AG Garland Gaffes: Missed Leftist 'Insurrection', Admits Unions Steer Policy, Shrugs Off CRT Conflicts

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Friday, Oct 22, 2021 - 06:20 PM

Attorney General Merrick Garland had a bad time on Thursday during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

For starters, while the Biden administration, Congressional Democrats and their media support complex have branded January 6th rioters as domestic terrorists - Garland had no clue about leftist Demonstrators who forced their way into the Department of the Interior just one week ago - to protest Biden's approval of fossil fuel energy projects.

"They forced their way into the Department of the Interior. They fought with security and police officers, sending some of those officers to the hospital. The extremists violently pushed their way into a restricted government building in an attempt to thwart the work of the department," Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) told Garland. "Police arrested at least 55 protestors on sight, but others got away. Mr. Garland, do you believe these environmental extremists who forced their way into Interior are also domestic terrorists?"

Garland appeared to have no clue what Steube was talking about.

"This is the first you’ve heard about demonstrators who forced their way into a federal government building right here in D.C.?” Steube asked. “You didn’t hear about this at all?" asked Steube.

To which Garland shot back: "Just because I don’t know about this particular example, it doesn’t mean the Justice Department doesn’t know about it."

Not an insurrection?

During the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked if any defendants in the Jan. 6 riot had been charged with 'insurrection' - the Democrats' favorite phrase to describe the event.

Demonizing parents based on a letter?

Next, Garland admitted that his memo directing the FBI to investigate parents who pose "threats" to school boards was based in part on a letter from the National School Boards Association - as opposed to any actual evidence.

"When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick?" Rep. Jim Jordan asked Garland.

"I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time—" replied Garland, before Jordan cut in.

"So you read the letter? That’s your source?” Jordan asked incredulously. “Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said there’s been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?"

To which Garland only dug himself in deeper - adding 'newspaper reports' to his body of evidence used to demonize angry parents.

"Well, the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kinds of threats. When we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence—" he said, before Jordan interjected (via The Federalist).

"The source for this … was the National School Boards Association letter..."

As The Federalist notes:

The NSBA sent a letter to the Biden administration last month begging federal law enforcement to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents who oppose anti-science mask mandates for children and the infiltration of racist curriculum in schools. The school board organization claimed federal action was warranted to “deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.”

Most of the incident examples the NSBA used to justify intervention by the Biden administration did not escalate to a level that even yielded arrests or charges on the local level, yet Garland quickly directed the FBI and state attorneys to address “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.”

Conflicts of interest?

Speaking of going after parents opposed to Critical Race Theory - Garland denied that his memo directing the FBI to investigate 'threats' poses a conflict of interest, given that his son-in-law co-founded a company that sells CRT materials to schools. The company, Panorama Education, provides "Social-Emotional Learning" which includes race-focused surveys, materials on systemic oppression, white supremacy, intersectionality and unconscious bias.

When Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) asked Garland if he had run the relationship through an ethics counsel, Garland repeatedly said "There are no conflicts of interest."

"You don’t get to make that decision…Your impartiality is being called into question. Why would you not submit to an ethics review?" Johnson shot back.