Texas representative questions Garland on ongoing parent targeting by his department.
SEVEN UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR MERRICK GARLAND ABOUT THE BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) confronted U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about the Department of Justice’s directive to investigate alleged threats against school personnel by parents protesting at school board meetings. Roy highlighted the case of Scott Smith, a father from Loudoun County, Virginia, who was pardoned by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) after speaking out against the mishandling of his daughter’s sexual assault at a school board meeting in 2021. This incident triggered the DOJ’s involvement in investigating threats and claims of “domestic terrorism” at school board meetings.
Roy began his questioning by reminding Garland about Smith’s case and asked if he was now familiar with it. Garland admitted to only knowing about it through media coverage. Roy then asked if Garland had sent a memo on October 4, 2021, directing the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office to address harassment of school boards. Garland clarified that the memo was specifically directed at school personnel and administrators, not schools themselves.
The DOJ memorandum instructed the FBI and U.S. attorneys’ offices to collaborate with law enforcement leaders at all levels to develop strategies for addressing harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school personnel nationwide. This directive came after the National School Boards Association requested federal assistance in a letter to President Joe Biden.
Roy pointed out that the timing of the directive coincided with the NSBA’s letter, which mentioned Scott Smith as an example of specific threats. Roy also highlighted that since the hearing two years ago, 26 states had left the NSBA and its CEO had resigned. He then asked Garland if he believed Gov. Youngkin’s decision to pardon Smith was correct, to which Garland responded that pardon authority belongs to the governor.
Undeterred, Roy pressed Garland on whether he had rescinded the 2021 memo. Garland evaded a direct answer, stating that there was nothing to rescind. Roy continued to demand a clear response, but Garland maintained that the memo did not mention Smith or label parents as terrorists.
It is worth noting that Roy himself grew up in Loudoun County, Virginia, where the parental rights movement gained momentum and sparked a nationwide outcry against perceived overreach by school boards during the pandemic.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
How does the involvement of the Department of Justice in investigating these incidents align with the Biden administration’s memo citing “domestic terrorism” as a reason for investigation, and what safeguards are in place to ensure impartiality in the DOJ’s actions?
Epartment of Justice’s involvement in investigating such incidents, which has raised several unanswered questions for Garland.
Firstly, Roy questioned Garland about the DOJ’s definition of a “threat.” Roy argued that parents voicing their concerns and frustrations at school board meetings should not be labeled as threats, as it stifles their freedom of speech. Garland failed to provide a clear answer, leaving the definition of a threat open to interpretation.
Secondly, Roy raised concerns about the politicization of the DOJ’s involvement in these investigations. He pointed out that the Biden administration’s memo citing “domestic terrorism” as a reason to investigate these incidents is alarming, as it implies a politically biased approach. Garland sidestepped this question, leaving doubts about the impartiality of the DOJ’s actions.
Thirdly, Roy inquired about the potential chilling effect these investigations could have on free speech. He argued that parents might fear speaking out against school boards out of fear of being investigated by the DOJ. Garland attempted to reassure that the DOJ’s focus is on threats rather than stifling free speech, but his vague response failed to address the underlying concern.
Fourthly, Roy pressed Garland on the DOJ’s coordination with school boards and the National School Boards Association (NSBA) in categorizing parents’ behavior as threats. He questioned whether these organizations were influencing the DOJ’s investigations and decisions. Garland admitted to consulting with the NSBA but denied any influence on their decision-making. However, the lack of transparency around these conversations raises questions about the true extent of collaboration between the DOJ and these organizations.
Fifthly, Roy brought up the issue of the DOJ’s involvement in local matters that should be handled by state and local law enforcement. He argued that these incidents fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities, not federal law enforcement agencies. Garland defended the DOJ’s involvement by stating that the investigations focus on civil rights violations. However, the question remains whether these incidents indeed rise to the level of federal jurisdiction, or whether they should be handled at the local level.
Sixthly, Roy raised concerns about the potential abuse of power by the DOJ in these investigations. He argued that the involvement of federal agencies in local matters could lead to an overreach of power, infringing on the rights of individuals. Garland insisted that the DOJ is focused on upholding civil rights and addressing potential threats, but failed to provide satisfactory reassurances against potential abuses.
Lastly, Roy questioned the prioritization of these investigations over other pressing matters, such as combating rising crime rates. He argued that the limited resources of the DOJ should be allocated to more urgent and critical issues. Garland defended the DOJ’s approach, claiming that they can handle multiple issues simultaneously. However, the lack of transparency around resource allocation raises concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the DOJ’s actions.
In conclusion, Rep. Chip Roy’s questioning of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland highlighted several unanswered questions regarding the Department of Justice’s investigations into alleged threats against school personnel by parents. The lack of clear answers and transparency from Garland raises doubts about the DOJ’s approach, its definition of threats, its impartiality, the potential chilling effect on free speech, collaboration with external organizations, jurisdictional matters, potential abuse of power, and resource allocation. As these investigations continue, it is crucial for Garland to address these unanswered questions to restore confidence in the fairness and integrity of the DOJ’s actions.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
