the right one. When I was in Salt Lake City a couple of weeks ago, doing the speech for the Eagle Forum and then afterwards, you know, there was a dinner and all that kind of stuff. And one of the local TV stations interviewed me. Their little reporterette came up to me. She wanted a few comments. So, okay.

And I knew it would probably be -- she wanted to do something that would try to trip me up and something she could beat us with. That was in the back of my mind. Sure enough, what was her big deal. The Supreme Court taking up same-sex marriage. And I said, you know, I'd like the government out of all marriage. Yeah, but how do you feel about this? How did this affect the conference when they heard about it? I don't think it affected the conference at all when they heard about it. They just mentioned it, and we kind of moved on and didn't dwell on it.

Well, what do you think about the same-sex marriage amendment.

I said, well, I don't think the government has any business in anybody's marriage. And I think that horse has probably left the barn. I think the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of same-sex marriage. It will become the law of the land.

STU: You should have just said, I was not involved in the argument or analysis of that particular --

PAT: I should have. But that's the hot button issue that people try to trip you up on when they want to trip you up. And there's no tripping when it's just, get the government out of it. Don't make my church perform a same-sex marriage.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But if you can find a church that will marry you, and you're a same sex couple, great. Do it. Then the government is completely out of it. But that's not where we are.

As far as the attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, she was asked about illegal immigration.

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

PAT: Isn't that amazing? Here's the attorney general nominee, and she's saying, regardless of how got here, whether they're legal or illegal, I don't care what you're doing. If you've committed identity theft or if you're involved in tax fraud, you have a right to work in the United States of America.

That's the future attorney general?

JEFFY: I would like to see more citizens involved in the workforce in America.

PAT: I think the citizens would like to see that as well. I think the tens of millions who are unemployed would like to see the citizens of this nation be employed, rather than people of illegal status have the right to work. That's insanity.

This is the person who sworn to uphold -- not yet, but she will be. Sworn in to uphold our laws and she doesn't care about them. How do you vote to confirm her?

STU: I don't know. It seems that's what we do now. People get placed into office by somebody, and if they happen to dislike particular laws, they are not enforced. That is not -- I don't remember that with the founders. I don't remember George Washington harping on that particular way of doing business, but that does seem to be where we are. I mean, immigration is the number one thing. How can she be nominated if she had any other stance. The president of the United States has taken this as basically his main pathway of getting things done.

PAT: Yeah. It's inconceivable. And yet, I don't think we know what that word means because we keep using it. It just keeps happening.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Glenn's Show Prep