Quote:Judge Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, declined to say on Monday whether he would retain Special Counsel John Durham in his role investigating the origins of the “Russia collusion” investigation.

Former Attorney General William Barr quietly elevated Durham to Special Counsel last fall, before the presidential election, to preserve his work in a potential new administration. Barr had previously said that he believed there may have been improper political motivations behind the FBI’s launch of Operation Hurricane Crossfire into Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. One FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to misleading the FISA court to obtain a warrant.

Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Garland whether he would retain Durham, noting that Barr, in his own confirmation, committed explicitly to allowing Special Counsel Robert Mueller to continue the “Russia collusion” inquiry.

Garland would not commit. The following exchange took place:

Sen. Grassley: I will go to the Durham investigation. At Barr’s hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to the Mueller investigation. “It is virtually [sic[ important the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation.” Also at that same hearing, Senator [Dianne] Feinstein asked, “Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds, and time needed to complete his investigation?” Attorney General Barr answered Senator Feinstein with a one-word, “Yes.” With respect to Special Counsel [John] Durham’s investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds, and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation?

Judge Garland: Senator, I don’t have any information about the investigation as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I’m going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham to figure out how his investigation is going. I understand he has been permitted to remain in his position. And sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.

Sen. Grassley: And I suppose that would be an answer that he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position?

Judge Garland: Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don’t have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don’t have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.

Sen. Grassley: If confirmed, would you commit to publicly releasing Special Counsel Durham’s report just like the Mueller report was made public?

Judge Garland: So Senator, I am a great believer in transparency. I would, though, have to talk with Mr. Durham and understand the nature of what he has been doing and the nature of the report. But I am very much committed to transparency and to explaining Justice Department decision-making.

Sen. Grassley: At this point, I’m not going to take exception to the answers you have gave me about Durham, because I think you are an honorable person. They are not quite as explicit as I hoped they would be, like we got from Barr for the Mueller Investigation. But I think you have come close to satisfying me. But maybe not entirely.

Durham was one of two major federal prosecutors retained in their positions when President Biden dismissed the rest; the other, Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, is investigating the Hunter Biden affair.

Update: Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) pressed Garland on his refusal to make the same commitment that Barr had made, and Garland continued to avoid committing to keeping Durham in his role. Cotton pointed out that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had repeatedly pressed Barr about his commitment to Mueller and the publication of his report.

Link

he's lying

(02-22-2021 06:21 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  he's lying

Isn't he a Demoncrap. What do you expect? That's what they do.

Lol. What a clown.

(02-22-2021 06:21 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  he's lying

And a weasel.

(02-22-2021 06:21 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  he's lying

I don't think he's lying. He just hasn't been told by Biden to fire him yet.

This is much more of a litmus test with me than the OMB nominee.

If Garland will not publicly declare that Durham will only be removed for cause, then no GOP Senator should vote to confirm him.

And yes of course Garland could say that, and then turn around and fire Durham later just for sh¡ts and grins. No matter. If Garland is unwilling to give that verbal assurance in a public forum, then he is essentially declaring his full intent to administer his office in a partisan, team-over-country manner, regardless of whatever decision he might later make about Durham.

Quote:President Joe Biden’s nominee for United States Attorney General, Merrick Garland, told lawmakers on Monday he is unaware that Mexican drug cartels game the nation’s asylum system.

During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Garland was asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) if he had ever visited the U.S.-Mexico border to which the federal appeals court judge said he has not.

“No sir, I haven’t,” Garland said when Graham asked.

Specifically, Garland said he is unaware that cartels game the asylum system to tie up Department of Homeland Security (DHS) resources.

The exchange went as follows:

GRAHAM: I’d like you to go because I just got back and I learned that drug cartels are using our asylum laws against us. They will collect people to sort of rush the border and once they are apprehended and most of these claims, 90 percent are rejected. And that will take resources away from securing the border and detecting drugs and protecting the nation against terrorism. This is a behavior by the cartels. Will you look into that practice of using asylum claims by drug cartels to weaken border security? [Emphasis added]

GARLAND: I had not known about this and I will certainly look into this problem. I think the drug cartels are a major menace to our society. The poison that they put into our streets is damaging communities of every kind. [Emphasis added]

Despite Garland’s unawareness, Biden’s DHS Joint Task Force West Director Manuel Padilla, Jr. detailed in a November 2019 interview with Breitbart News how the cartels control the U.S.-Mexico border with violence, extortion, and deception.

The gaming of the U.S. asylum system by the cartels is well documented by experts, federal officials, and agents on the ground. In June 2019, Breitbart News exclusively reported leaders of the Gulf Cartel help traffic migrants into the state of Texas.

The cartel operation has also been acknowledged by establishment media. In March 2019, the Washington Post reported how cartels traffic migrants into the U.S. by utilizing the asylum system. In November 2016, federal immigration officials exclusively told Breitbart News the cartels often coach migrants on how to fraudulently claim asylum in the U.S.

Link

Quote:Judge Merrick Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that Antifa’s attacks on the U.S. courthouse in Portland last year may not have been “domestic terrorism,” because unlike the Capitol riot, they took place at night when the court was not “in operation.”

Garland, who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, was questioned at his confirmation hearing by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):

Sen. Hawley: Let me ask you about assaults on federal property in places other than Washington, DC — Portland, for instance, Seattle. Do you regard assaults on federal courthouses or other federal property as acts of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism?

Judge Garland: Well, Senator, my own definition, which is about the same as the statutory definition, is the use of violence or threats of violence in attempt to disrupt the democratic processes. So an attack on a courthouse, while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism. An attack simply on a government property at night, or any other kind of circumstances, is a clear crime and a serious one, and should be punished. I don’t know enough about the facts of the example you’re talking about. But that’s where I draw the line. One is — both are criminal, but one is a core attack on our democratic institutions.

Last August, then-Attorney General William Barr described the attacks on the courthouse:

Behind the veil of “protests,” highly organized violent operators have carried out direct attacks on federal personnel and property, particularly the federal courthouse in Portland. Shielded by the crowds, which make it difficult for law enforcement to detect or reach them, violent opportunists in Portland have attacked the courthouse and federal officers with explosives, lasers, projectiles, and other dangerous devices. In some cases, purported “journalists” or “legal observers” have provided cover for the violent offenders; in others, individuals wearing supposed press badges have themselves attacked law enforcement or trespassed on federal property. More than 200 federal officers have been injured in Portland alone.

The riots resulted in the front of the courthouse being boarded up; the destruction of security equipment protecting the courthouse; and the breaking of windows in the offices of federal prosecutors.

Garland cited the domestic terrorism statute, which defines “domestic terrorism” as follows (18 USC § 2331):

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and © occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Notably, the statute does not confine acts of domestic terrorism to working hours.

Link

Quote:Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland struggled Monday with questions about the death penalty during his confirmation hearing in the Senate.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) questioned Garland about the death penalty, noting Biden’s publicly stated support for a death penalty moratorium.

Cotton noted that Garland worked on the case against domestic terrorist and white supremacist Timothy McVeigh for the bombing of a government building in Oklahoma City and asked if he believed it was a mistake to level the death penalty.

Garland confirmed he supported the death penalty at that time.

“I don’t have any regret but I have developed concerns about the death penalty in the twenty-some years since then,” he said.

Garland expressed his concern about the racial disparities in death penalty cases.

Cotton continued his line of questioning, raising the high-profile prosecution of Dylann Roof for the massacre of nine black Americans at a Charleston church.

“Do you believe that it was a mistake to seek the death penalty for Dylann Roof for murdering nine African-Americans as they worshiped in church?” Cotton asked.

Garland said he would not speak about a pending case.

Roof was sentenced to death in January 2017 and awaits execution.

When Cotton asked Garland if he would ever seek the death penalty if confirmed as Attorney General, he replied, “I think it does depend on what policy is adopted going forward.”

Biden campaigned for president on ending the death penalty, which, if fully realized, could mean that Roof may not be executed.

Over three dozen Democrat lawmakers wrote to Biden shortly after he was inaugurated asking him to commute the death sentences for criminals on death row.

“Commuting the death sentences of those on death row and ensuring that each person is provided with an adequate and unique re-sentencing process is a crucial first step in remedying this grave injustice,” the letter read.

Link

Quote:Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) pressed U.S. Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland about the controversial past views and statements of two other Department of Justice nominees, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, in a Senate hearing Monday.

Gupta is President Joe Biden’s nominee to be Associate Attorney General. She led the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama, and subsequently joined a left-wing organization, helped lead opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. She co-wrote an article in October 2019 in which she stated: “As much as the federal courts can protect our civil rights, they can also abandon the rule of law — and abandon us, leaving our communities to the mercy of people and institutions driven by hate, bigotry and fear of any threat to the status quo. Republicans have planted the seeds of this takeover for decades — and now, they are leaping into action.”

Clarke is Biden’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division. As a Harvard student in 1994, she published a letter in the student newspaper suggesting that black people are superior to white people. She also invited an antisemitic lecturer to campus and defended his views as based on “indisputable fact.”

Lee began by asking Garland if he believed that there was necessarily a racist motivation behind efforts to purge voter rolls of people who had died, or moved out of state. Garland said that he did not want to speculate on motives, but seemed to allow that there could be non-racist motives.

The following exchange then ensued between Lee and Garland:

Sen. Lee: Do you believe Republicans in the United States — and by Republicans, I mean as a whole — are determined to “leave our communities to the mercy of people and institutions driven by hate, bigotry, and fear of any threat to the status quote?”

Judge Garland: I don’t make generalizations about members of political parties. I would never do that.

Sen. Lee: I appreciate that, and I wouldn’t expect otherwise. The reason I raise these ones, these are questions that have been drawn from comments made by Vanita Gupta, who has been nominated to be Associate Attorney General [and] has advocated for each of these positions.

Judge Garland: Well, Senator, I know Vanita Gupta now quite well — I didn’t know her before, but since the nomination, I’ve gotten a chance to talk with her and speak with her. I have to tell you, I regard her as a person of great integrity and a person who is dedicated to the mission of the department, and particularly equal justice under the law.

Sen. Lee: I’m not asking you to weigh in on her as a person, I’m just talking about the comments. Let’s move on. Would an individual’s past statements, statements in the past, as an adult, declaring that one racial group is superior to another, would statements like that be relevant to an evaluation of whether such a person should be put in charge of running the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division?

Judge Garland: So, Senator, I have read in the last few days these allegations about Kristin Clarke, who I have also gotten to know, who I also trust, who I believe is a person of integrity, whose views about [the] Civil Rights Division I have discussed with her and they are in line with my own. I have every reason to want her. She is an experienced former line prosecutor of hate crimes and we need somebody like that to be running —

Sen. Lee: I’m asking about the statement, I’m not asking about her as a person. I’m asking about the statement. Would — in the abstract — would someone who has made that comment, would that comment itself be relevant to the question whether that person, having made that statement, should be put in charge of running the Civil Rights Division?

Judge Garland: All i can tell you is i have had many conversations with her, about her views about that, about the Civil Rights Divisinon, about what kind of matters she would investigate —

Sen. Lee: What about anti-semitic comments? Would those be relevant to someone wanting to run the —

Judge Garland: You know my views about antisemitism. No one needs to question those, obviously.

Sen. Lee: I’m not questioning you at all.

Judge Garland: I know you’re not, but I also want you to know I’m a pretty good judge of what an antisemite is, and I do not believe she is an antisemite. And I do not believe she is discriminatory in any sense.

Sen. Lee: Okay, tell me this, judge. You are a man of integrity and one who honors and respects the laws. What assurances can you give us — as one who has been nominated to serve as Attorney General of the United States, that you, if confirmed as Attorney General of the United States, what assurances can you give Americans who are Republican, who are pro-life, who are religious, people members of certain minority groups — you know, in short, more than half the country, telling them that the U.S. Department of Justice, if you’ll confirmed will protect them if Department of Justice leaders have condoned radical positions like those I have described.

Judge Garland: Look, I will say again. I don’t believe that either Vanita or Kristen condone those positions and I have complete faith in them, but we are a leadership team, along with Lisa Monaco, that will run the department and the final decision is mine. The buck stops with me, as Harry S. Truman said. And I will assure the people that you’re talking about, I am a strong believer in religious liberty, and there will not be any discrimination under my watch.

Garland appeared to lose his composure as he defended Gupta and Clarke. Senate Judiciary Chair Richard Durbin (D-IL) suggestions that questions about other nominees wait until they have the chance to appear, but Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she appreciated the chance to hear Garland defend the nominees who had been chosen to work with him.

Link

He never updated his talking points. He doesn't seem to understand he has been appointed attorney general and not to the Supreme Court.

He will fire Durham within a month of being confirmed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thank God this limber dick isn't on the Supreme court.

Garland will easily be confirmed. Mark my words. It will be somewhere along 70-30 is my guess. Garland seemed nervous, but Republicans are only rallying against the controversial picks and he's not that controversial compared to some of the other people that were under consideration. OMB nominee Neera Tanden is in trouble, which I guess sets the precedent that you can't have mean tweets if you want to serve in a presidential cabinet.

(02-22-2021 07:39 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Thank God this limber dick isn't on the Supreme court.

No doubt. A total clam shell.

(02-22-2021 07:52 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Garland will easily be confirmed. Mark my words. It will be somewhere along 70-30 is my guess. Garland seemed nervous, but Republicans are only rallying against the controversial picks and he's not that controversial compared to some of the other people that were under consideration. OMB nominee [b]Neera Tanden[/] is in trouble, which I guess sets the precedent that you can't be an unabashed racist, documented lunatic if you want to serve in the Biden* regime.

Marked and fify.

Say what one will about Yertle, he read this one 100%, spot on.

“Moderate” my left one. This guy will be another “wingman” enabler and cover guy. We can expect another years long witch hunt of one sort or another to try and continue the purge the left has decided they will pursue.

I’m not aware... how? Why? Well, cause I’m not aware. I don’t read, I don’t watch, I don’t listen. Seattle, wha? The lights were off! Portland, wha? It was a Saturday, right?

Wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’ll sculpt a statue to Mitch myself, for keeping this weasel-d!ck sidelined where he was for as long as he did.

Moderate... Pffffft!

We'll see on Garland, but even if it's not 70-30, he's going to get confirmed. That's pretty obvious.

Janet Yellen was 84-15 for Treasury, Antony Blinken was 78-22 for Secretary of State, Pete Buttigeig was 86-13 for Transportation. I'm not sure why Republicans would suddenly rally behind an effort to thwart Garland when those three were so lopsided. It looks like Manchin is a big mover on these nominations - he is against Tandem so the Republicans will take a stand on her. He's also not thrilled with Deb Haaland for Interior Secretary for some reason so perhaps that's another one that could be an issue but I suspect she'll pass through with ease too eventually. The Secretary of Energy could be close too but they haven't discussed that yet.

(02-23-2021 07:42 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  We'll see on Garland, but even if it's not 70-30, he's going to get confirmed. That's pretty obvious.
Janet Yellen was 84-15 for Treasury, Antony Blinken was 78-22 for Secretary of State, Pete Buttigeig was 86-13 for Transportation. I'm not sure why Republicans would suddenly rally behind an effort to thwart Garland when those three were so lopsided. It looks like Manchin is a big mover on these nominations - he is against Tandem so the Republicans will take a stand on her. He's also not thrilled with Deb Haaland for Interior Secretary for some reason so perhaps that's another one that could be an issue but I suspect she'll pass through with ease too eventually. The Secretary of Energy could be close too but they haven't discussed that yet.

Republicans need to play hardball on nominations the way democrats do. These all need to be 50-50 with Kamla the **** breaking the tie. When they start doing that, I'll believe they are serious about playing politics. Right now they aren't, and they are going to keep losing until they are.

Quote:Merrick Garland, President Biden’s nominee for attorney general, signaled Monday that the Justice Department under his leadership would "advance" the policies of the Biden administration on gun control.

During Monday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee asked Garland, "Do you support banning of certain types of firearms?"

Garland responded, "Well, as I'm sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all his professional life on this question."

He continued, "The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law."

"Where there is room under the law for the president's policies to be pursued, I think the president is entitled to pursue them," Garland continued.

Biden has long been a gun control proponent.

On his campaign website, it says, "Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons … will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales … and buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities."

Last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said gun control is a "priority" for Biden.

Link

Quote:President Joe Biden’s nominee for United States Attorney General, Merrick Garland, says he does not know if the Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue prosecuting illegal border crossings should the Senate confirm him.

During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Garland was asked by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) if Garland supported criminally prosecuting illegal entry to the U.S. and if prosecutions of illegal border crossers would continue under his watch.

On both questions, Garland said he was unsure. The exchange went as follows:

HAWLEY: Do you believe that illegal entry at America’s borders should remain a crime?

GARLAND: Well, I haven’t thought about that question. I just haven’t thought about that question. I think the president has made clear that we are a country with borders, with a concern about national security. I don’t know of a proposal to decriminalize but still make it unlawful to enter. I just don’t know the answer to that question. I haven’t thought about it.

HAWLEY: Will you continue to prosecute unlawful border crossings?

GARLAND: Well, again, this is a question of allocation of resources. We will … the Department will … prevent unlawful crossing. I don’t know … I have to admit, I just don’t know … what exactly the conditions are and how this is done. I think if … I don’t know what the current program even is with respect to this … so I assume that the answer would be yes but I don’t know what the issues surround it are.

In 2019, Biden repeatedly said that he did not support decriminalizing illegal immigration, while other Democrats proposed making illegal entry to the U.S. merely a civil penalty.

For years, the DOJ has charged thousands of illegal aliens with illegal entry. Between Fiscal Years 2016 and 2019, U.S. attorneys charged more than 83,400 illegal aliens with illegal entry. In that same time period, U.S. attorneys charged nearly 232,000 illegal aliens with misdemeanor improper entry and more than 14,550 with alien smuggling.

Link

Quote:Judge Merrick Garland received a hero’s welcome from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. Several noted how thrilled they were to see him testifying in a confirmation hearing — as they had hoped in 2016, when Garland was nominated to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Garland’s testimony — shaky at times, radically left-wing at others — made clear that America dodged a bullet when Republicans blocked him.

Garland is no “moderate.” He is a standard-issue left-liberal, ready to follow the lead of the radicals who have taken over the Democratic Party.

It was both sad and amusing to see him attempt to define the term “systemic racism.” First, he said it meant “discrimination and widespread disparate treatment of communities of color and other ethnic minorities in this country.” He listed several examples — all of which showed economic inequality, without showing “disparate treatment.”

Pressed further by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who noted that Garland’s definition looked more like “disparate impact” than any act of deliberate racial discrimination, Garland said that such difference “in some cases is the consequence of historical patterns, sometimes the consequence of unconscious bias.”

Kennedy challenged him: “When you were at the Department of Justice, was the Department of Justice then systemically racist?” All he could do was dodge the question.

Another question he evaded was the yes-or-no query posed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Ted Cruz (R-TX): should Special Counsel John Durham be kept in his job? And would Garland commit to publishing Durham’s report, when it emerged?

All three noted that Attorney General William Barr had said “yes” when asked the same about Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But Garland refused to be pinned down, saying he needed to know more.

In so doing, Garland endorsed a clear double standard: an inquiry into President Donald Trump had to be protected, but one that could implicate Democrats — including President Joe Biden himself — could be dismantled.

Likewise with his ludicrous attempt to differentiate between the left-wing riots against the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and the recent Capitol riot. The former riots might not be “domestic terrorism,” he suggested, because they took place after hours.

So much for Judge Garland’s high-minded statements about keeping politics out of the Department of Justice.

After his admirable statements about prosecuting white supremacists, he defended Kristen Clarke, nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division, despite questions about her alleged racist and antisemitic views. He struggled to assure Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who questioned him about Clarke, that the Department of Justice would protect conservatives’ rights, too.

That will continue to be a tough sell, after Garland appeared to support Democrats’ interest in drafting new laws to limit free speech online.

He also attempted to evade a question about transgenderism being imposed on school sports, and declined to say if crossing the U.S. border illegally should remain a crime. He pleaded ignorance when asked his view of the Department of Justice giving big grants to left-wing activist groups. He said he would consider the issue — later, after he was confirmed.

What Monday’s hearing proved was that the previous hype about Garland being a “moderate” was completely empty. At the very least, he is willing to go along with the most left-wing agenda ever brought into government in the United States.

That has dangerous implications, when the ruling party is itching to criminalize its opposition. But we can take comfort in at least one thing: Judge Merrick Garland is not a Supreme Court Justice. What a disaster that would have been.

Link