AG Loretta Lynch Can't Make Her Mouth Say: 'Driving 65 MPH in a 55 MPH Zone Is Against the Law'

Loretta Lynch Speeding

During Attorney General Loretta Lynch's exasperating appearance before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday, she refused to answer the simplest of questions put to her by Republicans on the panel. Rather than answer basic questions, she repeatedly suggested that the answer depended on the circumstances. Georgia Congressman Doug Collins was so frustrated with Lynch's answers he said he actually missed former Attorney General Eric Holder.

“It goes back to something that’s very disturbing. I never thought I’d say this, I actually...and I say this with due respect, Attorney General, I miss Eric Holder, because at least when he came here he gave us answers we didn’t like,” Collins said. “But I’ve spent the last four hours listening to basically the attorney general of the United States not willing to make a concrete statement of law, to not be willing to say that when given the opportunity about a colleague of mine who made the decision in this case.”

His frustration level reached a boiling point when Lynch — the chief law enforcement officer of the United States — refused to even admit that speeding is against the law.

"I've got a question for you," said Collins. "Driving down the road, speed limit says 55, I'm doing 65. Have I broke the law?"

"You would have to ask the Highway Patrol," Lynch answered, as the chamber erupted in snickers. "He would likely write you a ticket," she added helpfully.

The dumbfounded Collins exclaimed, "I went to a small law school. We were taught the law!" He noted that he wasn't so sure about Harvard (Lynch's alma mater) though.

He repeated his question, "Did you break the law or not — 65 in a 55? My dad was a state trooper..."

"As I said before, you would get a ticket for that," Lynch answered.

"So you broke the law!" Collins exclaimed.

"You would be cited for that," Lynch offered. "That would be considered an offense."

We seem to have entered a moment in American jurisprudence where the law is a completely subjective concept, to be upheld based on mitigating circumstances like the importance of the lawbreaker, the color of his skin, and perhaps his political party.

Watch the entire ridiculous exchange on the next page: