RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Gibson writes: "President Obama’s nomination of Loretta Lynch as Eric Holder’s replacement is all the proof we need that the banks truly own Washington, that nobody in the Department of Justice will ever bring justice to the bankers behind the financial meltdown, and that the revolving door keeps on spinning."

Loretta Lynch, Obama's nominee to replace outgoing attorney general Eric Holder. (photo: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
Loretta Lynch, Obama's nominee to replace outgoing attorney general Eric Holder. (photo: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

The Republican Senate Will Love Loretta Lynch

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

09 November 14


fter the news broke of Eric Holder’s departure from the DOJ, I called on President Obama to nominate Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, based on his exemplary record of defending consumers and citizens from predatory banks, big oil, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. My more cynical readers commented that Obama was too much of a corporatist to nominate Hood, and that whoever Holder’s successor would be, they would be completely subservient to the banks. And after the news of Lynch’s nomination and looking into her past, I can say with confidence that those readers were right.

Right after graduating from law school, Lynch went to work as a litigation assistant for the prestigious New York-based law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel between 1984 and 1990. CG&R attorneys represented some of the more notorious figures behind the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 1980s and 1990s, including a man who had personal dealings with Charles Keating. In its profile of Lynch, the DOJ’s own website describes her as someone with extensive experience in “white collar criminal defense.” It’s very likely that Lynch went from Harvard straight to defending some of the worst financial criminals the country had ever seen at the time. On CG&R’s website, the “securities litigation and white collar defense” section describes the kind of crooks the firm defends:

Recent matters include the alleged manipulation of the US Dollar London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and multi-billion dollar federal and state court class and individual actions involving subprime and structured finance products.… We have handled some of the most significant investigations arising from existing and emerging regulation in the white collar arena, including for some of the largest transnational companies and banks as well as the largest securities rating agency.… Our securities litigation and white collar defense practice is top-ranked by Chambers USA, The Legal 500 and Benchmark Litigation.

Lynch basically got her first six years of white collar criminal defense experience working at the firm that is currently responsible for keeping the bankers behind the great subprime mortgage grift out of jail. CG&R is also defending the financial institutions that jacked up interest rates on everything from student loans to home loans out of greedy self-interest. They even defended the agencies that knowingly rated worthless mortgage-backed securities as AAA, setting up millions to lose their retirement savings in a snap.

After six years of exemplary work at this soulless law firm, Lynch walked through the revolving door to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern district of New York, which plays a major part in investigating financial crimes. She gradually worked her way up the ladder, going from an assistant U.S. attorney in 1990 to becoming the unit’s Deputy Chief of General Crimes in 1993. She was chief of the office’s Long Island division by 1998, and was tapped as U.S. Attorney by June of 1999, where she remained until 2001. Then, Lynch walked back through the revolving door to return to defending the worst of America’s worst corporate criminals.

Lynch couldn’t wait to get started at the Hogan & Hartson law firm (now known as Hogan Lovells). Interestingly enough, Lynch was a partner at Hogan, working alongside John Roberts, the current chief justice of what is the most corporate-friendly Supreme Court in decades. Hogan’s website doesn’t list its past clients, but you can get a pretty good idea by visiting the site’s “financial institutions” section:

We represent banks, brokers, insurers, asset managers, investment funds, regulators, and other market participants, large and small, on the full range of legal services. This includes corporate, competition, employment, finance, IT, intellectual property, litigation, pensions, real estate and tax.

As soon as Lynch joined Hogan in 2002, she interrupted her own vacation, came to the office without pay and immediately got to work defending an Arthur Andersen partner who had helped cook the books for Enron. From 2003 to 2005, Lynch sat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, working directly under future U.S. Treasury secretary Tim Geithner. The New York Fed has been widely documented for its incestuous relationships with the big Wall Street banks it’s supposed to regulate. The revolving door spun once again in 2010, when President Obama appointed Lynch to her old job as U.S. Attorney of New York’s Eastern District.

Drawing on her past experience of standing up for white collar crooks, Lynch has spent the last four years treating big banks with kid gloves. Under Lynch’s oversight, the U.S. government allowed HSBC to pay a fine that amounted to five weeks of profit for the bank after they admitted to laundering $800 million for Mexican drug cartels. Lynch was also responsible for Citibank paying a $7 billion settlement-- $3.8 billion of which was later billed to U.S. taxpayers – rather than going to jail over misleading millions of investors about mortgage-backed securities that were doomed to fail.

There’s really no question about whether or not Lynch will survive her senate confirmation hearing. Senator Dick Durbin once referred to his chamber as overly subservient to the big banks, saying, “They own the place.” Bankers everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the president’s pick for the nation’s top lawyer won’t try to put any of them in jail. The senators they sponsored in the last election cycle will likely confirm her with haste.

Carl Gibson, 27, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nonviolent grassroots movement that mobilized thousands to protest corporate tax dodging and budget cuts in the months leading up to Occupy Wall Street. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary We're Not Broke, which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Carl is also the author of How to Oust a Congressman, an instructional manual on getting rid of corrupt members of Congress and state legislatures based on his experience in the 2012 elections in New Hampshire. He lives in Sacramento, California.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+104 # REDPILLED 2014-11-09 14:11
As long as the Plundering Class run U.S. (and world) politics, economic and political systems will be pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street, anti-justice and anti-environment.

When the tipping point is finally reached (if ever) and most people realize that their survival, and that of their children, are threatened by the Plundering Class, what will we do?
+59 # Vardoz 2014-11-09 16:32
This is why Obama has failed.
+21 # Texas Aggie 2014-11-09 23:10
While Obama has had some notable successes regarding the economy and health care, every one of his failures is linked to protecting the uberwealthy from the consequences of their own dishonesty. And those failures are many ranging from the FEC and Justice Dept refusing to call bankers to account, surveillance of people who might pose a threat to their dominance, attacks on whistleblowers rather than those on whom the whistle is blown, allowing religions to run roughshod over ordinary Americans, coddling the off-shore account holders, enriching the MIC, und soweiter.
+3 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-11-11 15:47
This is another reason why Cornell West, Bill Maher's show, said, "Obama is a fake."
Except for The Affordable Care Act. Yes, I voted for him twice.
+9 # Texas Aggie 2014-11-09 23:03
See Mexico, 2014.

See Central America, 1980's

See France, 1789
+4 # 6thextinction 2014-11-10 17:32
We could all stop paying our federal taxes. That could be done if it was organized. How many readers would work with a group which would promote that?
+2 # dandevries 2014-11-11 18:56
So Obama will now have his very own Condoleezza Rice.
+97 # Stilldreamin1 2014-11-09 14:14
Showing his true colors with every move he makes. Next on his agenda: approve the pipeline and fast track TPP. After all he has to "work with" the republican majority.
+46 # Corvette-Bob 2014-11-09 14:44
I agree he will probably cave in just like Clinton did when the Republicans seized control of Congress. Obama is a very, very slow learner. He does understand they hate him and are doing everything in their power to destroy him.
+28 # Corvette-Bob 2014-11-09 14:46
I meant to say that "he does not understand."
+23 # stan van houcke 2014-11-09 16:32
he understands all too good that he is a hired gun, and obama like any other president does not have to know more.
+56 # Radscal 2014-11-09 16:23
I do not buy the "cave in" view of Obama or Clinton. Both are corporatist/mil itarist/financi al industry shills who simply carry/carried out the orders of the ruling class.
-1 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-11-11 19:00
Also known as Mad dog syndrome.
+2 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:25
there's no "cave in" going on. This was his intention from the get-go.
+10 # Vardoz 2014-11-09 18:01
+1 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:23
+107 # Corvette-Bob 2014-11-09 14:42
Give a man a gun and he can rob an individual. Give a man a bank and he can rob everyone. For some reason the Republicans love it when a rich person robs massive amounts of money, but if a poor person steals a loaf of bread, they cheer when the police gun him down.
+23 # Benjamin Franklin 2014-11-09 19:01
That is true. It's because they are, at heart, sociopathic.
+11 # riverhouse 2014-11-09 15:44
All Republicans care about is the color of her skin.
+25 # RLF 2014-11-09 16:05
It would seem that that was one of Obama's main criteria as well. Certainly not prosecuting the biggest criminals in the country!
+33 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-11-09 15:55
Obama and BOTH political parties serve the needs of industry. The obstructionism was merely a way to make it happen.
+31 # Jim Young 2014-11-09 16:00
If Obama wants to restore any credible trust, William K. Black, hero of the Savings & Loan Crisis (whom Charles Keating wanted dead) should be the appointee we could trust, based on past experience.

I can just imagine the expensive, extensive, campaign that would be deployed against such a nominee, though. It would still be worth the light it sheds on the utter corruption that the former DoJ has enabled, though.
+40 # harleysch 2014-11-09 16:07
Carl -- I hate to say it, but I think this appointment demonstrates your previous naivete about the President. Welcome to the real world. From the day he stepped into the White House, Obama has been all about protecting Wall Street. He continued the Bush-Cheney-Pau lson bailout policies, and never lifted a finger to aid those whose lives were damaged by the Sept. 2008 crash.

To think he will do something good now is worst than naive, just plain stupid. Real Progressives must fight the Wall St. control in both parties.
+3 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:29
He continued and amplified Bush/Cheney/Cli nton everything. The mass murder, the torture, the repression, the spying, the intimidation , the plundering, the lying through f$%king teeth with every utterance . Call it what Mussolini called it, fascism.
+30 # banichi 2014-11-09 16:27
If anyone reading this has not seen the documentary "Inside Job" then you should track it down. It came out soon after the 2008 financial meltdown, and detailed the way that corporations and industry people rotated into government and back out, all to really keep an eye and hands on the direction and results of government agencies. Matt Taibbi also wrote quite a few excellent articles around the same time, mainly but not exclusively focused on Bank of America and its role in the meltdown. If you want to understand how government is controlled by the banks and corporations, rather than the other way around, these are a good beginning place. It is impossible to really understand why our government, both domestically and internationally , behaves as if the citizens do not really matter, without understanding the connections (and control) that banks and corporations (and billionaires) have with those who are in office, whether elected or appointed. As someone said a long time ago, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those who blame the government for everything that is wrong with our country are not paying attention to the reality of the situation in this regard.
+40 # Radscal 2014-11-09 16:28
Thanks to Carl and RSN for publishing Ms. Lynch's corporate-spons ored history. Yesterday, I read a couple of articles about her in the "liberal mainstream media," and none even mentioned her work defending corporate/finan ce criminals. They each made her sound like a 'tireless defender" of the people.
+1 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:31
Yup, a tireless defender of John Roberts' "people".
+10 # banichi 2014-11-09 16:29
Yes, it is complex, and boiling it down to what factors really make a difference is not as simple as election slogans, whether Republican or Democratic. Neither party's politicians are immune to the effect of money from those who give it to their election campaigns, and there are very few exceptions to this: Warren, Sanders, and Franken are three who are exceptions. And when it comes down to it, it is really irrelevant whether or not any politician, particularly the Republicans and TP'ers, are truly sincere in their professed beliefs about how to make the country better by essentially strangling the government by cutting taxes and benefits.

Nor does it matter whether a candidate is white, black, Hispanic, Asian or any race or ethnic background. What matters is what they stand for and what they accomplish, for citizens - which does not mean corporations and banks. Stay tuned and keep on watching - and keep on organizing for what you believe will bring the greatest good for the greatest number of people. God bless and be safe.
+6 # stan van houcke 2014-11-09 16:30
I quote corvette-bob: 'Obama is a very, very slow learner.' CB: when you became the president of the usa you are a very, very fast learner, and obama is just that. he knows who paid him to become president, and he works for the man. I'am afraid it is you who are 'a very, very slow learner.'
+14 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2014-11-09 16:40
So what is to stop a Democrat Senator from filing a filibuster on this hooker's nomination?
+2 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:32
The fact that the person is a "Democrat".
0 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2014-11-12 18:15
Quoting dquandle:
The fact that the person is a "Democrat".

Please explain. Is there a Senate rule that says a Democrat cannot filibuster a Democrat President's nomination and a Republican cannot filibuster a Republican President's nomination? Or are you saying that there is no such limitation but that it would be political suicide to filibuster your own party's Presidential nomination? Even if the nomination was not in the interests of the American people?
0 # America 2014-11-14 08:24
Quoting tref:
this hooker's nomination?

Hooker? are you calling her a hooker? Yes? Please retract that offensive statement unless you can validate this
+10 # Phillybuster 2014-11-09 16:41
Can we not reconcile with the UK, become part of the commonwealth, and have a parliamentary system of government? The American Revolution was started by the ideological ancestors of the Koch brothers. John Hancock was the richest man in America when he signed the Declaration of Independence. The constitution was originally designed by white male landowners for white male landowners. Things haven't changed that much.
+5 # WestWinds 2014-11-09 22:24
Quoting Phillybuster:
Can we not reconcile with the UK, become part of the commonwealth, and have a parliamentary system of government? The American Revolution was started by the ideological ancestors of the Koch brothers. John Hancock was the richest man in America when he signed the Declaration of Independence. The constitution was originally designed by white male landowners for white male landowners. Things haven't changed that much.

--- I don't think a return to England is the way to go. England is NOT a kind master.

The reason for the tea party in Boston Harbor was bc the English were trying to flood America with cheap tea to destroy the tea market here for our own domestic tea. When America began, we were responsible for producing raw goods, like wool and cotton, that would be shipped to England and her cloth factories for very little money but sold back to us at exorbitant prices. England did the same thing to India, if you will recall Gandhi insisting everyone stop wearing English cloth and learn to spin and weave their own cotton with everyone ending up wearing white togas. The Indians perceived this trade set-up as abusive and rejected it along with the rest of British rule.

See Part 2
+12 # WestWinds 2014-11-09 22:24
Part 2

The Republic was doing fine until certain factions started abusing it. We don't have a Republic any more. We have an oligarchy and fascism. We need to get our Republic back and find a way to keep corporations from accruing so much money they can buy the government out from under us.

And shame on every Demorat that sold us out by climbing on the corporate band wagon. You committed treason and sold out your country.
+2 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2014-11-12 18:53
"find a way to keep corporations from accruing so much money"

Return to the corporate tax rates of 1960. The $$ amount needs to be adjusted for inflation but in 1960, the first $25k was taxed at 30%, over $25k taxed at 52%. Then rescind the corporate loopholes introduced since 1960. Today the first $50k is taxed at only 15% and the top rate is only 35%.
+19 # Blackjack 2014-11-09 16:52
Stilldreamin1, I'll add one more to your list: SS and Medicare will go back on the chopping block!
+3 # A_Har 2014-11-10 09:37
Quoting Blackjack:
Stilldreamin1, I'll add one more to your list: SS and Medicare will go back on the chopping block!

I am sure this was always the long term plan anyway. I saw the writing on the wall some time back.

Check this article from USA Today from May 2007; this was before the crash:

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

"Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.....

....The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them."

"CANCEL OR CUT THEM." Yes indeedy. It used to be thought this kind of move was political suicide, but guess what, they don't care. *They don't have to care anymore.* They do not represent the people.
+5 # fredboy 2014-11-09 17:39
+12 # Vardoz 2014-11-09 18:03
We are so screwed and they really want to screw us. The states have to start acting on their own.
+2 # RHytonen 2014-11-10 08:36
Quoting Vardoz:
We are so screwed and they really want to screw us. The states have to start acting on their own.

Careful what you wish for -especially concerning such a right wing concept.
West Virginia already does that, and they are historically the MOST corporatist and exclusively supportive of the FF industry.
The more local the power, the cheaper the bribes. Ask JFK's campaign.
+3 # WestWinds 2014-11-09 22:05
I just finished reading Mr. Gibson's open letter to Pres. Obama re why the younger set didn't come out to vote in this election.

I'm sorry, but I feel so betrayed by this younger class of people. So many of us worked so hard and gave so much money (that we really didn't have to spend) on trying to get a lot of these Republicans out of office and all of our effort goes for naught because the youngsters figured the best answer to their discontent was to sit it out and watch the bloodbath.

I really don't know what they thought they were accomplishing by handing over the Congress to the Right-wing. I understand that they want a more Progressive government, but allowing the Right to have two full years of putting through their agenda, two full years of digging their claws deeper and deeper into this country, two full years of the Right thinking that their way is what this country really wants... this is a complete and utter betrayal of the rest of us.

And, FYI, not all people over 60 want war; social security, yes, war... absolutely not.
+1 # fredboy 2014-11-10 08:25
For goodness sake, they were texting! Don't you know it was more important to see what Cindy was having for lunch and read about Jodie's weekend trip, and how BORING she was at visiting her grandparents? And...
0 # bmiluski 2014-11-10 11:00
Ha, ha, ha, FREDBOY....unfo rtunately you're probably right. After all it's so totally uncool to vote in the mid-elections.. ....and what to wear?
+7 # A_Har 2014-11-10 09:26
Quoting WestWinds:
I'm sorry, but I feel so betrayed by this younger class of people. So many of us worked so hard and gave so much money (that we really didn't have to spend) on trying to get a lot of these Republicans out of office and all of our effort goes for naught because the youngsters figured the best answer to their discontent was to sit it out and watch the bloodbath.

Guess what, while the Rethugs are awful, the DEMs are not the "savior." The Dems kill you softly and claim they just had to do it slowly and carefully because if they didn't, the Rethugs will do it gangland style. I don't buy it!

I got countless emails--SAVE THE SENATE! Save it from what? The two DEM senators in my state approved the NDAA which allows the president to kill Americans without due process. OH yeah and they supported Israel's recent attacks on Gaza. Regardless of the party that is in we are already sold out and betrayed. It was not the young folks who did it.

Perhaps their view has a good dose of realism to it?

I voted but I doubt that it matters much.
-1 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:37
"Handing over the congress to the right wing…" ????
The congress has been the very definition of right wing for decades, if not longer. Thats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck the f$%k Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein…..
+2 # m... 2014-11-09 22:57
RSN… and Articles like this one…
Not all, but many… Come across as another in a long long series of chronically 'Disappointed' Articles that imply to me that there is this OCD-like, tiny hope many cling to that somehow, someday, The Democrats will 'save us' from…, well…, the Democrats... and the Republicans…. or to be fair-- The CorpoCorrupted Two Parties that are ruining the country and now collude on only one thing--- keeping all other political parties out of the national discourse and off the ballot boxes as much as possible.
America-- please excuse me for saying it again and again like Pete and Repeat. But, when it comes to exercising our right to vote and participate in our fading Democracy, we have become caricatures of that joke. The one where a guy goes to the doctor and says, hey doc, every time I think to participate in our democracy like going to the voting booth, I hit myself in the head with a hammer. But all that happens is I knock myself out, wake up with stitches, a nasty bump and a lot of regret no matter how many times I do it and even as I hit myself harder and harder each time.--- What should I do..?
Let's face it… The Republicans have become narrow minded insaniacs who hate everyone who doesn't agree with them and the Democrats are little more than a get-reelected machine focused on extreme caution and whatever bullshit it takes to--- get reelected.., even as they certainly must see by now that they are also caricatures of the same hammer joke.
+3 # A_Har 2014-11-10 09:28
+5 # unitedwestand 2014-11-10 02:27
Considering the way the elections went recently it is hard to see when and how we are ever going to fix this whole rigged system as Elizabeth Warren so rightly has said over and over.
+6 # punditalia 2014-11-10 06:57
Who knew that an almost perfect clone of Eric Holder could be found so quickly?
-2 # America 2014-11-11 11:58
Wow! Talk about a cynical group. You are all ready to bash this well qualified appointee based on presumptions. That makes us all just like the GOP.

Please folks think out the box.. put aside your bias for a moment.
Ironically her inside view of white collar criminals gives her a supreme advantage on collaring them and bringing them to justice.
No question she is bright smart and widely knowledgeable.
Presumptions aside she may be the best candidate. We must set aside our rush to judgement believing that everyone in America has no integrity. The lady has been doing a great job in the private sector achieving the aims of her firm and probably will work well for us all at the Federal level.

Tell me why we should not give her a shot?

You should also wait for Holder's book and why he wanted so badly to leave the inner circle of Obama. You may be surprised.. maybe. So lighten up hey?
+1 # dquandle 2014-11-11 22:40
because, as her record above indicates, she is a criminal
-1 # America 2014-11-14 08:26
What are her crimes? When was she indicted and convicted?
0 # bckrd1 2014-11-12 16:45
Who vets these choices and brings them to Obama?

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.