Onward Together

A U.S. 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit corporation in Washingdon DC, founded by none other than Hillary Clinton with her close mate Huma Abedin on her Board. According to reporter Joe Schoffstall, who has tracked corrupted and crooked nonprofits and their progressive dark money donors for years, Onward Together is the “dark money nonprofit launched by Hillary Clinton following her defeat against Donald Trump … to allow her to be a part of the resistance against Trump.” Its founding date is considered by Clinton insiders to be January 19, 2017, notable as the day before President Donald Trump was inaugurated. The organization includes former Vermont Governor and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean.

Technically, their twitter page launched in January 2017, the moment President Trump stepped into office, and Onward Together wasn’t formally incorporated until April 2017. It was officially incorporated a short few months later, not by Clinton, but by her consigliere, former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. Elias is the corrupt liberal lawyer from Perkins Coie, represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election and funded (via Hillary) the fraudulent Steele dossier, who has been managing election reform operations in key, swing states across the country on behalf of the progressive Democratic machine. It was, of course, Elias who hired investigative firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump. Daily Caller investigative reporters discovered, Clinton transferred $800,000 of her campaign money to the new group on May 1, a communist holiday.

Unfortunately, there’s a huge problem with 501(c)4’s like Clinton’s group. Specifically, these “social welfare” organizations are not required by law to disclose their donors to the public. Unlike other nonprofit groups, which publicize who gives them money, 501(c)4s donors are not required to disclose that information in order to make a donation. This means that someone can use the organization to get rich without having to let others know exactly who’s paying them. In politics, this is a huge problem. If people are being secretly funded by others, they could essentially have conflicts of interest and pass laws favoring those who are paying them.

With this in mind, it’s now clear why Clinton would want to create Onward Together. With the group, her wealthy donors can secretly give massive amounts of money to her to spend on her political agenda. This money would be virtually untraceable, providing her with ample coverage to engage in corrupt activity.

Ironically, while campaigning against Trump, she publicly spoke out against 501(c)4s. Specifically, during the last presidential debate, she claimed that she would nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would “say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.” Now, she’s doing exactly what she spoke out against, proving (once again) she’s a hypocrite. She never cared about the issues she was campaigning on. She was simply saying what other people wanted to hear so she could win. If she truly cared about “dark money,” then she wouldn’t have created a “dark money” group.

What’s worse, it appears like her group is unsurprisingly being supported by far-left billionaire George Soros. Color of Change will reportedly be partnering with Clinton’s group. Thanks to that, Soros can now give millions to Clinton without having to disclose it, making the risk for unethical conduct high. Influence Watch reveals that “Shortly before the 2016 election, billionaire left-wing donor George Soros gave at least $5 million to Elias and his firm to challenge what left-wing activists alleged to be restrictions that deter Democrats and left-wing constituencies from voting, such as photo identification requirements at polling places.” Through this front organization, George Soros and Hillary Clinton are able to fund domestic terrorist groups such as Antifa. As Daily Caller reported in 2017, Onward Together appears to be discreetly financing Alt-Left and “resistance” groups similar to Antifa.

In his article on Freedom Outpost, Corey Lynn says that what they don’t realize, is the fact that this tax-exempt 501(c)(4) is operating ILLEGALLY, on multiple levels. IRS laws, FEC documents, and Onward Together’s tax return create one heck of a recipe, burning for an investigation. Not only does Onward Together require scrutiny, but its partner organizations also need a closer look as well.

Perhaps “Back Together” would have been more apropos, since Hillary Clinton got the band back together to form this tax-exempt political scandal. Even Huma Abedin is on the payroll. What’s most interesting is that the DNC paid nearly $2 million to Onward Together for donor list rental/acquisition produced by Hillary for America, while the DCCC paid more than $700,000 for the same list. Sure, politicians often sell “donor lists”, but Onward Together is not allowed to declare the payment as tax-exempt “royalty income,” nor does this political activity align with the lawful purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. But it gets worse.

The law states:

In order to avoid unrelated business income taxes, some exempt organizations have attempted to classify, as royalties, payments that are in fact fees for services. The IRS, however, ignores contractual nomenclature and looks to the true nature of such transactions. For example, royalties were ruled not to include payments for personal appearances (Rev. Rul. 81-178, 1981-2 C.B. 135) or receipts from the rental of donor lists(Disabled American Veterans v. United States, 650 F.2d 1178 (Ct. Cl. 1981). Additionally, if the exempt organization maintains control over or liability for the commercial enterprise, the royalty exclusion will likely be denied. Thus, payments derived from a license of property under which an exempt organization was liable for some development and operational costs were treated as unrelated income. (Rev. Rul. 69-179, 1969-1 C.B. 158).

It’s important to note that specific laws apply to tax-exempt organizations, such as the percentage of “unrelated business income,” which could result in a loss of tax-exempt status, if that portion is substantial. Based on their tax return, it would be difficult for them to justify their tax-exempt status. According to the expenses indicated on their tax return, they shelled out $1,034,514 in fundraising, $480,000 in grants to political 527 organizations, and $500,000 in grants to questionable and political 501(c)(4) organizations, and over $400,000 in payroll and professional fees, accounting for over 80% of expenditures. That goes way beyond the limited political scope allowed.

What’s worse, is they only paid taxes on the $480,000, while listing over $3 million as “royalty income,” which presumably accounts for the funds received from the DNC and DCCC, being as they do not appear to be included anywhere else in the return.

When speaking with Financial analyst Charles Ortel, in regard to how much politics are allowed to play a role in a 501(c)(4), he stated the following:

Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not tax-deductible. Nevertheless, these entities are not supposed to promote or advocate specific candidates in elections. So, in theory, politics should play only a tangential role, if any, in the operation of a 501-C4.

In practice, however, 501(c)(4) organizations can operate in tandem with other like-minded entities, whether 501(c)(4 or 501(c)(3). If these entities are not scrupulously managed, “joint costs” can be allocated in ways where they become disguised political contributions, or even payoffs to ghost workers or vendors.

For example, travel and other third-party costs can be over-billed to the nonprofits, subsidizing political campaigns. Or, workers on political campaigns can be underpaid by the campaign, with additional payments routed through the nonprofits.

Another issue is that many of the ostensible regulators of nonprofit abuses, for example Lois Lerner, are married or linked to others who are paid by or who support nonprofit entities.

Fair application of existing laws and precedents to flagrant, as yet unprosecuted charity and nonprofit frauds that remain ongoing, might yield billions of dollars in revenue, just when our federal, state and local governments are desperate to balance their budgets.

Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name does not appear as a director, trustee, on the board, or under payroll, the entire organization is promoted by her as it being hers. Additionally, she had contributed $800,000 from Hillary for America (her presidential campaign) to Onward Together just two weeks before its public launch, accounting for 25% of the overall donations. She also solicits for donations, and is seen in countless photographs with those she refers to as “OUR Partners.” But then, why would she have her name listed, when Mark Elias of Perkins Coie, LLP, 2016 presidential campaign attorney, is listed as the incorporator? Anyone can create a corporation, and pay an attorney to register it for them so that their name isn’t reflected on public documents.

While they declare in their Bylaws and on their 990 that they are operating with this intention: “By encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office, Onward Together will advance progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” they continue to make requests for donations, while stating, “Chip in today to help Onward Together support the people and organizations championing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the 2016 election.” In short, this is 100% political, as demonstrated with their partnerships as well.

Interestingly, their far-reaching donors expand across 250 foreign countries, including the Russian Federation.

Add to this, these additional Democratic sidekicks, such as: former Democratic Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard DeanJudith McHaleas well as Emmy RuizAdam ParkhomenkoAmy Rao, and Nick Merrill, all working with Onward Together to advance its partisan political agenda.

Aside from the staff, the non-profit organizations that Onward Together partners with are both political and Democratic. This more than substantiates the fact that this is a very strong political agenda that goes far beyond what they claim their purpose to be on their tax documents and is certainly far too excessive for their tax-exempt status.

Political Organizations They Fund

According to their website, some of their many partners are: Alliance for Youth Action, The Arena, The Collective PAC, Color of Change, Demand Justice, Emerge America, Indivisible, iVote, Latino Victory, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Run for Something, Swing Left, and Voto Latino.

Just to put this in perspective, these “partners” together create a country-wide reach, with intentions of flipping votes blue, fundraising for Democratic candidates, and training and recruiting people to run for office. As an example, Swing Left was launched just one day before Trump’s inauguration to “take back the house.” They not only fundraise for Democrat candidates, they also hold voter contact events in 50 swing districts.

Run for Something is a PAC operating out of multiple states, that Hillary has recently been tweeting about. They’ve recruited more than 17,000 young activists, students, and community leaders, as well as endorsed and supported 10 young candidates in the Virginia House of Delegates elections. 40% of those candidates won their races in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and more. As of 2018, they have endorsed more than 200 candidates.

They actually state on Onward Together’s website, “After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, Demand Justice leapt into action, launching a movement to demand that Democrats in the Senate oppose anyone on Donald Trump’s SCOTUS shortlist,” as well as, “…motivating progressive voters on issues related to the federal judiciary while influencing the Senate on judicial nominees.

Onward Together in turn sponsors “Swing Left,” a political action committee (PAC) focused on moving U.S. “swing” states to the far left, and essentially engaged in everything far left. Swingleft in turn sponsored the “Georgia Democrat Party’s Ballot Rescue Team” which was behind the apparent criminal act of “curing” legal ballots after they had already been cast. It appears the Georgia Democrats’ State Board of Elections (and potentially the Georgia Secretary of State) provided actual ballots to this Democratic operation.

Ignoring Georgia law, “start[ing] on Nov. 4, 2020, 2 p.m. and end[ing] Nov. 6, 2020, 5 p.m. EST,” according to their PR, the Georgia Democratic Party began the deployment of trained teams of volunteer activist operatives – “Ballot Rescue Teams” – to do phone banking and also to travel Georgia’s counties, knocking on people’s front doors – only Democrats’ front doors, that is – and cheerfully offering to help “cure” or fix absentee and mail-in ballots which, allegedly, had problems and were, allegedly, not being counted by county registrars.

This effort violated certain specific Georgia election laws, through partisan political operatives brazenly cajoling, coercing, and influencing voters – at their own homes mind you! – to alter their ballot.  (If indeed Democrats visited these individuals at all bypassing and addressing ballot issues themselves.)

Secondly, it raised the legal issue that the “chain of custody” of each and every one of these “cured” Democrat ballots which has been compromised. Chain of custody of the ballot, one of an election official’s most sacred and fundamental responsibilities in overseeing election integrity, requires that proper security measures are taken from the moment a completed ballot leaves a voter’s hands and reaches the hands of a SBOE official. The ballot, a legal document, must be secured and guarded from any tampering 100% of the time. Ballot and election integrity must also withstand independent assessment, and be able to be verified and authenticated by election auditors. Transparency of process, at all stages, is critical. Therefore, these “Democrat-cured” ballots not only should not be counted they CANNOT be counted because their chain of custody security has been violated. These ballots have been tampered with, they are now “spoiled.” (TGP)

Priestap, Bill

Former FBI Assisstand Director of the Counterintelligence Division (2015-18) who served during the Hillary Clinton email cover up as well as during RussiaGate (He open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign). He claimed in front of Congress in 2017 that he could not comment on whether President Trump was an unwitting agent for Russia or not although he knew there was no connection. Priestap was Peter Strzok’s boss and academy classmate. His own notes prior to the General flynn interview, show that Priestap and others planned to setup General Flynn to catch him in a lie so they could get him fired or prosecuted.1 Priestap retired in April 2019 soon after becoming eligible (20 years).

According to a document provided to Lindsey Graham by Christopher Wray, Priestap briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee on the veracity of the Steele dossier after FBI investigators interviewed the Russian subsource. This briefing did not discredit the dossier that was known by FBI investigators to be false. He graduated from the conservative Hillsdale College in 1991 before earning a master’s degree in educational administration from Norwich University, then a J.D. and a Master’s of Business Administration from the University of Detroit-Mercy.

Respecting his graduation from the fine Hillsdale College, where constitutional law and liberty are a priority, his demise tells us just how corrupting the FBI can be, or that he regretfully did as was told (wrong regardless), but still not a deep stater and one of the first to get prosecuted.

Limousine liberals

Multi-millionaires, often driven around in limousines, who pretend to be compassionate about the poor despite living a life of luxury themselves. Often their own daily routine provides little benefit to the poor, and many of the policies they advocate tend to make it difficult for others to become wealthy like themselves. A typical policy supported by limousine liberals is to increase tax burdens on the American family. They bemoan that they don’t pay enough taxes so they can make the point that everyone should pay more. They shed tears for public school funding but send their kids to private schools. It is the hypocrisy of “do as I say, not as I do.” The term “limousine liberal” was coined in 1969. (Conservapedia)

Lynch, Loretta

(born 1959) served as the 83rd Attorney General of the US succeeding the corrupt Eric Holder in the Obama administration on Nov 8, 2014. On April 23, 2015, she was confirmed by a 56–43 vote in the United States Senate and sworn in on April 27, 2015. She set Hillary Clinton free during the email scandal after obvious criminal actions a week after Lynch met Bill Clinton on an Arizona tarmac, an environment eliminating a paper trail and to avoid NSA electronic metadata collection, in a botched clandestine meeting before the election. In April 2018 a criminal referral was made for Lynch who threatened an FBI informant that tried to come forward with information on the Uranium One bribery scandal during the 2016 presidential election.

Loretta Lynch was born in 1959 in Greensboro, North Carolina. In 1981 she earned an A.B. from Harvard College, where she was an original member of Delta Sigma Theta, a newly formed African-American sorority chapter; another noteworthy original member was Sharon Malone, who subsequently went on to marry Eric Holder.

After completing her undergraduate studies, Lynch in 1984 earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was a member of the Black Law Student Association. From 1984-90 she was a litigation associate for the New York-based firm of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

In 1989 Lynch donated $550 to the New York City mayoral campaign of Democrat David Dinkins, who defeated both the incumbent Ed Koch (in a five-way Democratic primary) and Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani (in the general election).

In 1990, Lynch began an 11-year stint during which she worked in various capacities for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Appointed As U.S. Attorney by President Clinton

In 1999 President Bill Clinton appointed Lynch as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a job she would hold until the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001. Though she was the second African American to be named to that post, Lynch depicted her appointment as historic in a 2000 speech: “I took office last summer, and as I did I am sure that a long line of dead white men rolled over in their graves. But at the same time, I am sure that just a stone’s throw away from here, in the African burial ground, a long line of people for whom the law was an instrument of oppression, sat up and smiled.”

In 2000, Lynch was a member of the trial team in the highly publicized United States v. Volpe civil-rights case against a New York City police officer who had brutalized a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima. That same year, Lynch spoke of how black police officers and prosecutors “often face a dual challenge — trying to improve a system that traditionally was one of the harshest to us.”

Also during her years in the U.S. Attorney’s office, Lynch was a frequent instructor in the Justice Department’s Criminal Trial Advocacy Program, and she worked as an adjunct professor at the St. John’s University School of Law during the fall 2000 semester.

Private Practice & The Federal Reserve Bank

In 2002 Lynch began an eight-year stint as a partner with the New York law firm of Hogan & Hartson, where her practice focused on commercial litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and corporate compliance issues. From 2003-05 she served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Big Donor to Democratic Candidates

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Lynch contributed a total of $10,700 to Democratic political candidates from 2004-08. The Hill newspaper reports: “Of that money, $4,600 went to [Barack] Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Another $1,000 went to the campaign of the late Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), and $2,100 went to his son Chris’s unsuccessful 2006 House campaign. Lynch also contributed $1,000 to the failed 2008 campaign of North Carolina investment banker Jim Neal, and $2,000 to the fruitless 2008 campaign of Oregon politician Steve Novick.

Supporting Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama

In 2008 Lynch initially supported Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign. But after Mrs. Clinton was defeated in the Democratic primaries by Barack Obama, Lynch donated a combined $9,200 to Obama For America (later known as Organizing For America and Organizing For Action) and the Obama Victory Fund.

Reappointed As U.S. Attorney by Barack Obama

In May 2010, President Obama appointed Lynch to the same post she had held towards the end of the Clinton administration—U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In that capacity, she was responsible for overseeing all federal and civil investigations and cases in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.

Blaming Banks, Rather Than Government Policies, for the Financial Crisis of 2008

During her four-and-a-half years as U.S. Attorney, Lynch developed a close relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder. In early 2013 she was named chair of Holder’s advisory committee, and she collaborated with the AG in a high-profile Justice Department investigation that ultimately (in July 2014) forced Citigroup to pay a $7 billion fine for having helped trigger the financial crisis of 2008. Specifically, Citigroup was charged with: (a) making mortgage loans that had material defects and a high probability of default, and (b) securitizing and selling pools of these defective loans to investors. Said Lynch: “[A]fter collecting nearly 25 million documents relating to every residential mortgage-backed security issued or underwritten by Citigroup in 2006 and 2007, our teams found that the misconduct in Citigroup’s deals devastated the nation and the world’s economies, touching everyone.” By contrast, Lynch made no mention of the various government policies—most notably the Community Reinvestment Act—which, in the name of social and economic justice, had required banks to knowingly lend money to underqualified borrowers, particularly nonwhite minorities.

Cover-Up of HSBC’s Malfeasance

WorldNetDaily reports that Lynch, in her capacity as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, apparently participated in covering up the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute HSBC Bank for its involvement in a massive money-laundering scheme with Latin American drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists. Whistleblower John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president and relationship manager, provided more than 1,000 pages of evidence and secret audio recordings to substantiate the allegations. Lynch, for her part, allowed the bank to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement that garnered $1.9 billion in fines and the admission of “willful criminal conduct.” But in exchange, she agreed not to pursue criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors or employees. For additional details on this matter, click here.

Advisory Board Member of The American Constitution Society

In addition to her work in government and with private law firms, Lynch also served a stint as an advisory board member with the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Nominated for Attorney General by President Obama

On November 8, 2014, President Obama nominated Lynch to succeed Eric Holder, who had recently announced his intent to step down from the post of attorney general.After President Obama formally announced, on November 20, 2014, that he was taking executive action (i.e., without Congressional approval) to prevent the deportation of some 5 million otherwise deportable illegal immigrants, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Lynch about her position on that executive action. He subsequently told reporters that Lynch had been evasive: “I mean, she would say nothing; if I asked her if the sky was blue, I don’t think she would have committed to it in the meeting. I found her responses in the conversation about executive amnesty not just frustrating … but sort of unbelievable.” According to a report in National Review:

“Vitter says that when he asked Lynch directly about her legal assessment of the president’s executive action, she made a vague statement suggesting that Obama was within his legal rights when he exercised prosecutorial discretion to defer or delay the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But when Vitter pressed her about the legality of producing new documents and work permits to satisfy the action, which he says has no basis in law, she clammed up.”

During Lynch’s Senate confirmation hearing on January 28, 2015, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked her who she believed has a greater right to work: illegal immigrants, or lawful immigrants and American citizens? “Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here,” Lynch replied. “And certainly, if someone is here—regardless of status—I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

Moments later, the following exchange took place:

Sessions: “[I]f a person comes here [to the U.S.] and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them? Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?”

Lynch: “Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.”

Sessions: “Would you take action against an employer who says, ‘No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president’? Would [the] Department of Justice take action against them?”

Lynch: “With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral. With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue….”

In the same Senate hearing, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Lynch whether she believed that waterboarding was torture. Lynch replied: “Waterboarding is torture, Senator. And thus illegal.”

Lynch Confirmed by the Senate

On April 23, 2015, the U.S. Senate confirmed Lynch in a 56-43 vote. She began her tenure as attorney general on April 28, 2015.


Denouncing America’s Racism and Indifference to the Poor

**Shortly after the city of Los Angeles was overrun by deadly riots in response to the April 1992 acquittal of four policemen involved in the infamous beating of Rodney King, Lynch stood before a Baptist church congregation in South Carolina and denounced a “morally lost” society where minorities were routinely abused. “There is a poverty of spirit afflicting America that is crippling it,” she said. “Los Angeles has been burning for a long time, but no one noticed it. New York City is burning right now. Chicago is burning. Atlanta is burning. No one notices until the fire inside builds and strikes an outer match, and the flames rise above the skyline.”

In the same speech, Lynch harshly criticized the United States for the way it addressed the issues of poverty and the first Gulf War. “A society that takes away hundreds of thousands of jobs, and then blames people for not working, is morally lost,” she said. “A society that drops everything to save Kuwait, but barely lifts a finger to help the 13 million American children living in poverty in this country is sending the moral message that those children are not important, that they don’t matter. And if our society tells people that they don’t matter, how can we expect people to act like anything matters?”**

Condemning Racism & Disparate Impact in the Criminal-Justice System**

Lynch has long believed that the American criminal-justice system is rife with racism against nonwhite mnorities.

  • Consider, for example, her reaction to the infamous case where, in March 2006, a black stripper accused three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team of having beaten, raped, and sodomized her during an off-campus party. These charges triggered an instantaneous eruption of outrage among left-wing civil-rights activists. All charges against the defendants were eventually dropped, however, when it became evident that the plaintiff’s allegations were entirely fabricated, and that District Attorney Mike Nifong was not only guilty of serious procedural violations, but also of outright deceit. Yet Lynch refused to condemn Nifong. Instead, “as someone who grew up in Durham,” she lamented the “community divide” that existed between majority-white universities and surrounding black neighborhoods. In matters of criminal justice, Lynch suggested, “I guess where you stand depends on where you sit.” Moreover, she stated that slogans about being “tough on crime” have traditionally meant that “I’m going to be tougher on African Americans.”
  • By the same token, Lynch opposes capital punishment because of its alleged bias against blacks and Hispanics. “Apply the death penalty to securities fraud prosecutions [committed mostly by whites] and [you’ll] wipe out [the racial disparity] just like that,” she said sarcastically during a 2002 roundtable discussion. But when the defendants of certain crimes are mostly poor and minority, she charged, “you don’t have anybody there on the floor of Congress saying, ‘Wait a minute.’” By Lynch’s reckoning, capital punishment would be immoral even if it were applied without any racial bias at all—because of the disparate impact it would continue to have on nonwhites, who commit homicides (i.e., the crimes subject to the death penalty) at much higher rates than whites: “That, to me, has always been the problem with the death penalty. Because you can be as fair as possible in a particular case, but the reality is that the federal death penalty is still going to hit harder on certain groups.”
  • Lynch has participated in a number of Justice Department conferences that subsequently issued reports about the “pervasive” nature of racism in American society. In April 2014, for instance, she took part in a panel discussion titled “Strengthening the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color,” along with such notables as Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and Bill de Blasio. One of the panel’s action items stated: “Remember that racial bias is pervasive. Research has shown that people who are not consciously mistrustful of African Americans or intentionally racist can still behave in a way that is influenced by racial bias.”
  • In August 2014, Lynch spoke about the need to “eliminate,” from the American criminal-justice system, all forms of “racial discrimination” against “the most vulnerable members of society.” She stated that she and Eric Holder were focused “not just on the prosecution of crime, but on eradicating its root causes as well as providing support for those re-entering society after having paid their debt to it.” Lamenting that the U.S. “currently … imprisons approximately 2.2 million people” who are “disproportionately people of color,” Lynch emphasized the need to “reform … this aspect of our criminal justice system,” which she described as a “drain on both precious resources and human capital.”
  • That same month, Lynch, along with Al Sharpton, participated in a closed-door meeting with the family of Eric Garner, a black New Yorker who had died after a recent altercation with a white police officer. Lynch assured Garner’s family that her U.S. Attorney’s Office was closely monitoring a pending state investigation.
  • In a 2013 speech which she delivered at the Martin Luther King Center in Long Beach, New York, Lynch asked the young people in the audience: “What is it that makes you feel oppressed? Is it the prison of racism?”

Prisoners’ Rights & Alternatives to Incarceration

Lynch contends that “stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug crimes” should be “reserved [only] for the most serious criminals”—on the premise that, “quite often, less prison can also work to reduce crime.” Advocating the implementation of “alternative programs in place of incarceration,” she stresses the need to “provid[e] formerly incarcerated people with fair opportunities to rejoin their communities and become productive, law-abiding citizens”; to “restore voting rights to those who have served their debt to society, thus ending the chain of permanent disenfranchisement that visits many of them”; and to “identify [and eliminate] policies that result in unwarranted disparities within criminal justice.” Vis à vis the latter, Lynch has supported “the expansion of the federal clemency program,” “the retroactive reduction of penalties for non-violent drug offenders,” and “the reduction in the sentencing disparity” between crimes involving crack cocaine (a drug most often used by poor blacks) and powder cocaine (whose users are typically more-affluent whites.

Alleging That Voter ID Laws Are Racist

Lynch believes that voter ID laws are part of a racist effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. “Fifty years after the civil rights movement,” she said in 2013, “we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what Dr. [Martin Luther] King fought for…. People try and take over the State House and reverse the goals [gains] that have been made in voting in this country.” In line with this view, Lynch emphasized that she was “proud” of the Justice Department for having filed suit against North Carolina’s voter ID laws that “seek to limit our ability to stand up and exercise our rights as citizens.”

Alleging That School Discipline Policies Are Racist

Lynch has also suggested that school discipline policies, which result in higher rates of suspension and expulsion for nonwhite children than for whites, are—because of their disparate impact—racist. “The dream is still continuing not only in the courts but in our schools,” she told a mostly black audience in 2013. “And we all know, education is the key. And we understand that discipline is important. We understand that rules are important, but we also know that when we sit and look at schools that have these zero-tolerance programs, they are often used, and they take our babies, minority children, black children, Hispanic children, and they put them out of school before they have a chance to learn.” Building on this theme, Lynch praised the Department of Justice for having “gone into the South, although we’re looking further, and brought the first … ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ cases against school districts in Alabama.”

Dissociating Islam from Terrorism

In 2012, when the 66-year-old Shiite imam Kareem Ibrahim was sentenced to life-in-prison for the role he had played in a failed plot to firebomb New York’s JFK Airport five years earlier, Lynch said that Ibrahim had “abandoned the true tenants [sic] of his religion” by participating in the conspiracy.

Lynch’s Position on Civil Forfeiture

Lynch’s position on civil forfeiture—a process by which the government can take and sell people’s property without ever convicting, or even charging, them with a crime—is noteworthy. In January 2015, for instance, Lynch—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York—signed off on a settlement that returned $447,000 to Bi-County Distributors, a Long Island business targeted for nothing more than a suspicious pattern of bank deposits. The federal government had held that money for almost three years, during which time the owners had never gotten a hearing before a judge, and no criminal charges had been filed. Instead they had received a series of offers from Lynch’s office to return part of the money—until the negative publicity associated with the case threatened to derail Lynch’s nomination for the post of Attorney General. Nonetheless, Lynch characterizes civil forfeiture as a “wonderful tool” that innocent people need not worry about, because: (a) it “is done pursuant to supervision by a court,” and (b) “the protections are there.”

Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Rhetoric That She Deems Dangerous

On December 3, 2015—the day after two Islamic terrorists in San Bernardino, California, had murdered 14 people and wounded 22 others—Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocates‘ 10th anniversary dinner in Washington, DC. Telling the attendees that “we stand with you,” she noted the frequency with which her DOJ had launched “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims. Also among Lynch’s remarks were the following:

  • “[M]y greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people,… is that [retaliatory anti-Muslim] rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence.”
  • “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action” – i.e., prosecute them.
  • “I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
  • “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is, ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.’”


Abandoning the Use of the Words “Felon” and “Convict” When Referring to Former Prisoners

In May 2016, Lynch’s Justice Department announced that its Office of Justice Programs (OJP) would no longer use words such as “felon” or “convict” to refer to released prisoners. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, the head of OJP, wrote a guest piece in The Washington Post which said:

“In my role as head of the division of the Justice Department that funds and supports hundreds of reentry programs throughout the country, I have come to believe that we have a responsibility to reduce not only the physical but also the psychological barriers to reintegration. The labels we affix to those who have served time can drain their sense of self-worth and perpetuate a cycle of crime, the very thing reentry programs are designed to prevent.  In an effort to solidify the principles of individual redemption and second chances that our society stands for, I recently issued an agency-wide policy directing our employees to consider how the language we use affects reentry success.

This new policy statement replaces unnecessarily disparaging labels with terms like ‘person who committed a crime’ and ‘individual who was incarcerated,’ decoupling past actions from the person being described and anticipating the contributions we expect them to make when they return. We will be using the new terminology in speeches, solicitations, website content, and social media posts, and I am hopeful that other agencies and organizations will consider doing the same.”

DOJ “Transgender Bathrooms” Lawsuit Against North Carolina

On May 9, 2016, Lynch announced that the DOJ had filed suit against the state of North Carolina over HB 2, which sought to protect citizens from being intruded upon by transgenders, authentic or fraudulent, in public restrooms by dictating that all people should use the bathroom of their biological sex. At a press conference, Lynch said the following:

“Today, I’m joined by [Vanita] Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.  We are here to announce a significant law enforcement action regarding North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, also known as House Bill 2.  The North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 2 in special session on March 23 of this year.  The bill sought to strike down an anti-discrimination provision in a recently-passed Charlotte, North Carolina, ordinance, as well as to require transgender people in public agencies to use the bathrooms consistent with their sex as noted at birth, rather than the bathrooms that fit their gender identity.  The bill was signed into law that same day.  In so doing, the legislature and the governor placed North Carolina in direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.  More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals, who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security – a right taken for granted by most of us.

“Last week, our Civil Rights Division notified state officials that House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws.  We asked that they certify by the end of the day today that they would not comply with or implement House Bill 2’s restriction on restroom access.  An extension was requested by North Carolina and was under active consideration.  But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice.  As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward. Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.  We are seeking a court order declaring House Bill 2’s restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement….

“This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms.  This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them – indeed, to protect all of us.  And it’s about the founding ideals that have led this country – haltingly but inexorably – in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.

“This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation.  We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.  We saw it in fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education.  And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.  That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution, and in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community.  Some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown, and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change.  But this is not a time to act out of fear.  This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness.  What we must not do – what we must never do – is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human.  This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.

“Let me speak now to the people of the great state, the beautiful state, my state of North Carolina.  You’ve been told that this law protects vulnerable populations from harm – but that just is not the case.  Instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity on a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share.  This law provides no benefit to society – all it does is harm innocent Americans.

“Instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past.  Let us reflect on the obvious but often neglected lesson that state-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight.  It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.  We have moved beyond those dark days, but not without pain and suffering and an ongoing fight to keep moving forward.  Let us write a different story this time.  Let us not act out of fear and misunderstanding, but out of the values of inclusion, diversity and regard for all that make our country great.

“Let me also speak directly to the transgender community itself.  Some of you have lived freely for decades.  Others of you are still wondering how you can possibly live the lives you were born to lead.  But no matter how isolated or scared you may feel today, the Department of Justice and the entire Obama Administration wants you to know that  we see you; we stand with you; and we will do everything we can to protect you going forward.  Please know that history is on your side.  This country was founded on a promise of equal rights for all, and we have always managed to move closer to that promise, little by little, one day at a time….”

Refusing to Attribute a Jihadist’s Mass Murder to Islam

On June 19, 2016 — a few days after a self-proclaimed Muslim jihadist used an AR-15 rifle to murder 49 people and wound 53 others in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida — Lynch announced that the FBI would soon be releasing a transcript of the 9-1-1 call (lasting 50 seconds) which the gunman made to police during his rampage. “It’s been our goal to get as much information into the public domain as possible,” she told CNN, “so people can understand, as we do, possibly what motivated this killer, what led him to this place, and also provide us with information.” When CNN asked what the transcript would reveal about his motivation, Lynch replied: “He talked about his pledges of allegiance to a terrorist group. He talked about his motivations for why he was claiming at that time he was committing this horrific act. He talked about American policy [vis-a-vis Muslim countries]…”

But ultimately, Lynch on June 20 released only an edited, partial transcript wherein the shooter’s references to his own Islamic terror ties and his grievances about American foreign policy were completely scrubbed. “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch explained. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]…. The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid re-victimizing those who went through this horror.”

Later on June 20, pressure from Republican leaders caused Lynch and the Justice Department to reverse themselves and release a full, unredacted transcript of the Orlando terrorist’s 9-1-1 phone call. At that point, it became clear that the original FBI transcript had changed the gunman’s use of the word “Allah,” to “God,” and had deleted the words “Islamic State” and the name of ISIS leader “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”: “I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].” The new transcript read: “I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.” (Notably, the latter version still substituted the word “God” for “Allah”.)

During remarks to Orlando media on June 22, Lynch told members of the LGBT community: “We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love …”

Mandatory Bias Training for All DOJ Employees

In June 2016, Lynch announced that all Department of Justiuce employees (than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors) would thenceforth be required to undergo mandatory bias training to eliminate “impact biases” in their law enforcement judgment. “Implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in a memo.

*After Gunman at “Black Lives Matter” Rally Murders Five Police Officers, Lynch Urges Activists to “Not Be Discouraged” *

On July 7, 2016, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists held anti-police-brutality demonstrations in numerous cities across the United States, to protest two recent incidents where white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana had shot and killed black suspects. At one of those demonstrations — in Dallas, Texas — marchers shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a black gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally. Five officers were killed, and seven additional police were wounded. The following day, Lynch delivered a series of remarks that drew a moral equivalence between the police and the protesters:

  • “The peaceful protest that was planned in Dallas last night was organized in response to the tragic deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota.  We have opened a civil rights investigation in Louisiana and we are providing assistance to local authorities in Minnesota who are leading the investigation there.”
  • “After the events of this week, Americans across the country are feeling a sense of helplessness, of uncertainty and of fear.  These feelings are understandable and they are justified.  But the answer must not be violence.”
  • “Above all, we must remind ourselves that we are all Americans…. Those we have lost this week have come from different neighborhoods and backgrounds – but today, they are mourned by officers and residents, by family and friends – by men and women and children who loved them, who needed them and who will miss them always.  They are mourned by all of us.”
  • “To those who seek to improve our country through peaceful protest and protected speech: I want you to know that your voice is important.  Do not be discouraged by those who use your lawful actions as cover for their heinous violence.  We will continue to safeguard your constitutional rights and to work with you in the difficult mission of building a better nation and a brighter future.”

Lynch Meets with Bill Clinton, Just Prior to Announcing That Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Indicted

On June 27, 2016 — as the Justice Department was preparing to announce whether or not it would indict Hillary Clinton for her reckless use of a private, unsecured email server (in violation of the Espionage Act) throughout her entire four-year term as Secretary of State — Lynch, aboard a plane on a private tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, had a private 30-minute meeting with former President Bill Clinton. News of the meeting was broken by Christopher Sign, morning anchor at ABC-15 in Phoenix, who had received a tip from a “trusted source” that Clinton and Lynch would be meeting aboard the plane.

When reports of the Clinton-Lynch meeting were subsequently made public, an aide to Mr. Clinton said: “The President’s conversation with the attorney general was unplanned and was entirely social in nature. But recognizing how others could take another view of it, he agrees with the attorney general that he would not do it again.” Hillary Clinton, for her part, told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: “Obviously, no one wants to see any untoward conclusions drawn, and they said they would not do it again.” And Lynch said: “I certainly wouldn’t do it again because I think it has cast this shadow over what it should not, over what it will not touch. It’s important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter will be reviewed and resolved…. It really was a social meeting, and it was, it really was in that regard. He spoke to me, he spoke to my husband for some time on the plane, and then we moved on.”

On July 6, 2016 — nine days after her meeting with Mr. Clinton — Lynch announced that the DOJ would not be indicting Hillary Clinton. Said the Attorney General: “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

On November 2, 2016, the American Center for Law and Justice sued the Justice Department to obtain more information about the Lynch-Clinton meeting at the Arizona airport.


Lynch Refuses to Explain Her Decision Not to Indict Hillary Clinton

After Lynch chose to abide by FBI Director James Comey’s July 5, 2016 recommendation that the Justice Department not indict Hillary Clinton for her felonious email transgressions which had violated the Espionage Act, the attorney general was called to testify about her decision before the House Judiciary Committee. Seventy-four times during her July 12 testimony, Lynch either declined or refused to answer a question. Toward the end of Lynch’s appearance, Congressman David Trott, who headed the proceedings, said: “I knew you weren’t going to answer our questions today and I apologize for wasting so much time here because it’s really not been very productive. It’s one of two things: Either you’re saying that to avoid the appearance of impropriety in which case you should have recused yourself, or you’re trying to protect Hillary Clinton.”

Lynch Refuses to Answer Questions about the Obama Administration’s $1.7 Billion Ransom Payment to Iran

In early October 2016, Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo presented Lynch with a series of questions about how and why the Obama administration had approved and carried out a secret $1.7 billion cash transfer to Iran (in foreign hard currency) nine months earlier — a transfer that coincided with Iran’s release of four American hostages on January 17, prompting many analysts to characterize it as a ransom payment. In an October 24 response to the Rubio/Pompeo letter, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf by refusing to answer the questions. Rubio and Pompeo then sent a follow-up letter to Lynch, stating that her decision to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” was “unacceptable.”

**Lynch Objects to FBI Director Comey’s Announcement That the Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server Was Being Reopened

**Lynch objected when FBI Director James Comey publicly announced in late October 2016 that because of the recent discovery of some 650,000 emails on a laptop computer belonging to Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, he was reopening the Bureau’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s illicit use of a private, unsecured email server (in blatant violation of the Espionage Act) during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009-13. Comey’s decision to go public was based on: (a) a July 2016 pledge he had made to inform members of Congress about any significant developments that might subsequently arise in the case, and (b) mounting pressure by angry FBI agents who had felt betrayed when Comey (in July) failed to recommend that Clinton be indicted; indeed, nearly 100 agents were threatening to quit their jobs prior to the upcoming November 2016 presidential election. Lynch, for her part, wanted Comey to keep quiet about the newly uncovered emails until after the election. Said one Justice Department official: “Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership. It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

Lynch and DOJ Try to Obstruct FBI Investigation of the Clinton Foundation

On October 30, 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that, for more than a year, the FBI had been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling. “In September,” said the Journal, “agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the [Hillary] Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn” — where Loretta Lynch had been U.S. Attorney from 2010-15, and where she had hired and supervised many of the attorneys who worked in that office. Added the Journal:

“Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information. Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan…. [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe … told them no and added that they couldn’t ‘go prosecutor-shopping.’”

Notably, when McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, had run for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015, her campaign was given $675,000 in cash and in-kind contributions by political committees controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a strong Clinton ally and a former Clinton Foundation board member.

In response to the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote: “When we learn that Clinton Foundation investigators are being denied access to patently relevant evidence by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn,thoseare … Loretta Lynch’s prosecutors [whom] we are talking about.” Further, McCarthy noted that Lynch’s Justice Department had:

  • “refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation, thus depriving the FBI of the power to compel testimony and the production of evidence by subpoena”;
  • “consulted closely with defense attorneys representing subjects of the investigation”;
  • “permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them — to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution (to say nothing of the ethical and legal prohibitions against such an arrangement)”;
  • “drastically restricted the FBI’s questioning of Mills and other subjects of the investigation”; and
  • “struck the outrageous deals that gave Mills and Samuelson immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the FBI with the laptops on which they reviewed Clinton’s four years of e-mails.”

“That [immunity] arrangement,” McCarthy added, “was outrageous for three reasons: 1) Mills and Samuelson should have been compelled to produce the computers by grand-jury subpoena with no immunity agreement; 2) Lynch’s Justice Department drastically restricted the FBI’s authority to examine the computers; and 3) Lynch’s Justice Department agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination.”

Lynch Tries to Influence the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton, and to Influence the 2016 Presidential Election

During his televised testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey said that Attorney General Lynch had directed him to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than as an “investigation” — language that precisely matched the way in which the Clinton campaign was referring to the investigation. Comey added that Lynch’s request had “confused and concerned” him, and had caused him to make his own, independent announcement about the Clinton case in July 2016. Later in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey clarified that the Clinton matter was a “criminal investigation,” and that the campaign’s use of “euphemisms [like] security review” [to describe the FBI’s work] were “inaccurate” and “gave [him] a queasy feeling.”

Comey subsequently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session and revealed additional information about Lynch’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Circa.com reported on June 13, 2017:

“Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing. During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton. Comey said ‘the attorney general looked at the document, then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,’ said one source who was briefed. Comey ‘took that interaction and the fact she [Lynch] had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public’ with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged.”

Lynch Calls for Continued Mob Protests Against the Trump Administration

In early March 2017, Lynch made a video plea calling for continued street demonstrations protesting the presidency of Donald Trump. Said Lynch:

“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. And that it has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled, yes, some of them have died. Yes. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

Lynch Says Politicians Need to “Hear” the “Pain” of Violent Rioters

In the aftermath of the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd — a black man who had died after being abused by a white police officer in Minneapolis — a number of U.S. cities were overrun by violent riots. Commenting on the riots, Lynch said:

“I think that what we look for in our leaders and what we hope for in our leaders, particularly our president, is to be heard. We want them to hear us. We want them to hear our pain. We want them to lead the entire country. We want them to look at us, even if our experience is not their experience, we want to see empathy and an ability to connect and an ability to say, ‘Even if I’m not experiencing what you’re experiencing, I do see the pain that this is causing. And we as a country will come together and work to heal.’ That’s what we look to see, and I leave it to people to decide where that message is coming from at this point in time.”

Source: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/loretta-lynch/

Buffet, Warren

Leftist and affirmed agnostic billionaire born in Omaha, NE on August 30, 1930. Buffett is noted for his frugality despite his personal fortune (he still lives in the same house in Omaha he bought three decades ago for $31,500, and drives an older Lincoln Towncar). His father, Howard Buffett, was a stock broker who was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1942. Warren entered the University of Pennsylvania at age 16 to study business, and transferred two years later to the University of Nebraska, graduating at age 20. After earning a master’s degree from Columbia Business School in 1951, he spent three years selling securities for Buffett-Falk and Company, followed by two years working as an analyst for the Graham-Newton Corporation under the late economist and finance professor Benjamin Graham, who had been his mentor at Columbia. Buffett would later credit Graham’s book, The Intelligent Investor, for the great impact it had on his life.

In 1952 Buffett married Susan Thompson, a rebellious New Age leftist with whom he went on to have three children. Thompson was a strong ideological influence on Buffett, passing on to him her views in support of population control, abortion rights, and a nuclear freeze. According to Forbes magazine, these issues “remained a life-long passion, even an obsession, for both,” and were “heavily funded by their foundation” – a reference to the Buffett Foundation, which the couple used as a vehicle for charitable giving, and which was renamed the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF) in 2004 after Thompson’s death. For many years before that he took a mistress (with Susie’s approval; the three of them would sign Christmas cards together); upon Susie’s death he married his mistress.

Over the years, STBF has contributed huge sums of money to pro-abortion groups like the National Abortion FederationNARALCatholics for Choice, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood. Buffett once described Planned Parenthood as “the closest thing we have” to a vehicle by which to “make every child born in this country and this world a wanted child,” adding: “Until women have the right to determine their reproductive destiny, we’re in an unequal society.” Even before the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, Buffett helped sponsor a “church” named Ecumenical Fellowship, which assisted women in finding places to obtain abortions.

In 1956 Buffet founded the Omaha-based investment firm Buffett Partnership Ltd. (BPL). Utilizing techniques he had learned from Benjamin Graham, Buffett was successful in identifying undervalued companies, including a textile company in New England named Berkshire Hathaway. He began buying stock in that company in the 1960s and assumed control of it by 1965.

After his father died in 1964, Buffett, who was already a liberal Democrat at heart, officially changed his party affiliation to Democrat.

In 1969, Buffett dissolved BPL despite its success, to concentrate on Berkshire Hathaway. Phasing out its textile division, Buffett expanded the firm by buying assets in media, insurance, and oil. His success in investments earned him the moniker, the “Oracle of Omaha.”

Buffett and his wife separated in 1977 but remained married until the end of Susan Thompson’s life 27 years later. Before relocating to San Francisco in ’77 to pursue a singing career, Thompson arranged for Astrid Menks, a Latvian-born woman whom she and her husband had met and befriended in recent years, “to become,” as Forbes put it in November 2012, “Warren’s live-in housekeeper and to look after him in whatever ways he needed … as a kind of wife substitute in all ways except in law.” Two years after Thompson’s death in 2004, Buffett and Menks married.

In 1980, Buffett denounced the famed publisher William Randolph Hearst for having spent so much of his wealth on the construction of his mansion in San Simeon. “Just as the Pharaohs did when building pyramids,” wrote Buffett, “Hearst commanded massive amounts of labor and material away from other societal purposes to satisfy his personal consumption desires.” Buffett also stated that people who lived off of their family inheritance “might feel themselves perceptive in observing the debilitating effects of food stamps for the poor but would fail to observe that they themselves are the beneficiaries of an almost boundless lifetime supply of privately-funded food stamps bestowed upon them at birth.”

Buffett became director of Berkshire Hathaway in 1989, by which time he had accumulated a net worth of $3.8 billion, and he held that position until 2006.

In 2006 Buffett announced that he planned to donate, over time, his entire fortune to charity, with 85% going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2010, Buffett and Bill Gates collaborated to form The Giving Pledge, a campaign intended to recruit wealthy contributors to charitable causes.

In March 2012, bestselling author Peter Schweizer explained how Buffett in 2008 had exploited his political connections to President Barack Obama to push for federal bailouts of the banking industry, bailouts that in turn generated an enormous windfall for Buffett. Wrote Schweizer:

“During the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, Buffett … [w]hile pushing for calm and advocating specific market interventions in both public and private … was also investing (sometimes quietly) so he could profit once his policy advice was implemented….

“[O]n September 23 [he invested] $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, which was overleveraged and short on cash. Buffett’s play gave the investment bank a much-needed cash infusion, making a heck of a deal for himself in return: Berkshire Hathaway received preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend yield and an attractive option to buy another $5 billion in stock at $115 a share.

“Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, ‘If I didn’t think the government was going to act, I wouldn’t be doing anything this week.’

“Buffett needed the bailout. In addition to Goldman Sachs, which was not as badly leveraged as some of its competitors, Buffett was heavily invested in several other banks, such as Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, that were also at risk and in need of federal cash. So it’s no surprise that Buffett began campaigning for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was being hammered out in Washington….[2]

“During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama made it clear that … ‘Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to’ and was one of his ‘economic advisers.’ […]

“Early in the financial crisis, Obama … had been cautious and lukewarm about a possible bailout. But in the days following Buffett’s multibillion-dollar play for Goldman Sachs, and with fears of economic collapse mounting, Obama became a powerful champion of the government rescue…..

“Publicly, Buffett struck a posture of cheering on the bailout from the sidelines. ‘I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,’ he told The New York Times in a September 24 article. But Buffett’s actions directly contradicted his words. Days later, he participated in a conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats during which he pushed them to pass the bill, warning that otherwise the country faces ‘the biggest financial meltdown in American history.’

“The stakes were high for Buffett as well. If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway. The first vote failed, as Congress faced enormous heat from voters angry about the prospect of aiding Wall Street. On the eve of the second TARP vote in the House, Buffett moved toward the fire again, buying a $3 billion stake in corporate giant General Electric (GE). As with Goldman, he was able to negotiate advantageous terms, receiving a 10 percent dividend on his shares. He also purchased the option to buy $3 billion in stock at discounted terms. GE was in even worse financial shape than Goldman, thanks to its financial arm, GE Capital. Eventually it would receive $140 billion in taxpayer capital to stay afloat….

“In all, Berkshire Hathaway firms received $95 billion in TARP money. Berkshire held stock in Wells Fargo, Bank of America, American Express, and Goldman Sachs, which received not only TARP money but also Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) backing for their debt, worth a total of $130 billion. All told, TARP-assisted companies constituted a whopping 30 percent of Buffett’s publicly disclosed stock portfolio…. [T]he Houston Chronicle concluded in an April 2009 investigative piece [that Buffett] was ‘one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout.’

“Buffett received better terms for his Goldman investment than the government got for its bailout. His dividend was set at 10 percent, while the government’s was 5 percent. Had the bailout not gone through, and had Goldman not been given such generous terms under TARP, things would have been very different for Buffett. As it stood, the arrangement with Goldman Sachs earned Berkshire about $500 million a year in dividends…. The General Electric deal also was profitable [to the tune of $1.2 billion]. As Reuters business columnist Rolfe Winkler noted on his blog in August 2009: ‘Were it not for government bailouts, for which Buffett lobbied hard, many of his company’s stock holdings would have been wiped out.’

“By April 2009, Goldman share prices had more than doubled. By July 2009, Buffett had already received a return of $2.5 billion from his investment.”

Buffett’s political connections to Obama also gave Buffett the confidence to invest heavily in railroads in 2009. As Peter Schweizer explains:

“In late 2009, Buffett made his largest investment ever when he decided to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). It was not just an endorsement of the railroad industry’s financials; it was also a huge bet on the budget priorities of his friend Barack Obama. As The Wall Street Journal reported, ‘Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s planned purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. represents a bet that upcoming Washington policies to improve infrastructure and combat climate change will be a boon to the freight-railroad industry. President Barack Obama has said railroad investment will be a cornerstone of his transportation policies, given the environmental benefits and improved mobility that come with taking cars and trucks off roads.’ […]

“Buffett bought BNSF just as the Obama administration was beginning a series of initiatives to rapidly expand the government’s spending on railroads. After Buffett took over the railroad company, he dramatically increased spending on lobbyists. Berkshire spent $1.2 million on lobbyists in 2008, but by 2009 its budget had jumped to $9.8 million, where it more or less remained….

“Obama’s plans to invest heavily in railroads, including a commitment to high-speed rail, put BNSF in a position to benefit handsomely…. The 2009 stimulus package [officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] include[d] $48 billion (of the total $787 billion) for infrastructure improvement, a chunk of which [was] headed for railroads.”

In 2010, Buffett penned a folksy New York Times op-ed thanking his “Uncle Sam” for the bailout funds; he signed the letter as Sam’s nephew, “Warren.”

Later that year, Buffett became a key propaganda figure in President Obama’s push to raise taxes. Most notably, he was a vocal advocate for tax hikes on wealthy Americans like himself, calling it unjust, for instance, that he himself was taxed at a lower rate than his own secretary simply because his income came from investments rather than in the form of a salary. “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” Buffett wrote in 2011. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.” President Barack Obama, of whom Buffett was an enthusiastic supporter, often cited and lauded the so-called “Buffett Rule” which held that households earning more than $1 million per year should be taxed at a higher rate than their middle-class counterparts.

Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting with the IRS for almost a decade over taxes it owes, estimated to be $1 billion.

By early 2011, Obama had placed the Presidential Medal of Freedom around Buffet’s neck.

Continuing to build his Berkshire Hathaway empire, Buffett purchased the H.J. Heinz Company in 2013, Duracell in 2014, and Kraft Foods in 2015.

In 2015-16, Buffett praised the presidential bid of Senator Bernie Sanders, even though he formally backed Hillary Clinton‘s campaign. Characterizing Sanders as an “articulate” spokesman for his cause, Buffett said: “I think we all have lessons to learn from him.”

Calling it “highly likely … that climate change poses a major problem for the planet,” Buffett in 2016 boasted that Berkshire Hathaway Energy “has invested [$16 billion] in renewables and now owns 7% of the country’s wind generation and 6% of its solar generation.”

In 2017, Buffett opposed the Republican tax cut bill which was signed into law by President Donald Trump.

In 2017 as well, Buffett criticized President Trump’s calls for enhanced border security and the stricter enforcement of immigration laws. “A tide of talented and ambitious immigrants” had been key contributors to “the greatness of the country” during its development, said Buffett, implying that Trump’s position was blind to that reality.

In March 2020, Buffett — much as he had done eight years earlier by investing heavily in Goldman Sachs at the dawn of the financial crisis — suddenly invested enormous sums of money in airline companies whose stocks were plummeting as a result of the increasingly serious coronavirus pandemic. His expectation was that those companies would eventually receive financial bailouts from the federal government. Thus, Buffett increased his stake in Delta Airlines to 11% ownership.  He also owned between 8% and 10% of United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and American Airlines.

For additional information on Warren Buffett, click here.

Further Reading: “Warren Buffett” (Biography.com); “When Warren Went Left: The Ideological Seduction Of Warren Buffett” (Forbes, 11-29-2012);  “Warren Buffett Gives Millions to Pay for Abortions” (National Review, 3-5-2014); “Soros Clones: 5 Liberal Mega-Donors Nearly as Dangerous as George Soros” (Media Research Center); “Warren Buffett: The Billion-Dollar King of Abortion” (Media Research Center); “Warren Buffet: the Sugar Daddy of Baby-Killing” (PoliticalOutcast.com, 5-14-2014); “Warren Buffett: A Wealthy Philanthropist with Some Bad Ideas” (Capital Research Center, 11-2-2011).


  1. STBF has also supported organizations like DKT International and Gynuity Health Projects, both of which work to expand access to abortion in developing countries. Moreover, the Foundation has gone so far as to purchase abortion machinery and donate it to clinics in poor nations.
  2. TARP allowed the Treasury to buy or insure up to $700 billion in “troubled assets” from banks and other financial institutions.  These assets included subprime mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and derivatives.