A Surprise Move from Loretta Lynch

From Washington Times:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Congress on Wednesday she is preparing to crack down on sanctuary cities and would try to stop federal grant money from going to jurisdictions that actively thwart agents seeking to deport illegal immigrants.

Her announcement marks a major policy reversal for the administration, which for years has opposed legislation that would have forced such a crackdown.

The federal Bureau of Prisons will now try to deport illegal immigrants rather than turn them over to sanctuary cities, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday in a bid to solve the situation that may have led to the death of Kathryn Steinle last summer.

Ms. Lynch also said she’ll begin an audit of sanctuary cities to see if they’re violating federal law, and those that are found to be actively stymying immigration agents’ work could lose grant funding.

The attorney general was responding to requests from Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican and chairman of the spending subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department.

“This is a very significant change, and we’re deeply grateful,” Mr. Culberson said. He said his staff would provide a list to Ms. Lynch of cities and counties that try to thwart deportations, and he hopes the Justice Department will follow up on that list.


O’s handling of immigration stands out as one of the huge failures of his administration. Lawless sanctuary cities now number in the hundreds, and Obama has fought attempts to crack down on them, while deportations have been blocked by executive action, and violent illegal alien prisoners are set free.

Lynch’s statements are surprising, considering his admin has done everything in their power to assist sanctuary cities.

Mr. Culberson should dial back his gratitude because Ms. Lynch is just doing her job – it’s no favor to him or the people. He didn’t notice her statements say ‘she will try to stop federal money’,  ‘she will prepare to crack down’ and she ‘will begin to audit sanctuary cities.’

News flash to Culberson – That is lip service and nothing more, but it got her some brownie points in your eyes.


Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A Surprise Move from Loretta Lynch

  1. tannngl says:

    Yeah, right, Loretta. You lie like your boss lies. Our representatives owe her no thanks, Kathy. You’re absolutely right. I’ll believe this when I see it.

  2. Saltwater says:

    That is an awful lot of “woulda, shoulda, coulda.” With all those pie in the sky possibilities, there was one definitive Lynch glossed over.
    The “situation” [San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy] DID lead to the death of Kathryn Steinle.

    • Kathy says:

      Stating that as a fact would be an admission of wrong doing. Instead, she makes it sound like she’s going above and beyond for them…and they bought it.

  3. CW says:

    I’m like you and the others, Kathy. I don’t trust her and I have no confidence that she’ll do anything she threatens to do.

    I guess we’re supposed to be happy that she’s threatening to withhold grant money from sanctuary cities, so that we don’t question why an individual in the federal government has the power to reward and punish entire states by withholding money that they sent to DC in the first place. Republican candidates should jump on that while these liberal states have a reason to agree.

    • Kathy says:

      Culberson is the head of the DOJ spending committee, so of course she’d throw him a bone. The disgusting part is that he’s so eager to accept it.

      To top it off, the Washington Times wrongly heightens the importance of it by saying it’s a ‘major policy reversal for the administration’ when it’s nothing of the kind. Unbiased media? Not so much.

  4. Uriel says:

    This and her comment saying Obama can not write an EO are both more to calm the rage than to actually DO what she says. If she actually started doing her job by her oath of office we would see an eruption in DC equal to Mt St. Helen. She has less than a year to go before a new potus (assuming pray God not Hillary) can and should place another in her position. I really think DC is scared that having miscalculated they are all up for trial.

    • Kathy says:

      With less than a year to go, she finally says something contradictory to O’s stance. She’s going to ‘try’ but knowing how they drag their feet, that may not be enough time for any effectiveness, so it’s just placating words imo.

  5. vonmesser says:

    Her “audit” – will that be something like the Texas Grand Jury that indicted the whistle-blowers and found Planned Parenthood totally innocent?

  6. propblast says:

    Runs counter to what had been announced about Flint, Michigan just this past week.
    The gov`mint will be turning a “blind eye” to any illegals that are “encountered by the distribution of water, or of those seeking assistance.”

    • Kathy says:

      Good point, propblast, but the difference is they’re dealing with individuals in Flint, where she’s talking about cities, plus I think it’s two different departments.

      So far, she’s only talking about making efforts – when we see some real change, then I’ll believe she’s sincere.

  7. BrianR says:

    There’s another aspect of this that I find very interesting.

    Lynch also told Obozo that his plan to close Gitmo and move the inmates onto American soil is against the law, publicly contradicting him on a major policy initiative of his.

    Here’s the interesting part: this gives me a LOT of hope that if the FBI refers Clinton’s email BS to the DOJ for prosecution, she could very well move forward with it.

    Not every lefty lacks integrity. She may actually be one of those.

    • Kathy says:

      That is interesting, Brian, I hadn’t seen that, but is her advice actually changing his plans?

      It would be a nice surprise to see her take action on Hillary’s email bs, but depending on the timing, O might still have time to pardon her, although I’m not so sure he would.

      Earlier it was said that they’re not even going to make the decision to proceed or not until April (?) and as slow as these guys move, with prep and presentation time, that could be cutting it close.

      A lefty with integrity – what a rare find that would be, eh?

      • BrianR says:

        Well, here’s the interesting thing about that, Kathy.

        If Clinton’s indicted, I don’t really think it matters much anymore at that point whether or not Obozo pardons her.

        First off, I think a simple indictment would kill her candidacy. But more importantly, I think that if she’s elected under those circumstances, immediately upon being sworn in she’d be vulnerable to impeachment.

        Any charges filed would fall under the category of “high crimes or misdemeanors”. Even a presidential pardon wouldn’t immunize her because impeachment is a unique sanction that doesn’t attach any penalties other than removal from office. Double jeopardy doesn’t attach, since it’s not a criminal trial, which means whether or not she’s tried in civilian criminal court Congress can still proceed separately. Impeachment also doesn’t have to be based on something the person did in their official capacity. For example, Zipper Bill was impeached for perjuring himself in a civil lawsuit filed against him as an individual, not as President.

        I suspect that if Obozo and Lynch were going to try to play any games, it would be more along the lines of telling her to withdraw from the race citing “health reasons”, with their filing of charges being the alternative. They’d still risk the FBI going public, but I can see them maybe doing that to “save” their party.

        • Kathy says:

          Agreed, Brian, several of us have thought an indictment alone would be enough to kill her chances at the Oval Office, and as much as we’d like to see a conviction, keeping her out of office is the foremost priority. It’s doubtful she’d walk away with much more than a slap on the hand anyway.

          After indictment, were she to pursue the POTUS job, and were Americans to actually elect her, then as a country, we’ll have reached the lowest level of depravity this country’s ever seen.

          Honestly though, I don’t think that will happen – too many people have gone off the deep end for Trump and there’s just not enough crazy left over for her.

          At this point, it’s up to the FBI and Lynch, anyway, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

  8. Garnet92 says:

    All of that sounds good, but (especially to this administration) talk is cheap. I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Just like if Trump is elected POTUS (God Forbid) I’ll believe it when he actually defunds sanctuary cities, rather than just talk about it.

    • Kathy says:

      You’re exactly right, Garnet – talk is cheap and so far we’ve seen no action from Lynch. You have to wonder if she’s beginning to change her allegiance in hopes of holding on to the job once O is gone.

  9. Hardnox says:

    Ya gotta wonder if Lynch sleeps at night knowing she works for a thug. She has a legacy to preserve as well. Maybe she’s thinking about it a little.