Loretta Lynch to Senate: I Won’t Always Agree With Obama

The administration’s nominee for attorney general appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Marina Koren
Jan. 28, 2015, 6:12 a.m.

It’s the first day of Lor­etta Lynch’s con­firm­a­tion hear­ing, and Demo­crats want to make sure their Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues don’t make it about something else.

“I hope we all re­mem­ber that she is the nom­in­ee for at­tor­ney gen­er­al,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Ver­mont dur­ing the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee hear­ing Wed­nes­day. “And that’s why I’m fo­cus­ing on her.”

Sen. Chuck Schu­mer of New York offered a sim­il­ar sen­ti­ment. “The pres­id­ent’s im­mig­ra­tion policies are not seek­ing con­firm­a­tion today,” he said. “Lor­etta Lynch is.”

Leahy, Schu­mer, and oth­er Demo­crats knew what to ex­pect from the GOP. Lynch faced tough ques­tions from Re­pub­lic­ans on the com­mit­tee, who wondered wheth­er she would be a stand-in for Pres­id­ent Obama’s policies, such as his ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion on im­mig­ra­tion, or for the man she hopes to suc­ceed: Eric Hold­er.

At the start of the hear­ing, Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Chuck Grass­ley, a Re­pub­lic­an from Iowa, said that the Justice De­part­ment is “deeply politi­cized” right now. “But that’s what hap­pens when the at­tor­ney gen­er­al of the United States views him­self, in his own words, as the pres­id­ent’s ‘wing­man,’ ” he said, re­fer­ring to Hold­er. “I don’t ex­pect Ms. Lynch and I will agree on every is­sue. But I, for one, need to be per­suaded Ms. Lynch will be an in­de­pend­ent at­tor­ney gen­er­al­.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wondered wheth­er Lynch would fol­low in Hold­er’s foot­steps. “Let me for Sen. Schu­mer’s be­ne­fit—you’re not Eric Hold­er, are you?” he said, draw­ing laughter from the people in the room.

“No, I’m not,” Lynch said.

Cornyn con­tin­ued: “But At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Hold­er’s re­cord is heavy on our minds now. I agree with the chair­man about his con­cerns when the at­tor­ney gen­er­al refers to him­self as the pres­id­ent’s wing­man, sug­gest­ing that he does not ex­er­cise in­de­pend­ent leg­al judg­ment, as the chief law-en­force­ment of­ficer for the coun­try. You wouldn’t con­sider your­self to be a polit­ic­al arm of the White House as at­tor­ney gen­er­al, would you?”

“No, sen­at­or, that would be an in­ap­pro­pri­ate use of the—”

“I’m sorry, you’d be will­ing to tell your friends ‘no’ if, in your judg­ment, the law re­quired that?” Cornyn said.

“I think I have to be will­ing to tell not just my friends but col­leagues ‘no’ if the law re­quires it,” Lynch replied. “That would in­clude the pres­id­ent of the United States.” When Cornyn asked how Lynch would be dif­fer­ent than Hold­er, she said, “I will be my­self. Lor­etta Lynch.”

Lynch is look­ing to of­fer a fresh start to a GOP-con­trolled Con­gress, cast­ing her­self as an al­tern­at­ive to Hold­er, whose lib­er­al policies and out­spoken per­son­al­ity have led to dra­mat­ic clashes with Re­pub­lic­ans, cul­min­at­ing in Hold­er be­ing the first DOJ head to be held in con­tempt of Con­gress. “I look for­ward to fos­ter­ing a new and im­proved re­la­tion­ship with this com­mit­tee, the United States Sen­ate, and the en­tire United States Con­gress—a re­la­tion­ship based on mu­tu­al re­spect and con­sti­tu­tion­al bal­ance,” she said dur­ing her open­ing re­marks.

If con­firmed, her top pri­or­it­ies, Lynch said, would be strength­en­ing re­la­tion­ships between the pub­lic and law en­force­ment, in­vest­ig­at­ing and pro­sec­ut­ing ter­ror­ists, and en­han­cing the na­tion’s de­fenses against cy­ber­at­tacks.

In his ques­tion­ing, Grass­ley wondered wheth­er Lynch be­lieved that Obama has the leg­al au­thor­ity to stop de­port­a­tions for mil­lions of un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants. Her an­swer was a meas­ured, round­about yes.

“I have had oc­ca­sion to look at the Of­fice of Leg­al Coun­sel opin­ion through which the De­part­ment of Home­land Se­cur­ity sought leg­al guid­ance there, as well as some of the let­ters from con­sti­tu­tion­al schol­ars who’ve looked at the sim­il­ar is­sue. And cer­tainly it seems to be a reas­on­able dis­cus­sion of leg­al pre­ced­ent. … I don’t see any reas­on to doubt the reas­on­able­ness of those views,” Lynch said.

However, she said, “I found it in­ter­est­ing, as I was read­ing the leg­al coun­sel opin­ion that some of the pro­pos­als that were set forth, and asked about, the Of­fice of Leg­al Coun­sel opin­ion did not, in fact, have a leg­al frame­work. And I don’t be­lieve that those were ac­tu­ally im­ple­men­ted. So I do think it is very im­port­ant that as the De­part­ment of Justice, through any of its agen­cies, the Of­fice of Leg­al Coun­sel, or in a dir­ect con­ver­sa­tion with the pres­id­ent, or any oth­er mem­ber of  the Cab­in­et, al­ways en­sure that they are op­er­at­ing from a po­s­i­tion of wheth­er or not there’s a leg­al frame­work that sup­ports the re­ques­ted ac­tion.”

Leahy men­tioned in­ter­rog­a­tion tac­tics in his line of ques­tion­ing. “The ef­forts to con­front acts of tor­ture car­ried out in our coun­try’s name—do you agree that wa­ter­board­ing is tor­ture?”

“Wa­ter­board­ing is tor­ture, sen­at­or,” Lynch replied.

“And thus il­leg­al?” Leahy fol­lowed up.

“And thus il­leg­al,” Lynch replied.

Sen. Jeff Ses­sions, R-Ala., wanted to know wheth­er Lynch would emu­late Hold­er’s close re­la­tion­ship with Obama. “Just so you un­der­stand that your role is such that on oc­ca­sion you have to say no to the per­son who ac­tu­ally ap­poin­ted you to the job and who you sup­port?”

“Sen­at­or, I do un­der­stand that that is, in fact, the role and the re­spons­ib­il­ity of the at­tor­ney gen­er­al,” Lynch said. “In fact, a ne­ces­sary ob­lig­a­tion on their part.”

On Obama’s new im­mig­ra­tion policy, Ses­sions said, “I un­der­stand that you sup­port the ex­ec­ut­ive or­der. Is that cor­rect?”

“I don’t be­lieve my role at this point is to sup­port or not sup­port it,” Lynch re­spon­ded. “My re­view was to see wheth­er or not it did out­line a leg­al frame­work for some of the ac­tions that were re­ques­ted. As noted, it in­dic­ated there was not a leg­al frame­work for oth­er ac­tions that were re­ques­ted.”

Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham, R-S.C., asked about Lynch’s opin­ion on the death pen­alty. “Do you sup­port the death pen­alty?”

“I be­lieve the death pen­alty is an ef­fect­ive pen­alty,” Lynch said. “My of­fice was able to achieve a death ver­dict there—”

“How about yes?” 

“So, we have sought it, yes,” Lynch replied.

Lynch called the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s sur­veil­lance pro­grams “con­sti­tu­tion­al and ef­fect­ive.” She said marijuana is “still a crim­in­al sub­stance un­der fed­er­al law,” des­pite its leg­al­iz­a­tion in sev­er­al states. In re­sponse to a ques­tion from Ses­sions about Obama’s view of marijuana as a “bad habit and a vice,” Lynch spoke more force­fully.

“I can tell you that not only do I not sup­port leg­al­iz­a­tion of marijuana, it is not the po­s­i­tion of the De­part­ment of Justice cur­rently to sup­port the leg­al­iz­a­tion nor would it be the po­s­i­tion should I be­come con­firmed as at­tor­ney gen­er­al,” she said.

On Wall Street, Lynch said, “No in­di­vidu­al is too big to jail.”

Lynch cur­rently serves as the U.S. At­tor­ney in Brook­lyn. If con­firmed, she would be the first black fe­male at­tor­ney gen­er­al.

As law­makers ex­ited the room for a brief lunch re­cess, Leahy could be heard on his mi­cro­phone say­ing, “I don’t know that I’ve been so moved by any nom­in­ee on any­thing.”

Sev­en hours in­to the hear­ing, Grass­ley cracked a joke. “I hope when we’re done here that you don’t get this at­ti­tude that the way this chaot­ic place is run, why should you be work­ing with the Con­gress of the United States? It doesn’t al­ways work this way. Little tongue in cheek.”

“Well, sen­at­or, it’s been a priv­ilege to watch the peace­ful trans­fer of power that’s go­ing on this af­ter­noon,” Lynch joked back.

This story has been up­dated with more in­form­a­tion.

Contributions by Priscilla Alvarez

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.