The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim

President Barack Obama made some political news over the weekend, nominating federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder.

The announcement sent news staffs scrambling to better understand Lynch’s political views and to better understood the likelihood that she’ll be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Conservative news website Breitbart.com unearthed a potentially controversial line in Lynch’s biography.

"Obama’s new attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch represented Clintons during Whitewater," read a headline from Breitbart’s Warner Todd Houston. Houston wrote:



There is just one problem. Breitbart got the wrong Loretta Lynch. The mistake was first noted by liberal journalists at Media Matters. Breitbart eventually acknowledged in a correction that they got the wrong Lynch, but left the story up anyway.

Later, Breitbart deleted the story, though it had already spread to other conspiracy, opinion and conservative news websites like WND, Sodahead.com and the American Thinker.

In this case, the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t have to work too hard to come up with a rating, but we think it’s important to address anyway because of how quickly false information spreads around the Internet.

The Loretta Lynch nominated to replace Holder began working as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York in 1990, so she couldn’t have been part of Clinton’s defense a few years later. According to her official biography, Lynch was appointed by Obama on May 3, 2010, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, an office she previously led from 1999 to 2001.

The other Loretta Lynch got a law degree from Yale and worked on several political campaigns, including Clinton’s, according to her biography. This Loretta Lynch served as president of the California Public Utilities Commission from 2000-02 and as a commissioner until 2005.

We captured this image of her from her last appearance on C-SPAN, when she was addressing senators in 2002 about an alleged scheme by Enron to manipulate energy prices in California.

Our ruling

An article on Breitbart that has since been deleted said Loretta Lynch, Obama’s new nominee for attorney general, "was a member of Bill Clinton's defense team during the 1992 Whitewater corruption probe."

The conservative news website got the wrong Loretta Lynch. We’re hoping the correction spreads as fast as the original story.

This claim rates Pants on Fire.

I don't get it Elk, normally you try and support anyone Obama selects? Warner Houston tried to give her creds she didn't earn, it would have been very impressive if she was one of the attorneys who worked a miracle and got the Clintons off. So Elk what's your primary beef with her? Mine is that the NAACP gives her their highest rating which means she's a certified racist with an agenda.

Breitbart gets it horrendously wrong and to RealTool it's just life as usual.

The Tool couldn't care less if his sources are lies.
He'll dutifully swallow them and regurgitate them for his handlers.

From your own article.

" Breitbart eventually acknowledged in a correction that they got the wrong Lynch, but left the story up anyway."

FWIW, Lynch will be another Holder. Same old same old.

I agree with Clownhicker that Loretta Lynn is just not qualified.

To be Attorney General and replace Holder, a black racist is needed.

"I agree with Clownhicker that Loretta Lynn is just not qualified."-johnforbes

I never said that, johnny.
But you might do well to cut Lynch some slack and consider that sometimes it's hard to be Attorney General.
And she'll have bad times doin' things she doesn't understand.

That's the way it goes with politics sometimes.

So Clown are you saying Elk supports her nomination? If so why would he point out she doesn't have the creds and accomplishment Breitbart said she did ? (before they corrected it)

I have no idea if elklindo 'supports' her nomination and I don't care.

He started a thread about Breitbart's sloppy journalism.
Whether he 'supports' the nomination or doesn't 'support' the nomination, WHO they screwed up over is incidental to elklindo's point as far as I'm concerned. Now, I may have missed his point, but I'll leave it to him to tell me I'm wrong.

What I think is elklindo 'supports' the belief that Breitbart perpetrates sloppy journalism, and his post does a good job of supporting that belief.

In one of those rare moments of calm on the forum, I agree with Clowndumberr that Loretta Lynn is just not qualified.

Sure, it would be a step up for the Department of Injustice to have a coal miner's daughter in the AG slot.

Instead, it would appear that Obama pulled out his Racistdex and found another one of his ideological kith and kin.

Clownkicker wrote:I have no idea if elklindo 'supports' her nomination and I don't care.

He started a thread about Breitbart's sloppy journalism.
Whether he 'supports' the nomination or doesn't 'support' the nomination, WHO they screwed up over is incidental to elklindo's point as far as I'm concerned. Now, I may have missed his point, but I'll leave it to him to tell me I'm wrong.

What I think is elklindo 'supports' the belief that Breitbart perpetrates sloppy journalism, and his post does a good job of supporting that belief.

As far as I am concerned, if you try to criticize the president at least get the basic facts right. Now you really have to question the quality of journalism. Whether or not it's objective or not is irrelevant. They don't even bother to even conduct due diligence. The most rudimentary fact check would have flagged the error.

Is she qualified for the job? I don't know? Justme and Forbes will summarily impeach any black liberal. Don't worry, it's OK, there are alot of blacks who happen to be much more intelligent than you. Yes, including the black guy in the white house. Now get over it.

:lol:

johnforbes wrote:In one of those rare moments of calm on the forum, I agree with Clowndumberr that Loretta Lynn is just not qualified.

Sure, it would be a step up for the Department of Injustice to have a coal miner's daughter in the AG slot.

Instead, it would appear that Obama pulled out his Racistdex and found another one of his ideological kith and kin.

Clownkicker never commented on Loretta Lynn's qualifications.

And now you are claiming that Loretta Lynn is not qualified? WTF, please, you can't even pay attention to simple details and lack the most basic of reading comprehension skills.

OMG

Somebody isn't paying attention, that's for sure.

Obama is standing by his man, Eric Holder, with another racist pick, Loretta Young.

And, even if she did have a secret child with Clark Gable, that Loretta should never have been an Attorney General choice.

Though she was far easier on the eyes than the designee.

Is she qualified for the job? I don't know? Justme and Forbes will summarily impeach any black liberal.

To qualify to be a black liberal, they have to first be openly racist with a chip on their shoulder, other wise they're uncle Tom's and get an F by the NAACP

If Obama is bright, what did he get on his SAT and LSAT?

Politicians hasten to reveal anything about themselves which would shed credit on them, or burnish the glow of their reputation.

Michelle's senior thesis at Princeton, where she was getting affirmative action by her own admission, read like a bad term paper from a 9th grader.

Obama's SAT and LSAT scores are highly, highly secret, and we all know why.

johnforbes wrote:Somebody isn't paying attention, that's for sure.

Obama is standing by his man, Eric Holder, with another racist pick, Loretta Young.

And, even if she did have a secret child with Clark Gable, that Loretta should never have been an Attorney General choice.

Though she was far easier on the eyes than the designee.

OMG!!!

Instead of blathering some nonsensical bullshit, do you actually have a fucking point for once???

:lol:

RealJustme wrote:

Is she qualified for the job? I don't know? Justme and Forbes will summarily impeach any black liberal.

To qualify to be a black liberal, they have to first be openly racist with a chip on their shoulder, other wise they're uncle Tom's and get an F by the NAACP

Justme is competing with John Forbes for village idiot of the year award.

On "Jeopardy!" last night, I got three questions which baffled the 3 contestants, all of whom were former champions on "Jeopardy!"

When little Mr. Elkin is ready to play academic trivia, he will surely let me know.

But little Elkin never will be ready because, as we all have learned to our chagrin, Elkin isn't very bright.

What I don't understand is why the board's loudmouth johnfootling doesn't just apply to be a contestant and go on TV and kick Ken Jennings' ass.

But no, it's yack, yack, yack about how he's smarter than all these Jeopardy champions but he doesn't have the balls to man up and prove it.

As johnfootle knows well, sometimes it's hard to be a woman.

Well, let me explain why.

First, I'm 30 years out of date on movies and music.

Then there's video games, and such that I know -- and care -- nothing about.

Ken Jennings has the reflexes of a cobra who has been to Starbucks, so few can even ring in against him.

In other news, Clowntoker resembles a mongoose.

So what yer sayin' is: all hat, no cattle, eh, johnny? :lol:



"Yack, yack, yammer, yack, yack"-johnfoibles

Clownhacker, you must never have competed in any sport.

Anybody who has competed knows that you try to win, but sometimes lose, and still enjoy competing.

Tonight, I got 4 questions which all 3 "Jeopardy!" champs could not answer.

However, 2 of them were country music questions where the champs obviously lacked expertise.

Ken Jennings beat pretty much everybody to the buzzer, and doubtless he'd beat me too. The real way to play trivia is to answer 10,000 questions and then look at how people perform.

But win, lose, or draw, trivia is fun.

Forbes.....geeezzzuzzzzz. C'mon. :roll:

If you play basketball, you try to win, but do you quit every time you shoot and it doesn't go in?

Of course not.

The best shooters, like Jerry West, still missed a lot.

If you play academic trivia at all, you must be prepared to lose. A lot.

Examples, I know nothing about opera, or British history, or classical music, so I must either study up on such topics or be prepared to not get trivia questions on them.

I know a good deal about classic rock and classic country, but nothing about modern rock and modern country (assuming either still exist).

This is how a person who likes competing has to think.