Lynch follows Eric Holder in path of lies

It’s as though FoxNews' Chris Wallace and Attorney General Loretta Lynch were following a movie script. It’s a familiar script, one that allows for creative lying.

It’s as though FoxNews' Chris Wallace and Attorney General Loretta Lynch were following a movie script. It’s a familiar script, one that allows for creative lying. Wallace invited Lynch on his Sunday news program. But FoxNews is not a favorite of Pres. Obama, because FoxNews reporters probe into the dishonesty of the Obama administration and the actions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Pres. Bill Clinton perfected the ability to lie, and Obama is nearly as accomplished, lying when questioned by journalists like Bill O’Reilly. Last year he claimed that there was not a smidgen of bias against conservative groups attempting to apply for not-for-profit status at the Internal Revue Service.

We now know that he was lying about conservatives being targeted by the IRS commissioner Lois Lerner. As a result of this subterfuge, people who work for Obama, like former and current attorney generals, as well as press secretaries named Jay Carney, seem sincere in their answers, especially after being sworn in during congressional hearings. It does not matter if they are sworn in or hold a public trust. We, the public, can assume that they are lying.

Wallace asks her about a potential conflict of interest with her office investigating Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, while her boss. Pres. Obama endorsed Clinton in a conspicuous campaign message.

"I’m with her. I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign for Hillary."
Here is Lynch: "No, this is not a conflict for me and for the department or for anyone.  We will continue to do all of our work in the same language we always have, with the interest of the American people first and foremost.  

We’ve never discussed the Clinton case.  I have never spoken about it with the president or really with anyone at the White House.  That's not the kind of relationship that I have with people there and it would be inappropriate to do so."

The ability to lie seems to be an important quality for anyone who becomes a cabinet member under the Obama administration, including Lynch. It’s really beyond the realm of possibility that Lynch has not talked to her boss abut the investigation into Clinton, or that he has not advised her or attempted to sway her in one direction of another. If not in private, he certainly has done it in public.

Most if not all people who cover Obama, the White House press corps, know this. The people at the Washington Post joke about it. A musical parody group joked that Jay Carney was lying when he answered a number of questions from the media - more than once. They represented his "testimony" with "The Boxer," a song by Simon and Garfunkel: "Lie la lie, lie la la la lie lieLie la lie, lie la la la la lie la la lie."

This was an essential element in the persona of the previous attorney general, Eric Holder, when he talked to Republicans about issues like gun sales to Mexico under Project Gunrunner. Holder acted like he was the most ignorant person on the face of the earth, in regard to this program. He was, and probably still is slick. But it's an assumption that for news organizations like the Washington Post, Democrats are held to a lower standard regarding lying. They can get away with it. Republicans can't.

During a previous interview, Wallace reminds the president about exposed classified emails - over 2,000 of the emails had classified information, and 22 of the emails had top secret information.

Here is Obama attempting to sway Lynch, in public:
"Clinton would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy."
But that’s not really the question. Whether she did it intentionally or not is not really the question in her culpability for criminal conduct.
Obama handles a lot of classified information, he says.
"There’s classified and then there’s classified."
But that’s really revealing too much and declaring one’s bias.
Describing what classified information is, is an attempt to downplay her crime and influence the investigation.

It’s like it’s the old boy club that Obama decried in the Bush presidency.
We’re just not that smart, when actually that’s what Obama is saying. It's the old Eric Holder excuse. We're just really stupid. I was not aware of that. For Obama, the excuse is, I just don’t know classified from non-classified, so don’t worry about Hillary.

"There is stuff that is top secret top secret, and then there is stuff that is being presented to the Secretary of State that you might not want going out on the wire, but is (not as serious)," Obama says. "I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security."
He admits that there was a carelessness in handling email.

For Wallace, this should be a sign that Obama is jeopardizing the investigation. Wallace obviously does not, probably because he is incredulous that a president would be that open about whether or not she has broken any laws. And FoxNews wants the president to come back for another interview. So Wallace does not state the obvious: Obama, by talking about an investigation in relative detail, has compromised it.

In the ability to lie, to shade the truth, Obama is very close to Bill Clinton.
Bill and Hillary were both lawyers and have the mind of attorneys. Obama is cut from the same mold, going overboard to the degree that it is shocking, like Bill Clinton was. His responses seem candid, but they are not.

They are cold and calculating. It’s Obama’s ability to disarm while he is lying that is amazing.
Whether he talks directly to Lynch, although he probably has, is irrelevant.
Obama has the same understanding with Lynch as he had with Eric Holder.
Wallace asks her about the recent terrorist attack in Orlando, committed by Omar Mateen, a Muslim who was probably radicalized, or motivated to kill members of the LGBT crowd.
What we do know from her answers is that she has a skewed view of justice. Lynch says that the LGBT community is targeted more than any other recognized group. And it was an attack that was directed “against the LGBT community and the Latino community.”
A mother whose son was at the nightclub the morning of the attack texted her about the terrorist and his movements, up until he was killed by him.
He was black.

(Neither is it true that either of these groups are targeted more than blacks or whites. Black on black and black on white crime is a far greater problem. Evidently these groups do not count to Lynch or Obama).

There were blacks and whites in the Pulse nightclub as well.
As to which group to focus on, Lynch would prefer to target people like Republican Candidate Donald Trump. She wants to “ . . . push back on the voice(s) that prey on fear and that sow division.”

Here is part of Trump's speech following the Orlando incident: “When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.”

Wallace and other journalists typically use the phrase: "critics say." But if one is a public official and one lies, as Lynch obviously did, it does not really matter what critics say, does it? What’s worse is that at the end of the interview, Wallace says, “Please come back.” It’s as though he has to ask "pretty please" for someone from the Obama administration to show up at FoxNews Sunday.

If journalists like Wallace and Megyn Kelly ask tough questions of Trump, why pull the punches when it comes to Obama? Wallace and Kelly wear such bravado when questioning Trump, but seem to lack insight when talking to Lynch or Obama. They never did host a Democratic debate with Clinton and Bernie Sanders. CNN hosted both. When something seems too good to be true, it usually is. When answers to a journalist's questions seem apart from reality, they usually are.

​© 2016 Larry Ingram