Rep. Jordan rips into Merrick Garland for feds-parents ‘snitch line’
Rep. Jim Jordan ripped into the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland Thursday, accusing him of creating a “snitch line on parents” with a controversial memo directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate parent protests against local schools.
“Thank you Mr Chairman, the chairman just said the Trump DOJ was political, went after their opponents. Are you kidding me?” Jordan (R-Ohio), the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking member opened, referring to opening comments from the committee’s chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
“Three weeks ago the National School Board Association writes President Biden asking him to involve the FBI in local school board matters. Five days later, the Attorney General of the United States does just that — does exactly what a political organization asked to be done. Five days,” Jordan emphasized.
“Republicans on this committee have sent the attorney general 13 letters in the last six months,” Jordan said. “Eight of the letters, we’ve got nothing — they just gave us the finger.
“Folks all around the country, they tell me, for the first time they are afraid of their government.
“Where’s the dedicated lines of communication on violent crime in our cities — violent crime, that is, went up in every major urban area where Democrats have defunded the police out. Can’t do that, can’t do that. The Justice Department’s gonna go after parents who object to some racist hate America curriculum,” Jordan said.
“Nope, can’t focus on the southern border, where 1.7 million illegal encounters have happened this year alone, a record … but the Department of Justice, they’re going to open up a snitch line on parents.”
Democrats brought Garland before the Judiciary Committee to defend the Department of Justice’s investigation into the Jan. 6 riot.
However, many Republican committee members took the opportunity for a face to face with the controversial top US lawman to press him on the widely criticized memo in which he announced the federal investigation of “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”
In his opening statement, Jordan cited a recent report released by the Justice Department that noted the FBI made “over 200 errors, omissions and lies in just 29 randomly selected FISA applications.”
“Don’t worry, the Attorney General of the United States, just put them in charge of a dedicated line of communication to report on parents who attend school board meetings,” the Ohio Republican continued.
Jordan told Garland that Americans are afraid following his memo, saying “every single liberty we enjoyed of the First Amendment” has been “assaulted” over the past year, citing mask mandates, curfew orders, vaccine mandates and other restrictions implemented over the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I think your memo, Mr. Attorney General, was the last straw. I think it was the catalyst for a great awakening, that is just getting started,” Jordan told Garland.
“When the attorney general, the United States sets up a snitch line on parents, Americans aren’t going to tolerate it,” he later added. “I think they’re gonna stand up to this accelerated march to communism that we now see America is going to fight the good fight, they’re going to finish the course, they’re going to keep the faith, because Americans value freedom.”
On Tuesday, a group of parents of Michigan sued Garland over the memo, to protect the “fundamental rights to freedom of speech, to direct the education of their children, and to be free from unlawful discrimination based upon their political and religious beliefs and views.”
Garland’s memo did not detail what the “threats of violence” were, but many parents and Republican politicians have accused him of targeting parents for speaking out against the implementation of mask mandates and critical race theory in K-12 schools.
In recent months, many parents have spoken out against both at school board meetings, with some interactions turning raucous.
Shortly before Garland issued the memo, the National School Boards Association asked the federal government to get involved, comparing the threats of violence to “domestic terrorism.”
During the hearing, Garland was asked whether parents questioning school board decisions should be considered “domestic terrorism.”
“I want to be clear, the Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as viscerally as they wish, about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in their schools,” Garland said, noting that the memo did not use the words “domestic terrorism.”
“I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism,” he added.
The attorney general later emphasized that the department is “only concerned about violence, threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, staff,” not parent involvement at school board meetings.
“I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and school should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals,” Garland said.
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) took issue with the lack of examples of the “threats of violence” mentioned in the one-page memo.
“You didn’t cite examples to distinguish legitimate First Amendment activity from criminal activity, nor certainly examples of a nationwide scope or severity of such acts to constitute a rise or spike in criminal activity, would you allege, certainly not one that would warrant nationwide action by the FBI,” Bishop said.
The North Carolina Republican pointed out that the memo requested the FBI to hold meetings in jurisdictions across the country to look into how to combat the threats of violence, however, Bishop noted, the DOJ has not revealed if those meetings are happening.
“I don’t know whether they’re ongoing, but I expect them to hope that they are going yes because I did ask that they take place,” Garland said, adding that he doubts every jurisdiction has held meetings.
During the hearing, Garland was also pressed on reports of conflict of interest due to his son-in-law’s involvement with an education company called Panorama Education.
“It also concerns us that your actions may have been motivated by your family’s financial stake in this issue. Published reports show that your son in law co-founded a company called Panorama Education. We now know that that company publishes and sells critical race theory and so-called anti-racism materials to schools across the country,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, asking Garland whether he sought advice from the ethics counsel before issuing the memo, claiming it “directly relates to the financial interest” of his family.
“This memorandum does not relate to the financial interests of anyone,” Garland responded, adding that the memo is aimed at the threats of violence.
Despite concerns from lawmakers, Panorama Education has denied any affiliation with critical race theory, saying on its website, “Panorama Education is not affiliated with any particular academic or legal philosophy, including critical race theory (CRT). Panorama is not connected to CRT and it is not a tool for teaching CRT.”
Original Here |
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
-Tex