Loretta Lynch Tramples MLK, Jr.'s Dream with a Nightmare of Her Own — The Beltway Times


Wednesday 63°42°F

Martin Luther King, Jr. once gave a speech about how he envisioned an end to America’s racial divides. King was adamant about using passive-aggression and peaceful protest to accomplish the goals of the Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to see the results of his endeavor, but through the preservation of his memory as someone who laid the foundation for how we should voice our dissatisfaction with our laws, we have come a long way.

Nonetheless, certain political figures in our modern era of politics are looking to sabotage King’s legacy by calling for actions that are in direct conflict with the core of his message. I am speaking about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, whose recent statement on her official Facebook page read:

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 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. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before; we can do this again.

This is a clear shot at undermining the current administration through means that should not be encouraged, especially not by someone who once led the Department of Justice. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the role of Attorneys General, they are appointed for their ability to preserve law and order across the nation. To call for action that may result in bloodshed and possibly death does nothing to improve the already delicate situation regarding the divisiveness that has eaten away at society for so long. It doesn’t make sense — or does it?

One thing that Lynch accomplished successfully was blowing a hole in her foot by attempting to make herself relevant again. Instead of looking like the social justice warrior she thought she’d appear to be, she simply reminded us all of her meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona where it is said they only discussed “golf and grand kids.” Ironically enough, this was right at the height of Hillary Clinton’s email investigation. So, could it be possible that she may have something to hide that would only be brought to light by an administration that no longer tolerates upper-crust corruption?

If the allegations President Trump made on Saturday against Barack Obama and his administration’s involvement in the unlawful wire-tapping of Trump Tower are true, then Lynch played an integral role in allowing that to unfold. If Obama ordered the wiretapping, then Attorney General Lynch would have had to sign off on the FISA court order to allow for it. If Barack Obama did not order this, then clearly there was some collusion going on within his administration to pull the rug out from underneath the incoming Trump Administration. Lynch could have been the only person who would have been able to grant this permission to the entities capable of executing such a practice.

The question everyone from both sides of this argument must now ask themselves is: “who does Loretta Lynch really have in her best interests?” If Obama ordered this tap, then she was acting on his behalf. If she did this without Obama’s directive or without his knowledge, then she would be fulfilling a request made by someone who had the Clinton’s best interests at heart. Either way, one thing is very clear: Loretta Lynch now works for herself.

If she was not guilty of dismissing a very criminal case against Clinton’s irresponsible and illegal use of a private email server to communicate on matters of national security, not guilty of granting permission for an unlawful tap, and not guilty of failing to uphold the duties and demands of her office, then why is she offhandedly inciting violence? Why would a former Attorney General risk prosecution by sending a message of violence under the false pretense that our rights are being “trampled on” if she wasn’t guilty of the very same thing? From this perspective, it is apparent that people’s lives are not as valuable to her as escaping the consequences of her corruption. This is inexcusable and would not be acceptable in any past scenario, so why is it acceptable now?