Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Attorney General Merrick Garland’

The Corruption of Merrick Garland


By: Jonathan Turley | June 17, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/17/the-corruption-of-merrick-garland/#more-220222

Below is my column in The Hill on the concerning record of Attorney General Merrick Garland on a variety of recent matters, including a frivolous privilege claim to withhold the audiotape of President Joe Biden during the Hur interview. There is a certain corruption of judgment that is evident from this and other decisions by Garland since he became Attorney General.

Here is the column:

This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland took to the pages of the Washington Post to lash out at critics who are spreading what he considers “conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself.” His column, titled “Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end,” missed the point.

It is Garland himself who has become the problem. The solution is in Wilmington, Delaware, where 12 average citizens just showed a commitment to the rule of law that seems to be harder and harder for the attorney general to meet.

Since his appointment, Garland has repeated a mantra that he is apolitical and would never yield to the pressures of politics or the White House. When he was nominated, I believed that claim and enthusiastically supported Garland’s confirmation. He was, I thought, the perfect man for the job after his distinguished judicial service as a moderate judge.

I was wrong. Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden. He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.

However, it is what has occurred in the last six months that has left some of us shaken, given our early faith in Garland.

I have long been a critic of Garland’s failure to order a special counsel to look into the extensive evidence of corruption surrounding the Bidens. As I stated in my testimony in the Biden impeachment hearing, there is ample evidence that Biden lied repeatedly about his knowledge of this corruption and his interaction with these foreign clients.

However, a more worrisome concern is the lack of consistency in these investigations. First, Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury. It was less sympathetic than pathetic, given that this is the same man who is running for re-election to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. More importantly, Garland has not made obvious efforts to reach a consistent approach in the two cases by dropping charges based on the same crimes by Trump in Florida. (Such action would not affect the obstruction counts).

Second, Garland has allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to maintain positions that seem diametrically at odds with past Justice Department policies. This includes Smith’s statement that he will try Trump up to (and even through) the next election. It also includes a sweeping gag order which would have eviscerated free speech protections by gagging Trump from criticizing the Justice Department. While Garland has said that he wants to give the special counsels their independence, it falls to him to protect the consistency and values of his department.

Garland’s most brazenly political act has been the laughable executive privilege claim used to withhold the audiotape of the Hur-Biden interviews. The Justice Department has not claimed that the transcript is privileged, but only that the audiotape of Biden’s comments is privileged. This is so logically disconnected that even CNN hosts have mocked it.

The Justice Department went further in court by adding conspiracy to absurdity as part of its unhinged theory. It asserted a type of “deepfake privilege” on the basis that the release of the audiotape could allow AI systems to create fake versions of the president’s words. It ignores that there are already ample public sources now to create such fake tapes and that, by withholding the real audiotape, the Justice Department only makes such fake copies more likely to arise and ensnare the unwary.

Most importantly, the arguments of a “he-who-must-not-be-heard” privilege or a deep-fake privilege are ridiculous. Garland knows that, as would any first-year law student. Yet, he is going along with a claim that is clearly designed to protect Biden from embarrassment before the next election. It is entirely political and absurd.

After stumbling through a half-hearted defense of the audiotape decision before he was held in contempt of Congress, Garland was faced with another clear test of principle. Three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) this month referred for prosecution cases of perjury against Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. Despite what appear to be open-and-shut allegations that they lied to Congress, most everyone in Washington believes that Garland and the Justice Department will slow-walk and then scuttle the referrals to protect the Bidens.

This is the same Justice Department that seemed on a hair-trigger to prosecute Trump officials for perjury and contempt after referrals from Democrat-controlled committees.

The questions at issue were not “gotcha” traps, like showing up at Michael Flynn’s office to nail him on his description of a meeting with Russian diplomats. These were some of the most-discussed questions heading into Hunter Biden’s long-delayed appearance before the committees.

Hunter is accused of lying about his position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a corporate entity that moved millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities to Hunter Biden. He also allegedly lied about the identity of the recipient of his controversial message to a Chinese businessman, in which he threatened that his father was sitting “right next to me” and would join him in retaliating against the Chinese if they did not send millions. They promptly wired the money as demanded.

Hunter’s answers appear to be demonstrably untrue. Yet, there is little faith that the Justice Department will allow the matter to be presented to a grand jury. If Garland’s pledge to remain apolitical were widely accepted, there would be little question about the prosecution of such compelling claims.

Garland now appears entirely adrift in his own department. While mouthing platitudes about being beyond politics, he continues to run interference for the Biden White House. He appears to be looking to close aides for such direction.

He should instead look to those 12 people in Wilmington, Delaware.

Despite facing overwhelming evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt, his legal team pursued a jury-nullification strategy. Wilmington is Bidentown, the hometown for the president and his family. An array of Bidens, including the first lady, lined up behind Hunter during the trial, in case anyone forgot that fact.

Yet the jury convicted Hunter on all counts without any hesitation. Despite sympathy for a recovering drug addict in a town that has overwhelmingly supported the Bidens for decades, “nobody mentioned anything about political motivations” in the jury room, as one juror noted. “I was never thinking of President Joe Biden,” said another.

Garland needs to show a modicum of that courage and principle as attorney general. He could start by dropping the farcical privilege claims over the audiotape and sending the referrals to the U.S. Attorneys Office for the same priority treatment afforded to Trump officials like Flynn.

As it stands, few believe that will happen, despite Garland’s repeated line about transcending politics. It is not the mantra that is in doubt, but the man.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).

All Republicans but This 1 Vote to Hold Garland in Contempt


By: Jarrett Stepman | June 12, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/12/all-republicans-but-this-1-vote-to-hold-garland-in-contempt/

Attorney General Merrick Garland—seen here returning from a break in testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on June 4—is catching heat from House Republicans. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Attorney General Merrick Garland has been held in contempt of Congress.

The vote in favor of contempt was over Garland’s refusal to hand over audio recordings related to President Joe Biden’s interview about classified documents with Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur.

The vote was by party line with one Republican voting against, Rep. Dave Joyce of Ohio, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergum.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Wednesday before the vote that the action had to be taken because Garland is refusing to comply with a “lawful subpoena.”

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 4, Republicans demanded that Garland hand over the audio recordings. The Hur interviews with the president were prompted by the charge that Biden mishandled classified documents after his time as vice president.

A transcript of Hur’s discussions with Biden has already been released. However, the president has withheld the audio recording, claiming executive privilege. Republicans argue that the full audio recordings would give the public a full picture of Biden’s mental state. That’s because the special counsel recommended not prosecuting Biden because he came off in the lengthy interview as an “elderly man with a poor memory” and said the president’s “diminished faculties” mean he was less likely to have willfully violated the law.

Garland also refused to hand over the audio, which is what prompted Republicans in the House to move for holding him in contempt.

Two former aides to former President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon have been sentenced to jail for being held in contempt of Congress. However, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in contempt of Congress while serving under President Barack Obama, did not face prosecution. Obama’s DOJ inspector general refused to prosecute Holder.

Garland has said that the Justice Department went to great lengths to cooperate with Congress on the Hur investigation, but that the request for audio constituted a larger attack on the DOJ.

“There have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department,” Garland said in a press conference in May, the Associated Press reported. “This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just the most recent.”

Republicans argued in debates on the House floor that withholding information from Congress interferes with the legislative branch’s ability to provide a check on the power of the president. Rep. Jim Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, said on the House floor on Wednesday that Biden misled the American people about his handling of classified documents and that the president needs to be held accountable.

“President Biden’s Department of Justice appears to be taking every step to insulate him from the consequences—whether it’s hiding these audio recordings or attempting to give Hunter Biden a sweetheart plea deal to shield Joe Biden from facing any accountability for his role in his family’s influence-peddling schemes,” Comer said. “That is unacceptable.”

Congressional Democrats have opposed the attempt to retrieve the special counsel’s audio recording.

“This is what they want to do, because they don’t have the votes to impeach Joe Biden, right? That’s why they did Merrick Garland,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., said, as reported by Fox News. “That’s why they went after [Hunter Biden]. It’s all trying to please their base because Congress doesn’t want to do what Donald Trump wants, which is to impeach Joe Biden, so they can have even scores.”

Related Posts:

  1. Biden DOJ ‘Fears’ Those Who Pray, Sing Outside Abortion Clinics, Tucker Carlson Says
  2. EXCLUSIVE: She Survived a Death Camp. Facing Biden DOJ Charges, She Is Prepared to Die in Prison
  3. Inspector General: Biden DOJ Broke Law on FBI Whistleblower Protection

Garland’s Moment of Truth: With the Perjury Referral, the Attorney General Faces a Clear Choice Between Principle and Politics


By: Jonathan Turley | June 6, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/06/garlands-moment-of-truth-with-the-perjury-referral-the-attorney-general-faces-a-clear-choice-between-principle-and-politics/

“Conscience doth make cowards of us all.” Those words from Hamlet captured the moral dilemma for many of us as we face the costs of conscience.

For each of us, there often comes a moment when our principles are put to an undeniable and unavoidable test. It may be as simple as cheating on a test, shoplifting a product, or admitting to a wrong. It is natural to want to avoid such moments, particularly when we cannot even admit to ourselves that we may not be the person we have long claimed.

For Attorney General Merrick Garland, that moment of truth has finally arrived. Garland has long maintained that he is an apolitical attorney general who does not even consider the political consequences of his actions. Over the last three years, some of us have questioned that commitment in a series of actions or, more importantly, non-actions. Yet, Garland has always been able to evade responsibility by shifting decision-making to others or claiming a lack of knowledge.

Yesterday, Garland ran out of room to maneuver when three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) sent him formal referrals for the perjury prosecution of Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. The evidence of false answers to Congress is overwhelming and Garland’s department has prosecuted Trump associates and others with far less in past cases, including the prosecution of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Here is the Committee’s summary of the allegations, which I also previously discussed in a column:

During his deposition, Hunter Biden made false statements about holding a position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai (RSB), a corporate entity that received millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities who met with then-Vice President Biden before and after transmitting money to the RSB account that then transferred funds to Hunter Biden. After deposing Hunter Biden, the Committees obtained documents showing Hunter Biden represented that he was the corporate secretary of RSB.

Additionally, Hunter Biden during his testimony relayed an entirely fictitious account about threatening text messages he sent to his Chinese business partner while invoking his father’s presence with him as he wrote the messages.  Hunter Biden testified he had transmitted this threat to an unrelated individual with the same surname. However, documents released by the Committee on Ways and Means demonstrate conclusively that Hunter Biden made this threat to the intended individual, and bank records prove Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partners wired millions of dollars to his company after his threat.  A portion of the proceeds has been traced to Joe Biden’s bank account.

During James Biden’s transcribed interview, he stated that Joe Biden did not meet with Tony Bobulinski, a business associate of James and Hunter Biden, in 2017 while pursuing a deal with a Chinese entity, CEFC China Energy. His statements were contradicted not only by Mr. Bobulinski, but Hunter Biden.  Mr. Bobulinski also produced text messages that establish the events leading up to and immediately following his meeting with Joe Biden on May 2, 2017.

These are straight-forward questions and answers. More importantly, both men knew and prepared for these questions. They were widely discussed before their testimony. They appear to have knowingly lied. The question is what Garland is now prepared to do about it.

For Garland, a bill has come due. I supported his appointment as Attorney General because I respected his integrity and intellect as a federal judge. I believed his claim that he would not allow political considerations to cloud his judgment. I grew more critical as I saw Garland struggling to avoid decisions that would work against President Biden or his family.

Now, Garland has what appears flagrant perjurious statements made by the President’s son and brother. Given the fact that these were anticipated questions, the false answers appear premeditated and egregious. Hunter and Jim Biden displayed a sense of impunity in denying facts that the committees (and many commentators) believe are well established on the available evidence. Those facts were highly embarrassing to the Biden family and they allegedly chose to lie rather than admit to them.

The fact that such alleged false statements occurred in the midst of an impeachment investigation only magnifies the concerns. This was an effort to establish the President’s knowledge of a massive corrupt influence peddling operation maintained by his family.

The gun charge in Delaware is a relatively minor criminal allegation. This is far more serious and could impose far greater punishment for the President’s son.

In the Trump cases, the Justice Department moved with impressive speed in going to grand juries against figures for false statements or contempt of Congress. There was little handwringing, no hem and hawing.

So, Garland’s moment of truth has arrived. He will either have to meet it or shrink from it. Either way, the Attorney General is about to give the full measure of himself and his office.

Garland’s Ultimate Test of Principle: Will DOJ Send the Hunter Biden Perjury Allegations to a Grand Jury?


By: Jonathan Turley | May 23, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/23/merrick-garlands-ultimate-test-of-principle-will-the-doj-send-the-hunter-biden-perjury-allegations-to-a-grand-jury/

Attorney General Merrick Garland has long maintained that he is a completely apolitical figure who only follows the law. Critics have challenged that claim on key cases, including those related to Hunter Biden. However, Garland may now face one of the clearest tests of his claim in his tenure. The House committees have issued a public report alleging three different instances where Hunter Biden allegedly committed perjury. The question is now what Garland is prepared to do about it.

When Hunter testified, I wrote columns suggesting that he might take the Fifth Amendment to remain silent because the risk was too great that he might lie or mislead investigators in his answers. With months of preparation, he decided to run the gauntlet and now appears to have exposed himself to the possibility of additional criminal charges.

Hunter Biden has still not responded to the specific allegations, but on their face they appear strong. Notably, the Justice Department spent considerable time and money to pursue false statements against figures like Michael Flynn over just one statement describing a meeting with Russian diplomats. These are instances where Hunter was under oath, prepared for months, and had counsel present.

One of the instances concerns the controversial WhatsApp message where Hunter not only threatened a Chinese businessman to send him massive amounts of money but said that his father was sitting next to him at the time. Millions were later sent to the Bidens. The infamous WhatsApp message stated in part:

“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

The response of Hunter to questions about the message was curious and evasive. Hunter said that he had only two things to say about that message. He denied that his father was sitting next to him despite saying that he had no memory of sending the message.  Second, and most importantly, he stated “the Zhao that this is sent to is not the Zhao connected to CEFC” who “had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even Goddamn talking about.”

The Committee staff maintains that Biden’s WhatsApp account shows that he only ever communicated with one Zhao – Raymond Zhao – and that he most certainly did not know what he was “talking about.”

Another alleged lie was Hunter’s denial that he ever helped people associated with Burisma secure visas. He told Congress that he was unwilling to provide “any work as it related to visas that they needed” and that he would “never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa.” The Committee has produced an email in which Hunter’s associate Devon Archer references the revoking of Burisma CEO Nikolay Zlochevsky’s visa. It states that “Hunter is checking with Miguel Aleman to see if he can provide cover to Kola on the visa…Please send Hunter an email with all Kola’s passport and visa documents and evidence and copy me. We’ll take it from there.”

Hunter also swore that he had no part in shell companies that received foreign payments. Yet, Archer testified that he and Hunter had an equal stake in Rosemont Seneca Bohai and the Committee has evidence from the IRS whistleblowers showing that Hunter received benefits as owner of the entity’s associated bank account.

The most damning evidence may be a document reading “I, Robert Hunter Biden, hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC.” He used that document as part of his contract with Porsche Financial Services for a sports car.

Those would seem pretty clear and well-founded allegations for a referral to the Justice Department. After fast-tracking false statement claims against Trump officials, the question is whether Garland will even submit the matter to a grand jury. He could also give the matter to the Special Counsel prosecuting Hunter.

Ordinarily, a prosecutor pursuing a defendant in two different felony cases would jump at any alleged illegality. You would not want to stand between him and a grand jury. However, Special Counsel David Weiss has been accused of minimizing charges against the President’s son and attempting to push through a notorious sweetheart deal that collapsed in court.

Now Garland faces an unavoidable choice in treating this referral as he did Trump cases (in sending this to a grand jury) or scuttling alleged perjury made by the son of the President before Congress. It is far less challenging legally than it is politically for Merrick Garland.

If the rule of law still governs at the Justice Department, Hunter Biden could be facing a third front in his ongoing legal struggles.

Garland Won’t Say If Youngkin Right to Pardon Father Charged After Protesting Daughter’s Sexual Assault


By: Harold Hutchison / September 21, 2023

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/21/garland-wont-say-if-youngkin-was-right-to-pardon-father-charged-after-protesting-daughters-sexual-assault/

Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to say Wednesday whether Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, should have pardoned a father who was arrested in 2021 when he tried to defend his daughter during a local school board meeting.

Youngkin pardoned Scott Smith, who was arrested during a meeting of the Loudoun County School Board on June 22, 2021, where he intended to comment on the mishandling of his daughter’s sexual assault in a school restroom the previous September.

dailycallerlogo

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Garland whether Youngkin was correct to grant the pardon as he questioned the attorney general during a House Judiciary Committee hearing called “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

“I don’t know the facts of the case, so I’m not in a position …” Garland said, before being cut off by Roy.

In 2021, the National School Boards Association cited Smith’s arrest in a letter to Garland. Shortly afterward, Garland issued an Oct. 4, 2021, memo calling on the FBI to “use its authority” against those who threaten public school officials. The 2021 sexual assault of Smith’s daughter occurred inside a girl’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School by a male student who was wearing a skirt.

“We righted a wrong. He should’ve never been prosecuted here,” Youngkin said of Smith on “Fox News Sunday” when announcing the pardon.

“This was a dad standing up for his daughter, and just to remind everyone, his daughter had been sexually assaulted in the bathroom of a school and no one was doing anything about it.”

This report originally was pubished by the Daily Caller News Foundation

AG Garland Fumes During Grilling on Anti-Catholic Memo


By Michael Katz    |   Wednesday, 20 September 2023 02:53 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/attorney-general-merrick-garland-lost-his-temper-in-a-heated-exchange-about-an-anti-catholic-memo-during-a-house-judiciary-committee-hearing-wednesday/2023/09/20/id/1135253/

Attorney General Merrick Garland lost his temper in a heated exchange with Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

Van Drew made an opening statement before questioning Garland about an anti-Catholic memo circulated within the Department of Justice. Garland was brought before the committee for a hearing on the weaponization of the federal government against political opponents of President Joe Biden.

“The two-tiered system of justice is clear and it’s clear to the American public,” Van Drew said. “The buck stops with a man in charge. That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The decline of American’s trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you. Attorney general, I need a simple yes or no to the following. Just yes or no because we don’t have much time. Do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists, yes or no?”

Garland tried to frame an answer from Van Drew’s statement, but Van Drew kept pressing for a direct answer.

“Attorney General, through the chair I ask you, do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists? Answer the question,” Van Drew said.

Garland said he didn’t know what “traditional” meant but Van Drew cut him off.

“Catholics! Catholics that go to church,” Van Drew said.

Garland said, “May I answer the question,” and again was cut off.

“Yes or no,” Van Drew said.

“The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so absurd, that’s it’s hard for me to answer your question,” said a fuming Garland, who is Jewish.

Van Drew wouldn’t let up: “Mr. Attorney General, it was your FBI that did this. It was your FBI that was sending — and we have the memos, we have the emails – were sending undercover agents into Catholic churches.”

“Both I and the director of the FBI have said that we were appalled by that memo,” Garland said.

Michael Katz 

Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and poltics.

DOJ Names ‘Sweetheart Plea Deal’ Prosecutor as Special Counsel in Hunter Biden Probe


BY: Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / August 11, 2023

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/11/doj-names-sweetheart-deal-prosecutor-special-counsel-hunter-biden-probe/

Attorney General Merrick Garland conducts a news conference at the Department of Justice announcing that U.S. Attorney David Weiss will be appointed special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, on Aug. 11. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc /Getty Images)

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday named David Weiss — the same prosecutor who made a court-rejected plea agreement with first son Hunter Biden — as the special counsel in the tax probe.

Garland said on Tuesday that Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the district of Delaware, asked him to be special counsel in the case.

“Upon considering his request, as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint him as special counsel,” Garland told reporters on Friday. “This appointment confirms my commitment to provide Mr. Weiss all the resources he requests. It also reaffirms Mr. Weiss has the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently.”

The appointment comes the same week that the House Oversight and Accountability Committee released bank records showing family members of President Joe Biden have raked in at least $20 million from foreign individuals and entities.

“This move by Attorney General Garland is part of the Justice Department’s efforts to attempt a Biden family cover-up in light of the House Oversight Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals,” House Oversight and Accountability Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement.

Comer has previously said he opposed the appointment of any special counsel or special prosecutor, fearing it would slow down the investigation.

“The Justice Department’s misconduct and politicization in the Biden criminal investigation already allowed the statute of limitations to run with respect to egregious felonies committed by Hunter Biden,” Comer continued. “Justice Department officials refused to follow evidence that could have led to Joe Biden, tipped off the Biden transition team and Hunter Biden’s lawyers about planned interviews and searches, and attempted to sneakily place Hunter Biden on the path to a sweetheart plea deal.”

IRS whistleblowers previously testified to the oversight panel, as well as to the House Ways and Means Committee, that Weiss sought special counsel status to investigate Hunter Biden in other jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., and California. The same IRS whistleblowers also alleged the Weiss team tipped off Hunter Biden to search warrants, allowed statutes of limitations to run out, and negotiated felonies down to misdemeanors.

“If they wanted somebody to look into, the Justice Department should have looked to someone not tainted by whistleblower allegations,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “This appointment is not going to address any allegations of political interference from Main Justice [the leadership of the Department of Justice], and it is not going to take care of the allegations of a shoddy investigation.” (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

Democrats have been quick to note that then-President Donald Trump nominated Weiss as U.S. attorney, but Delaware’s two Democratic senators also supported him at the time.

According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Weiss was aware of an FBI form that alleged then-Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden each took a $5 million bribe from an executive with Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that employed the the younger Biden as a board member.

This is the second special counsel named to investigate a matter related to Joe Biden. In January, Garland named former U.S. Attorney for Maryland Robert Hur to investigate the president’s possession of classified documents during the time he was out of office.

CHILLING: Biden’s DOJ May Be Working With Leftist Group to Silence Parents Again, America First Legal Warns


By: Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil / August 03, 2023

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/03/is-bidens-doj-working-splc-demonize-parents-america-first-legal-demands-answers/

Merrick Garland in a suit with President Joe Biden towering over him
America First Legal is demanding documents from the Department of Justice related to the Southern Poverty Law Center and concerned parents. America First Legal is probing to see whether the DOJ had any role in the SPLC targeting of parental rights groups or if the DOJ is planning to use the SPLC to intimidate parents into silence. Pictured: Attorney General Merrick Garland listens as President Joe Biden appears behind him via teleconference on Aug. 3, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A conservative group is demanding answers about whether the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden is repeating its 2021 strategy of targeting concerned parents after the Southern Poverty Law Center just added concerned parents to its “hate map.”

SPLC staff have met with Biden at the White House, and the administration has adopted the “book banning” rhetoric many activists use to slam parents concerned about sexually explicit books in school libraries.

“The Biden administration, including the Department of Justice, has demonstrated that it will work with outside political organizations to trample on the rights of parents who exercise their constitutional rights by speaking out on the woke takeover of America’s public schools,” Ian Prior, senior adviser at America First Legal, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday.

“The SPLC’s move to designate parent organizations as ‘hate groups’ is eerily similar to the activities of the National School Boards Association in the fall of 2021, and America First Legal intends to fully investigate any coordination between the SPLC and the Department of Justice,” he added.

America First Legal filed a Freedom of Information Act request, asking the DOJ to turn over documents related to the SPLC and SPLC staff.

Prior had referred to a letter from the National School Boards Association to Biden, in which the school board group likened parents who protest school district policies to domestic terrorists. The letter encouraged Biden to use the Patriot Act against those parents. Later documents revealed that the White House had worked with the school boards association to draft the letter. The DOJ issued a memo urging the investigation of concerned parents, following the letter.

The DOJ ultimately rescinded the memo, and the National School Boards Association apologized for the letter. But, as The Daily Signal recently reported, recent developments suggest the SPLC may be fulfilling the association’s role in another round of attacks on parents.

On June 6, the SPLC added parental rights groups such as Moms for Liberty to its “hate map,” branding them “anti-government extremist groups” and part of an “anti-student inclusion movement.”

The SPLC attacked parental rights groups for opposing the leftward lurch in education that the SPLC itself supports—transgender lessons, sexually explicit books in school libraries, and critical race theory, which frames America as an institutionally racist country and blacks as inherently oppressed. The SPLC advocates such education through its Learning for Justice program.

As I wrote in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC routinely brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups.” It tars religious freedom organizations, such as Alliance Defending Freedom, as “anti-LGBTQ hate groups,” and that smear inspired a gunman to target the Family Research Council for a terrorist attack in 2012.

Two days after the SPLC released its “hate map” and list of “hate groups” for 2022, the White House on June 8 released a strategy “to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities.” That strategy cites “federal threat monitoring” showing that LGBT individuals face threats “increasingly tied to hate groups and domestic violent extremists.” The Biden administration’s strategy also announced that the DOJ will take “an all-of-Department approach to protecting LGBTQI+ rights,” touting the DOJ’s United Against Hate initiative.

If in fact they are “United Against Hate”, then why are they united around only one group of people? If you are united against hate, shouldn’t you be united against all hate, regardless of political affiliation?

The strategy also aims to “shield LGBTQI+ Americans from book bans,” announcing that the Department of Education would seek to counter efforts by parental rights groups such as Moms for Liberty to protect children from sexually explicit books in school.

Biden personally met with SPLC staff six times since January 2021, according to White House records, and SPLC staff attended White House meetings at least 11 times in that same period. America First Legal cites these and other pertinent facts in its Freedom of Information Act request.

The legal organization cites Daily Signal reporting on the chilling threats Moms for Liberty has received after the SPLC attacked the parental rights group. Moms for Liberty received various threats, including messages such as “I will personally eradicate you from Massachusetts,” and “piece of s— fascists like you deserve to be dragged against a wall and force-fed hot lead. Eat s— and die.”

“At the behest of its leftist teacher union allies, the Biden administration has weaponized the federal domestic intelligence community and law enforcement to intimidate parents, deter them from protecting their children, and undermine their First Amendment rights,” the request notes.

America First Legal is asking the DOJ to hand over records of meetings with SPLC staff, particularly the staffers who meet with Biden officials at the White House, records of communications with SPLC staff, all records relating to the SPLC’s 2022 “hate” report, and all communications referencing SPLC, Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, and terms related to parental rights.

AFLegal-SPLC-DOJ-FOIADownload

Tag Cloud