Garland set to testify at House hearing with DOJ mired in controversies

Attorney General Merrick Garland faced tough questions on a wide range of subjects Thursday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing dedicated to oversight of the Justice Department at a time when the agency is in the middle of several high-profile cases and controversies.

One main issue that Republicans seized on was Garland's recent memo to Justice Department employees about intervening in incidents of violence or intimidation targeting state and local school board officials. GOP lawmakers have criticized Garland for overstepping by getting involved in matters that should be handled by state and local law enforcement, and for issuing the memo days after the National School Boards Association asked the Biden administration to utilize tools, including the terrorism-related Patriot Act, to deal with these situations. The NSBA cited incidents of nonviolent disruption of school board meetings where parents voiced their concerns about issues such as the teaching of critical race theory, prompting Republicans to voice fears that federal involvement will influence conservatives to keep quiet instead of continuing to engage with officials.

Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, attempted to show a video of parents at school board meetings during his opening remarks, but Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N. Y., refused, claiming that Jordan did not provide 48 hours' notice. Jordan stated that there is no official rule requiring such notice, but Nadler did not allow the video to be shown.

Garland did not directly address the school board issue in his opening statement. He did make general comments about protecting Americans from threats, while also safeguarding people's freedoms.

"Every person living in this country expects and deserves that their government protect them against a wide range of threats – from international and domestic terrorism to cyber-attacks to violent crime and drug trafficking," Garland said in prepared remarks submitted to the committee. "As our country’s chief law enforcement officer, I am committed to supporting law enforcement at all levels as they work to protect our country from these threats, while also zealously guarding civil liberties and ensuring our own accountability to the American people."

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, was the first of several Republicans to bring up the school board issue at the hearing, telling Garland that he "found it deeply disturbing that the National School Boards Association convinced the Biden administration to sic you and your Justice Department, the FBI … on involved parents as if they were domestic terrorists."

Chabot noted that he and Nadler were both on the committee when Congress passed the Patriot Act, and that at the time they both had concerns about how the law could be used or abused.

"I can tell you, not in a million years did we dream that one day we would see the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists," Chabot said.

"No one has the right to be violent or threaten violence" he added. He stated that violent actors can be dealt with by security or other officials, "but we don’t need the vast power of the federal government throwing its weight around."

In response, Garland noted that his memo did not mention domestic terrorism or the Patriot Act, and did not envision such issues coming into play regarding school board incidents.

"Like you, 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 terrorists," he said.

Jordan asked if it was a coincidence that Garland's memo went out days after the NSBA sent their letter to the White House. The attorney general said he first read about the letter in the news and that no one in the White House discussed it with him. Nevertheless, he admitted that the letter "was brought to our attention," and that someone at the White House had discussed it with someone at the Justice Department.

When asked who from the White House and DOJ had that conversation, Garland said he did not know.

In a tense exchange, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., mentioned how Garland's son-in-law works for a company that publishes materials on critical race theory, a main issue being raised by parents complaining to school boards. Johnson asked if Garland had any agency ethics official review the situation and issue guidance before issuing the memo.

Garland said that nothing in his memo has to do with financial interests or the substance of what is being taught in schools, but deals with "violence or threats of violence."

"There are no conflicts of interest that anyone could have," Garland said, adding that he is "exquisitely aware" of the relevant ethics requirements.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., defended Garland's memo, arguing that there is nothing wrong with it, and that it addresses a real concern of right-wing violence throughout the country, including "a dramatic uptick" in violence against school officials. He cited news articles about incidents of violence and death threats against school officials, including one where a parent ripped the mask off a teacher's face and another where a teacher was hospitalized after a parent allegedly attacked them over a face mask rule.

"I’m limited by time here, but there are cases like this across the c... (Read more)

Latest News