Writes Glenn Reynolds (at the NY Post).
Here's the full transcript of the hearing (with links to the video). I'm most interested in hearing Garland specify the perception that this particular form of political opposition — rejection of school policies designed to support black and transgender students — could be a federal crime. Here are my selections from the transcript:
Merrick Garland: (40:56)
The FBI gets complaints, concerns from people around the country for all different kinds of threats and violence. That’s what this is about. A place where people who feel that they’ve been threatened with violence can report that. These are then assessed and they are only pursued if consistent with the First Amendment. We have a true threat that violates federal statutes or that needs to be referred to a state or local government federal agents, local law enforcement agency for their assistance....
Senator Cotton: (01:56:42)
Violence and threats of violence, violence and threats of violence, we’ve heard it a dozen times this morning. As Senator Lee pointed out, the very first line in your October 4th memorandum refers to harassment and intimidation. Why do you continue to dissemble in front of this committee that you are only talking about violence and threats of violence, when your a memo says harassment and intimidation?
Attorney General Garland: (01:57:08)
Senator, I said in my testimony that it involved other kinds of criminal conduct and I explained to Senator Lee that the statutory definitions of those terms and the constitutional definitions of those terms, involve threats of violence.
Senator Cotton: (01:57:24)
Okay, let’s look at one of those statutes you cited. Section 223 [47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications], that statute covers the use of not just telephones, but telecommunications devices to annoy someone. So, are you going to sic your US attorneys and the FBI on a parents group, if they post on Facebook, something that annoys a school board member, Judge?
Attorney General Garland: (01:57:47)
The answer to that is, no. And the provision that I was particularly drawing to his attention was 2261-A [18 U.S. Code § 2261 - Interstate domestic violence], which was to engage [crosstalk 01:57:55]
Senator Cotton: (01:57:54)
I wasn’t talking about 2261-A. I know you mentioned that, you also mentioned 223, that’s what I mentioned.
Attorney General Garland: (01:57:58)
Yeah, but the only [crosstalk 01:58:00].
Senator Cotton: (01:58:00)
Judge, you also told Senator Klobuchar that this memorandum was about meetings and coordination. Meetings and coordination.
Attorney General Garland: (01:58:06)
Yeah.
Senator Cotton: (01:58:07)
Well, I have in my hand right here, that I’ll submit to the record, a letter from one of your US attorneys to all of the county attorneys, to the attorney general, to all sheriffs, to the school board association of his state, in which he talks about federal investigation and prosecution. It’s not about meetings, not about coordination, it’s about federal investigation and prosecution. Did you direct your US attorneys to issue such a letter?
Attorney General Garland: (01:58:33)
I did not. I have not seen that letter. [crosstalk 01:58:36]
Senator Cotton: (01:58:36)
It’s got three pages. It’s got three pages, [crosstalk 01:58:39] a spreadsheet, about all the federal crimes that a parent could be charged with, to include the ones you cited. [crosstalk 01:58:46] Did main Justice make this spreadsheet, Judge?
I'm not seeing that 3-page letter, but the original letter from the NSBA cited "the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure."
Posts
46 comments:
This isn’t the same FBI that Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., once glorified on national TV.
Democrats required this... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/28/racine-county-sheriff-absentee-ballot-voting-election-statute-not-just-broken-but-shattered-by-wisconsin-elections-commission/
Usually the derision seethes just below the surface, giving the target an opportunity to ride it out. This time, with Senators openly calling for Garland’s resignation and a large swath of America agreeing with them, I don’t see how he survives. What an incompetent hack that guy turned out to be. How did he get where he is without being able to hide his agenda better?
Matthew Sheppard was a lie. He was murdered because of a drug deal gone wrong. It is a joke that they still claim he was killed because he was gay. NOT true.
You get away from specific authorizing and appropriating language and functions in the legislative and you get overreach in the executive.Think and thank omnibus funding bills.
One of C Wright Mills' definitions of those who occupy The Power Elite was:
...a strong federal political order that has inherited power from "a decentralized set of several dozen states" and "now enters into each and every cranny of the social structure,...
I wonder if Mills would be shocked by what he would see in today's America or whether he would assume it was all inevitable
I blame the voters. The major fraction of legitimate, "informed" voters - augmented by significant number of illegitimate or uninformed "voters" - elect legislators who view their job as heaping new legislation upon old.
Every "need" of a major funding constituency or of a vocal special interest group results in a new government program. A new protected class is carved out with special "right," benefit, or privilege.
In Texas at this moment there is a Special Election to consider eight Constitutional Amendments, every one of which creates such a special class with a defined right, privilege, benefit, or exception. I expect all will be approved.
Thus is destroyed the concept of a simple, small body of laws applicable to all.
Garland apparently has no capacity for shame. Maybe that's a good trait, I don't know. The people who hate Deplorables probably are proud of him.
At this point, it seems obvious that never admitting making a mistake is part of a deliberate strategy. Obama had no scandals. No one was punished for IRS targeting conservatives. Holder refused to testify on Fast and Furious. Afghanistan withdrawal was an unprecedented success. Shortages mean lower your expectations for your treadmills, plebes. The FBI didn't let their obvious political animus affect their Russiagate actions, in what turned out to be one of the most damaging own goals in recent times.
But they won't admit it. Lying. Gaslighting. And if admitting the problem is the first step in solving it, we're not even on step one to a solution.
So, what are we to do?
If your philosophy is to reduce the power of the government, the options are limited. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single plausible, let alone likely, solution that fits with that philosophy.
Sure, take back the government by winning elections. Then... what. Govern like Coolidge and wait for the pendulum to swing back so they can pick up right where they left off persecuting conservatives with mostly impunity?
We're going to have to wake up and set aside our distaste for government intrusion. Point it at them and turn it up to 11. If we don't make them understand how it feels to have the boot on their neck, they will never understand or admit that it's a problem.
I'm sorry it has to be like this.
Note the specific bill. Matt Shepard et.al. is the first federal hate crime law that excluded "sex" and only includes gender, orientation (gay amd lesbian), and perceived identity. It also claims federal power to decide which purported threats, even mere speech, rise to the level of federal forces taking over state tasks, and shower money on activists and compliant chiefs of police. Earlier federal bills had de facto created the false definition that female can't be a gender. Later they added sex to include women but prosecutors were trained to not use it. Now heterosexual females and federal division of power in law enforcement both disappear.
So just to be clear, upset Senator Josh Hawley, became infamous when he led the charge to object to the 2020 election on the false premise that some states failed to follow the law, thus bolstering the baseless claims from President Donald Trump that the election was stolen and should be overturned. Hawley had said the ascent of Joe Biden to the presidency “depends” on what would happen on Jan. 6, the day of a pro forma congressional vote to affirm the election. He had been photographed that day pumping his fist in the air as some Trump supporters were gathering on the grounds outside the U.S. Capitol.
As we know, encouraged by Hawley's ill conceived leadership actions, rioters ransacked the Capitol building and beat up on police while several senators huddled in a secure room, fearing for their lives and trying to persuade their pro-Trump colleagues to withdraw their efforts to undermine democracy, Hawley remained combative in pushing the very falsehoods that had helped stoke the violence. When all else fails, stir the fire.
Garland citing statutes is the devil quoting scripture. A rotten apple rotten at the core.
Attorney General Garland: (01:57:47) says...
The answer to that is, no. And the provision that I was particularly drawing to his attention was 2261-A
So, let me get this Straight? Garland is saying, that the relationship between a parent and a school board member is:
a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner ???
because 2261-A ONLY is about acting
with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel or presence, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection b
THIS is the law Garland quoted... Is he insane? or just really stupid?
Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism?
By the way these complaints are either nade by political operatives or gathered by professional activist groups empowered by the DOJ to gather alleged threatening speech or action. The HRC, ADL, SPLC, NAACP and so on.
And anonymous threats are accepted. One study I did found most complaints coming from the grade school teachers and not their students. This is a racket top to bottom.
This is theater of a high order. The purpose is to intimidate parents and other members of the public who are belatedly coming to understand the perverse agenda of racist and sexual indoctrination that is operating in the K-12 system pretty much nationwide. The players in this drama are the White House and the media, the NSBA and the DOJ. The script goes thusly:
(1) WH activates NSBA and ghost-writes letter for NSBA to send to WH. This gives a pretext for the Federal government to take an interest in local school boards and their engagement with parents.
(2) WH receives NSBA letter, which is copied to the media. “Concern” begins to mount.
(3) DOJ receives letter, notes “reports in [unspecified] media” that “validate” its taking an interest.
(4) DOJ issues memo replete with contradictory BS, claiming to protect 1A rights while stepping in to “coordinate” with local law enforcement everywhere on the strength of rumors and rare misreported shouting matches.
(5) Inevitable and intended result of (4) is a nationwide chilling effect as citizens everywhere are forced to guess if an angry phone call or FB entry about their school district’s criminal concealment of sexual assaults due to their policies, or their racist brainwashing of bewildered students, is going to earn a “friendly interview” from a G man or a forced entry at 3 AM by a SWAT team.
Very neatly done. And it’s working. Senator Cotton and others can eviscerate Garland all they like, but the damage is done.
Yesterday I drove to the courthouse and on Interstate 80 the FBI has a large billboard that says: Report Hate Crimes.
WTF?
Listening to the past 2 weeks of Garland testimony in both the House and Senate you have to wonder:
1) Is Garland past his intellectual prime and simply an (unknowing) “vessel” as described by Senator Kennedy ?
2) is Garland merely a Democratic Party hack taking orders from The One’s network embedded in the administration ?
3) is Garland clever like a fox, realizing the clear chilling effect of his memo is worth his going up to the Hill and serving as a punching bag for Republicans ?
Particularly in his House testimony Garland feigned ignorance of the Loudon County school board and rape incident. This was hard to believe given both the significant play in the Washington metro media, within which metro area he certainly works and presumably lives. Additionally the DOJ almost certainly has several folks whose job it is to scan all types of media and provide senior leaders a daily update - almost always in writing - of significant issues. The liklihood that Garland had no awareness of the basic facts - guy who was arrested at the now notorious meeting was the father of a young woman raped on school premises - is close to nil. Perhaps his answers on this topic were just lawyerly enough to skirt issues of being less than truthful.
The FOIAs on this will be fascinating - once the heavily redacted disc are released years from now,
school policies designed to support black and transgender students
I would never have thought of describing CRT (and its derivative ideas) and "unpopular transgender policies" (UTP) like that because CRT and UTP are both based on falsehoods, therefore they are not supportive of anyone in a positive way, and not supportive of any thing except more falsehoods.
We’ll be sure to hear from our resident LLR that the AG wasn’t prompted to write his letter at the urging of the NSBA. It was mere serendipity.
The lefties are dangerous and nasty little shits.
- Krumhorn
Show us the man and Garland will show us the crime.
Thank God is not on the Supremes
From the post:
"I'm most interested in hearing Garland specify the perception that this particular form of political opposition — rejection of school policies designed to support black and transgender students — could be a federal crime."
The policies are not really about supporting black and transgender students. They are about promoting critical theory in an effort to make socialism more palatable to impressionable minds.
this particular form of political opposition — rejection of school policies designed to support black and transgender students
identify for me one way in which CRT "supports" black students - everything I have seen, read or heard about it involves tearing down America and its institutions and demonizing whites, but I have never seen anything about how blacks can improve their situation whatsoever.
I regard this as very good blogging work. I feel like I know more now, and that Professor Reynolds is not much more than one of the deplorable Trump fans off the street —the grievance and victimization crowd of Trump-wing radio and television — who are convinced that Attorney General Garland is about to open up a wave of federal prosecutions of parents for no reason other than their saying that they don’t like Critical Race Theory.
There’s a new opening for an endowed chair on the law school faculty of Chapman University.
His inexplicable decision. LOL. I love the variance between the way the Center Right talk about Democrat/leftists and how they talk about the Right wing. The Democrats/Leftist alway label anyone who does something they dislike as immoral or evil. Those Righties are "full of hate". Sometimes they're "Stupid" or "crazy" but that's almost always coupled with a Leftist attack on their motives.
Meanwhile, the Center-Right does the exact opposite. They rarely question motives. They're always writing that Democrats are "Confused" or "incompetent" or "Dumb". Biden, y'see wants to control the border, he's just "Senile". So what Garland does is just "Inexplicable". Actually, its not. Garland has a son-in-law who makes $$ off teaching CRT. Further, as a Leftwing idealogue he supports CRT and hates people who oppose it. He's using his DOJ power to punish them. That's not "inexplicable" thats predictable. What's "inexplicable" is why Republicans and Conservatives ever labeled Garland a "Moderate".
"it was clearly intended to intimidate opponents and to support the Democrats’ efforts to characterize all serious political opposition as some sort of security threat."
Reynolds is right. But the decision to target federal resources was not "inexplicable."
But this just one phase in the larger war. Cotton and Hawley exposed Garland for what he is, but it is unlikely to make a difference unless the Althouses of America, all the nice reasonable liberal women, decide to put a stop to it, not just in one election cycle, but for good. I don't think they will, so Garland et al. will keep doing what they are doing.
I don't know why people keep thinking the FBI was ever any good. The FBI was born corrupt 100 years ago and has never gotten any better. Hoover managed the press and Congress by fair means and foul so they looked good.
Underneath they have always been rotten.
John Henry
Did any of the senators point out the almost all of the claims of violence and threats were unconfirmed or bogus?
gadfly said: "So just to be clear, upset Senator Josh Hawley, became infamous when he led the charge to object to the 2020 election on the false premise that some states failed to follow the law..."
I admire your impenetrable bubble.
I’m following up on the post by gilbar at 7:28. I think it is actually worse than he implies. To judge by the link 2261-A seems very clearly to apply only to interstate situations, such as when a state line is crossed by the offender. After all, the link itself calls the law ”Interstate Domestic Violence”. Of course, almost everyone at a schoolboard meeting is going to live in the same state. Garland is not just wrong about referencing a domestic law to a non-domestic situation, he is also wrong about referencing an interstate law to an intrastate situation. I’m not a lawyer, but at least to me it seems an extraordinary thing to do.
Pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck: "I regard this as very good blogging work. I feel like I know more now,..."
Ugh.
"Eddie Haskell Mode"-LLR Chuck is the creepiest and greasiest LLR Chuck.
Pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck: "....and that Professor Reynolds is not much more than one of the deplorable Trump fans off the street...."
From Wiki:
Glenn is the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.
As a law professor, Reynolds has written for the Columbia Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, the Northwestern University Law Review, the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Law and Policy in International Business, Jurimetrics, and the High technology law journal, among others.
Reynolds also writes articles for various publications: Wikipedia, Popular Mechanics, Forbes, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal.[3][12] He has written for the TCS Daily, Fox News, and MSNBC websites as well.
On the other hand, pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck is.....what? Just another democrat and paralegal-level "thinker" near Detroit and writes for no one. teaches for no one, has no awards and has represented no one of any note nor participated in any cases that mattered. Basically an ambulance chaser.
Pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck: "... who are convinced that Attorney General Garland is about to open up a wave of federal prosecutions of parents for no reason other than their saying that they don’t like Critical Race Theory."
That is precisely what was proven during hearings just this week.
Proven.
Which is why you are in a panic. The jig is up on your pro-CRT/pro-marxist views in schools and parents aren't going to let you and your democratical pals get away with it any longer.
You should probably spread the word at Whitmer Reelection HQ when you go to your next meeting there and let them know.
'The FBI gets complaints, concerns from people around the country for all different kinds of threats and violence. That’s what this is about. A place where people who feel that they’ve been threatened with violence can report that.'
They turned that letter around in four (4!) days, two of which were the weekend.
Meanwhile in the summer of '20, people who had their businesses burned and looted on a daily/nightly basis for months got zero. Nothing. Nada. Fuck you.
Not political at all.
Btw, I also blame Trump for not sending in the National Guard.
'As we know, encouraged by Hawley's ill conceived leadership actions, rioters ransacked the Capitol building and beat up on police while several senators huddled in a secure room, fearing for their lives...'
"As we know...' Nice bullshit. As we know, Joe Biden is senile and his VP is a political whore who traded sex for advancement. There. Now it's true because I said 'As we know.'
Did the people cowering in their secure room include AOC who wasn't even in the building?
You should write comedy...
I was most troubled by Garland's ignorance (feigned or not) of the totality of the facts in the Louden school board case. This is becoming a trend with him. He appears to rely on politically-oriented staffers for information. How can he claim to administer justice without knowing all relevant facts?
Is anyone aware of what the so-called threats of violence have been? I'm not convinced that they are anything new for those working in public matters.
It appears that DOJ policy is being generated at lower levels through contacts with the White House and left-wing activist organizations and Garland is approving the resulting recommendations but for "his" reasons, which mask the reasons behind the recommendations. A Sergeant Schultz approach to DOJ leadership. It's hard to tell if Garland is aware of what is happening (clueless like Biden), running a cynical ploy aided and abetted by the media, or some mixture.
In any case, I would be surprised if the American people find him impressive.
So free speech is now criminalized if it 'scares' the apparatchiks! No threats.. just somehow scares them... like in saying "no" to their face.
identify for me one way in which CRT "supports" black students - everything I have seen, read or heard about it involves tearing down America and its institutions and demonizing whites, but I have never seen anything about how blacks can improve their situation whatsoever.
It doesn't. It tells Black kids they CAN'T be successful because the system is racist and they are oppressed by White people.
The White House understands the risk that angry parents could coalesce into a political movement. First, parents get mad and frustrated. Second, they form committees to elect new school board members. Third, they show up to vote against the Democrats in Congressional elections. The White House goal is to prevent those angry parents from acting collectively. Garland, to his shame, is pressing DOJ into service to support the White House political strategy.
"I'm most interested in hearing Garland specify the perception that this particular form of political opposition — rejection of school policies designed to push left-wing ideologies while indoctrinating and suppressing students who oppose said ideologies — could be a federal crime."
FIFY.
It's so charming that some people still believe the lie that these policies are actually intended to help minorities and mentally ill people.
"They turned that letter around in four (4!) days, two of which were the weekend."
Chuck assures us that was merely a remarkable coincidence.
That Chuck would show up here and not address his strenuous assertions of this point after all we have learned takes a lot of gall.
The best that can be said of Mr. Garland seems to be that he's in the habit of signing documents that he hasn't read.
If government officials can overturn what used to be well-established legal definitions of assault, battery and physical coercion into crimes, by simply asserting they "feel" afraid by what is being said to them, we are well and truly fucked.
It's a version of the Heckler's Veto.
If we don't make them understand how it feels to have the boot on their neck, they will never understand or admit that it's a problem.
-----------
they stomp their boots on their enemies with relish - and achieve Pollockian splash effects.
?not like parent spanking etc. : it hurts me more than it hurts you?
so first you have to develop the willingness to stomp mercilessly and the resulting gore
Btw, I also blame Trump for not sending in the National Guard.
-------
--- don't the Governors of the State initiate / agree to allow this? and why wait for Trump?
--- are NG from one state allowed to be used in another state on Presidents say so?!
gadfly said...
So just to be clear, upset Senator Josh Hawley, became infamous when he led the charge to object to the 2020 election on the false premise that some states failed to follow the law
Gadfly, we were just recently discussing the fact that teh PA elections violated State law, in the accepting of ballots after Election Day.
Why are you lying about that well known fact?
Post a Comment