Merrick Garland In DISBELIEF After Senator Britt CONFRONTED Him Over 'SCOTUS House' Protesters'…

Merrick Garland In DISBELIEF After Senator Britt CONFRONTED Him Over ‘SCOTUS House’ Protesters’…
uh thank you Mr general for being in front of us today I appreciate the topics that have been brought up from drug cartels to Mexico and the DEA to the fentanyl poisoning communities all across this nation to drug use and addiction I stand ready to be a productive part of those conversations and work to move our nation for forward keeping our communities safe and strong Mr General I want to ask you about some questions wherein you testified in front of the sud Senate Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago I am um a big believer and I’ve heard this all over the state of Alabama as I’ve traveled people want Justice to be blind they believe that is a foundational building block of our nation and until we restore that trust and confidence um you know people are are worried about the direction our nation will go so you testified several weeks ago before the Senate Judiciary Committee and filled a number of questions from committee members regarding doj’s failure to prosecute any individuals who were involved in the illegal protest outside the homes of multiple Supreme Court justices in the aftermath of the leaked dos opinion as you are well aware 18 USC 1507 makes it a crime to picket or parade near a residence occupied by a judge it says with the intent of influencing any judge juror witness or court officer in the discharge of his duty in answering the questions from multiple members of the committee you repeatedly asserted that doj’s failure to bring any charges under Section 1507 was due to the fact that the US Marshals who were protecting the homes of the justices failed to make any arrest under that statute you said quote the marshals have been advised and they know and the marshals on the ground they have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute including that federal statute end quote that was in direct reference to section 1507 you went on to say the Attorney General does not decide whether to arrest the marshals on the scene they do make the decision of whether to arrest after your appearance before the Judiciary Committee we obtained copies of the slide deck that was used to train and prepare the marshals for their protective detail at the homes of the justices those training materials show that the marshals likely didn’t make any arrest under Section 1507 for a pretty simple reason they were actively discouraged from doing so as you can see on the slide behind me the marshals were explicitly told to avoid unless absolutely necessary any criminal enforcement action involving the protester the slides went on to say they explicitly state that making arrest and initiating prosecutions was not the goal of the Marshall’s Presence at the homes of the justices and the not was actually a talisis and underlined the next slide directs the marshals not to engage Eng in protest related enforcement actions Beyond those that were strictly and immediately necessary and tailored to ensure the physical security of the justices if you’ll see in the next slide here it discourages the marshals from making arrest under any section 1507 by asserting that there may be a First Amendment right to harass the families of the judges and by concluding that any arrest of protesters are a last resort to prevent physical harm of the justices Mr attorney general yes or no were you at any point before your testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee aware of these training materials or the fact that the marshals had been heavily discouraged from making arrest under Section 1505 I think this is the first time I’ve seen the slide deck and frankly from here I can’t make it out uh for which I apologize for my eyesight but I can’t can’t make it out um what I said before was correct their first and principal job is to protect the lives and property of the of the um of the um members of the Court um and as I said at the time I’m first attorney general who’s ever ordered the marshals to protect the residences uh of the justices and protect them 247 yes uh that’s their principal responsibility um but that doesn’t mean that that uh other that they are in any way precluding bid from um U bringing other kinds of arrests so thank you so much Mr attorney general I do have another question for in a few moments but when you say they were given the full authority to arrest people violating section 1507 I would ask will you take a look at these slides these materials dig into them it is clear that these Marshals were given directives that limited that narrowed the scope of course we all want the physical safety um the physical safety of our Supreme Court Justice is Paramount and we thank you for sending those Marshals there 1507 though actually is more all-encompassing than that narrowly tored objective narrowly tailored objective and it says picketing or parading near a building or housing if you’re doing it with the intent to interfere with obstruct or impede the administration of justice or influencing any judge in the discharge of his duty it’s clear when you look at these slides that the marshals were not given those directives I would like for you to take a look at that and if you agree with that statement um I’d like for you to your testimony to the Judiciary Committee there’s nothing for me to amend because I as I said I’ve never seen those slides before I I know I need to yield my time um it’s clear the Marshalls were given a different directive and I would ask you to look into that please I will thank you thank you Senator Brett General I want to ask you about the shooting at Covenant School which is part of the Covenant Presbyterian Church I I realized that the shooter is dead but the shooter could have had collaborators do you plan on on opening a hate crime investigation for the targeting of Christians the um FBI and ATF are both uh on the scene working with the um uh local police uh as of now motive hasn’t been identified and the police chief said at the last at his last press conference that they don’t yet have reached a conclusion with respect to uh motive we are certainly working full-time with them to try and determine what the motive is and of course motive is what determines whether it’s a hate crime or not okay um FBI director Ray couldn’t answer this at the time for reasons that are not his fault but um I hope you’ll say the same thing if I can’t answer it right well I think the ghost is clear now um Mike susman you know who I’m talking about uh he was a defendant in a special counsel uh prosecution right right he was with the private Law Firm Perkins COI uh which is the main Council for the national Democratic party he had a special badge to get him into the justice department Andor the FBI building why did he have that special badge U I’m afraid I also don’t know anything about this I assume from um the reference that this is something that Mr Durham was investigating as part of his investigation no I don’t think he investigated the badge uh I know he was investigating Mr susman this goes back to I think 2020 right um but I don’t I don’t know the answer to that okay could you find out for me at the time the tri the the trial was in progress and Mr Ray couldn’t answer but the trial’s over and I’d like to know why Mr susman a private citizen had a special badge to get him into the FBI and the Department of Justice and if there are other people out there who have special badges um well on on the particular question about susman I think we’re going to have to wait until Mr Durham finishes his report which should be relatively soon I certainly don’t in any way want to interfere him and he’s the one who would know the answer to that on the more general question I could um at any time did the investigations initiated under the China initiative uh by the Department of Justice stem from racism I I have no evidence to suggest that they did okay at any time did the investigations pursuant to the China initiative and begun by the Department of Justice um were they ever inappropriately undertaken again I I have no evidence to suggest that they did obviously some of the cases resulted in acquittals or dismissals by court but courts but that doesn’t mean that they were uh inappropriately begun okay um did any of the cases that the department initiated under the China initiative um um reflect the ancestry of the defendant charged more than the seriousness of the allegations I’m not not sure exactly what you’re asking but it it sounds like it’s the same question and I would give the same answer I don’t have any reason to believe that anything was in done inappropriately or based on Ancestry or based on discrimination in those cases okay do you agree with Chris Ray that China is the biggest threat to US security yeah I uh and I think the director National Intelligence also testify that it’s our most dangerous uh um uh near Pier let me ask you this cuz I’ve got 11 seconds I’m sorry I’ve got 11 seconds left why did you get rid of the China initiative then yeah so um as you know um the uh the new Assistant Attorney General um for the uh National Security uh uh division uh gave a long description of what was done um this was all folded into one uh a nation state initiative U we don’t know sometimes when there’s a Cyber attack when there’s another kind of attack which country is attacking us and I believe he thought it was most efficient for us to focus our attention on the four main uh hostile uh State actors China now in in in many ways uh affiliating with Russia which some of your people said it was racist I I I I didn’t say that I don’t know who might be people are who said that okay well if I had more time I we can we can find out here help me out Senator Mansion um Senator Kennedy there will be a second round of questions if you would like to stay yes ma’am Senator man there’s no way I can fill in for you sir I don’t I don’t know whether that’s good or that’s a good one that’s a good one [Music] so [Music] [Music] foree mayonnaise [Music] speech forign speech [Music] [Music] B fore for [Music] spee for foree [Music]

KAYNAK