U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch appears likely to be confirmed as the next attorney general after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, but both of Iowa’s U.S. senators will oppose her confirmation. Senator Chuck Grassley voted against Lynch on the Judiciary Committee, saying she had not convinced him that she “will lead the department in a different direction” from outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. In a statement I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley said that as “the nation’s top law enforcement officer,” the attorney general’s job is “not to be the President’s ‘wingman.'” He then cited several news headlines about Lynch defending President Barack Obama’s executive orders halting deportations for some undocumented immigrants.
Today Senator Joni Ernst confirmed that she will also vote against confirming Lynch. O.Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa,
“I have some very serious concerns with Loretta Lynch,” Ernst says, “especially during her testimony when she had stated that she does uphold what the president has done and his decisions, especially when it comes to executive amnesty.”
Late last week, Ernst and Grassley voted against the “clean” bill to continue funding the Department of Homeland Security, stripped of language opposing Obama’s immigration policies.
Three Republican senators (Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Flake) voted to forward Lynch’s nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. Assuming all 46 Democrats are present for her confirmation vote, she will need only one more GOP supporter to reach the 60-vote threshold.
UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Iowa’s U.S. Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Rod Blum (IA-01) signed a letter urging Senate Judiciary Committee members to reject Lynch. To my knowledge, Representative David Young (IA-03) did not sign the letter.
Grassley’s statement from February 26:
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today released the following statement after opposing President Obama’s nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next U.S. Attorney General. The Committee approved the nomination by a vote of 12 – 8.
“As I’ve said many times throughout the nomination process, what we need from our next Attorney General – more than anything else – is independence. The current Attorney General has permitted politics to drive decision making far too often. For that reason, the question for me has been whether Ms. Lynch will make a clean break and take the Department of Justice in a new direction. After thoroughly reviewing Ms. Lynch’s testimony, both before the committee and in written follow-up questions, I remain unconvinced she will lead the department in a different direction.
“I sincerely hope Ms. Lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up to the President and say ‘No’ when the duty of the office demands it. But based on my review of the record, I cannot support the nomination.”
Grassley’s prepared statement regarding the nomination at today’s Judiciary Committee meeting is below.
—
“Good morning. I appreciate everyone’s willingness to start a little earlier this morning. We have a lot on today’s agenda.
“Before turning to my remarks on the Lynch nomination, I want to speak briefly on the process we’ve followed with this nomination.
“This nomination arose during a somewhat unique set of circumstances. Not only did the Senate majority change, but a couple new members of the Senate joined our committee in January. It was important to me, as Chairman, to ensure those members had adequate time to consider the nomination. And, as is often the case with cabinet level appointments, we had to gather all of the relevant documents.
“I want to take this opportunity to thank the Department of Justice for its willingness to work with us to gather those documents. While it’s true that we were still gathering documents up until a week or two before the hearing, I think it’s fair to say the department was working in good faith to get us the material we needed.
“Finally, since our last Executive Business Meeting, a number of members submitted follow-up questions for the record seeking additional clarity from the nominee. And Ms. Lynch responded to those questions last week. One of the topics that some of us, myself included, wanted additional information about was the settlement reached between Ms. Lynch’s office and HSBC Bank.
“I won’t take the time to go into the details of the allegations raised in that matter. But it’s important for committee members to know this: Had we voted on Ms. Lynch’s nomination during our last meeting, our staffs wouldn’t have been able to conduct the bipartisan interview of a whistleblower like they did last week. And, Ms. Lynch wouldn’t have had the opportunity to respond to our questions on this topic.
“For that reason, had we voted at our last meeting, we wouldn’t have been discharging our duty in an appropriate and thorough way. And that would’ve been irresponsible, in my view. So, my goal was to consider Ms. Lynch’s nomination in a thorough, fair, and respectful way.
“I know some of you who sit to my left think we took too long. And, some of you who sit on my right don’t think we’ve taken long enough. But I believe we’ve carried out our constitutional duty in a thorough way, but we’ve also kept the process moving.
“With that, I’ll turn to my comments on the merits of the nomination.
“From the outset, I’ve said that what we need from our next Attorney General – more than anything else – is independence. It’s true the Attorney General is a cabinet officer who serves at the pleasure of the President. But first and foremost, the Attorney General of the United States is the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
“The Attorney General may be appointed by the President, but the job is not to simply defend the President and his policies. The job is not to be the President’s “wingman.” The job is defined by a duty to defend the constitution, and uphold the rule of law. The Attorney General does not represent Democrats, or Republicans, or Independents. The job is to represent all Americans. Regardless of party. And regardless of politics.
“Unfortunately, in my view, too often the current Attorney General has permitted politics to drive decision-making. And as I’ve said, it isn’t only Republicans who recognize the problem.
“In 2013, the department’s own Inspector General listed as one of its top management challenges: “restoring confidence in the integrity, fairness, and accountability of the department.”
“I make these observations about the current leadership as one of the few Republicans who voted for Attorney General Holder. Our side had a lot of concerns regarding his nomination. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I voted for him. So, I approach this nomination with that vote in mind.
“On the one hand, I feel as though I should learn my lesson. Leading the Department of Justice in an effective and independent way requires more than impressive credentials. Ms. Lynch has those credentials. So did Attorney General Holder. I supported Eric Holder, but his tenure – at least from where I sit – has been a huge disappointment.
“On the other hand, I recognize that the quickest and most sure-fire way to replace Attorney General Holder is to support Ms. Lynch as his replacement. But as I’ve said, the question for me from the start has been whether Ms. Lynch will make a clean break and take the department in a new direction. After thoroughly reviewing Ms. Lynch’s testimony, both before the committee and in written follow-up questions, I remain unconvinced she will lead the department in a different direction.
“Now, I’m confident that if she had demonstrated a little more independence from the President, she would’ve garnered more support here today. To illustrate why, we need to look no further than the recent confirmation of Secretary Carter to the Department of Defense. When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were hoping we’d see from Ms. Lynch.
“Most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree. Consider these headlines from several major news outlets regarding the Carter nomination:
“In Ashton Carter, Nominee for Defense Secretary, a Change in Direction,” The New York Times
“New Defense Secretary airs differences with Obama over Ukraine, Gitmo,” Washington Times
“Obama Pentagon pick Carter says he won’t bend to White House Pressure to release Gitmo prisoners,” Fox News
“Defense nominee Carter casts himself as an independent voice,” The Washington Post
Compare those headlines to these regarding Ms. Lynch, from some of the very same news outlets:“Lynch Defends Obama’s Immigration Action,” The New York Times
“Loretta Lynch Defends Obama’s Immigration Actions,” Huffington Post
“Loretta Lynch Defends Obama’s Executive Action, NSA Surveillance,” Newsweek
“Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch defends Obama Immigration policies,” Washington Times
“Secretary Carter was confirmed with 93 votes. Only 5 Senators voted against his nomination. That lopsided vote was a reflection of his testimony before the Senate, which demonstrated a willingness to be an independent voice within the administration.“I suspect Ms. Lynch will be confirmed, but I doubt she’ll garner 93 votes in support of her nomination. And to the extent her support isn’t as broad as Secretary Carter’s, it will reflect a reluctance to take the department in a new direction, and her unwillingness to identify meaningful limitations on executive power.
“I sincerely hope Ms. Lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up to the President and say ‘No’ when the duty of the office demands it. But based on my review of the record, I cannot support the nomination.”