Sep
24
Garland and the House Judiciary Committee
Many topics were brought up in the House Judiciary Committee’s recent meeting featuring Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland was there to give “sworn testimony”, but not too surprisingly much of it amounted to expressions of ignorance, forgetfulness, and evasion. The Daily Signal‘s Fred Lucas has provided seven takeaways, which I will give here in shortened form…
1) The topic of the infamous memo from the FBI’s Richmond field office, which detailed plans to spy on American Catholics, was introduced by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ). He asked,
“Do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists? Yes or no?“
Garland sputtered and declared, “The idea that someone with my [Jewish] background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so absurd.” After being reminded that the memo in question was from a law enforcement agency under his command, Garland pointed out that he and FBI Director Wray had already publicly denounced it. But, when asked again whether or not traditional, Church-going Catholics are extremists (as the memo suggests they are prone to be), it is notable that Garland couldn’t bring himself to give a straight answer. All he could manage was,
“Everything in that memo is appalling.”
2) After firmly denying that the White House was guiding the DoJ’s Hunter Biden investigation, Garland’s memory got strangely hazy about other details. For example, he couldn’t recollect if he had had personal contact with FBI officials.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) brought up the letter from David Weiss (U.S. Attorney General for Delaware) to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), in which Weiss said he “had discussions with departmental officials” about prosecuting cases in other jurisdictions under federal law. Garland was reluctant to reveal who those “department officials” were but eventually gave a less-than-straight answer. That is, Garland advised Weiss that he would need official sign-off (via a “515 order”) from the USAG for the jurisdiction in question.
Lucas summarizes: “Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys in California and Washington, D.C., declined to allow Weiss, a holdover from the Trump administration, to file charges against the younger Biden in their jurisdictions. Last month, Garland named Weiss as special counsel, giving him more authority to investigate and bring charges under the law in the jurisdictions of his choice.”
To be continued below…
3) Garland was afforded the opportunity (thanks to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)) to warn of the dangers of defunding the FBI. After listing a few international issues that the FBI assists in dealing with, as well as violent crime in general, Garland said the FBI stops “all kinds of espionage” and pursues “domestic violent extremists who have attacked our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, and who have killed individuals out of racial hatred…. I cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the FBI, but they would be catastrophic.”
4) Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) stated,
“You said [Weiss] had complete authority [over the Hunter Biden investigation], but he had already been turned down. He wanted to bring an action in the District of Columbia and the U.S. attorney there said, ‘No, you can’t.’ Then you go tell the United States Senate under oath that he has complete authority.”
According to Garland, there is a difference between “refus[ing] to partner” with Weiss and “turning down” his request for assistance. Jordan then asked what changed “in the time between the July 10 letter to Graham in which Weiss said he didn’t ask to be named a special counsel and Garland’s Aug. 11 announcement appointing Weiss as special counsel.”
Garland: “Several days before my announcement, Mr. Weiss had asked to become special counsel. He explained that he had reached the stage in his investigation where he thought that appropriate.”
Jordan: “After five years, what stage are we in?”
Garland: “I’m not permitted to discuss ongoing investigations.”
Jordan: “Something changed in 31 to 32 days from July 10 to Aug. 11. I think it’s two brave whistleblowers came forward and a judge called BS on the plea deal.”
5) When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) asked why Trump’s ‘China Initiative’ was dissolved, Garland claimed that a broader approach was needed to cover espionage by North Korea, Russia, and Iran, as well. Incredulous, Gaetz asked,
“Are you saying that North Korea has the same malign influence risk to the United States as the Chinese Communist Party? Because here’s what it looks like. It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens and then you guys came in and got rid of the China Initiative.”
Referring to the established money-trail from Chinese state interests to the Biden family, Gaetz concluded,
“It’s like you’re looking the other way on purpose, because everybody knows this stuff is happening. But people don’t pay bribes to not get something in return.“
6) Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): “How many agents or assets of the government were present on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the Capitol, and how many went into the Capitol? Can you answer that now?”
Garland: “If there were any, I don’t know how many. I don’t know if there are any.”
Massie: “I think you may have just perjured yourself [by saying] that you don’t know that there were any. Do you want to say that again, that you don’t know there were any?”
Garland: “I have no personal knowledge of this matter.”
Massie: “By the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps [who was seen on video telling protesters to enter the Capitol] and yesterday, you indicted him. Isn’t that a wonderful coincidence? On a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, you’re sending grandmas to prison.”
7) Regarding Hunter Biden’s tax charges, Jordan told Garland,
“[The Justice Dept.] made an intentional decision to say we’re going to let the statute of limitations lapse. I want to know who decided that and why they did it.”
Garland feigned ignorance, saying essentially, “Weiss was in charge of that. Ask him.”
Jordan replied that we all know it goes back to what will or won’t make Joe Biden look bad.
My brief thoughts on all this?
- Lawyers! Good grief!
- It has become increasingly clear why it was a good thing that the Republican-led Senate blocked Garland’s confirmation to SCOTUS when Obama nominated him back in 2016.
- Hunter Biden may do a little time and/or pay some fees when this is all over, but I would be very surprised if Joe Biden — assuming he’s still alive when the case and trials are done — does any time.
