Rep. Jim Jordan ripped into the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday, accusing him of creating a “snitch line on parents” with a controversial memo directing the FBI 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 — though he noted that 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.
Soviet born Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) went a step further in her criticism, giving a stark warning for the direction the FBI is heading in her opinion.
“The FBI is starting to resemble the old KGB,” she said, citing warrantless surveillance and the intimidation of citizens.
“It’s interesting that during the Soviet era, the United State criticized use of the domestic terrorism concept in the USSR, as a tool to suppress free speech and political dissent,” Spartz added.
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.”
Throughout the hearing, Garland deflected and didn’t answer many of the specific questions asked by the Republican members of the committee regarding the memo, often reiterating that the DOJ is strictly looking into “threats of violence,” or simply stating he couldn’t answer because he didn’t have enough information.
One instance was regarding an alleged sexual assault case that was reportedly covered up by school board members in Loudoun County, Virginia.
“Are you aware that … Loudoun County prosecutors confirm that the boy who assaulted this young girl in Broad Run High School is the same boy who wore a skirt and went into a girl’s bathroom sodomized and raped a 14 year old girl in a different Loudoun County High School on May 28? Are you aware of those facts?” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tx.) asked Garland.
“This sounds like a state case and I’m not familiar with it. I’m sorry,” Garland responded.
Roy pressed further, asking the attorney general “Do you agree with Loudoun parents who said it is not okay to allow a child that has been charged with a rape to go back into a school in that public school system?”
“Again, I don’t know any of the facts of this case but, but the way you put it certainly sounds like I would agree with them,” Garland said.
The Texas Republican continued to push Garland on the case, asking if he was aware that Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed a bill that allowed schools to “refrain from reporting instances of sexual battery.”
“I don’t know anything about the Virginia legislation,” Garland said back.
Garland was also pressed on the ongoing crisis at the southern border, where record numbers of migrants have crossed this year.
McClintock pointed to the total — 1.7 million — and asked the attorney general how many are facing prosecution for crossing illegally.
Garland said he did not know.
The California Republican then asked if the lack of prosecutions is making migrants more likely to cross the border.
“I think there are a substantial number of issues driving migration to the United States,” Garland deflected.
