Posted on 02/22/2021 3:24:48 PM PST by MarvinStinson
Judge Merrick Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee Antifa’s attacks on the U.S. courthouse in Portland may not have been “domestic terrorism,” because they took place at night when the court was not “in operation.”
Sen. Josh Hawley questioned Garland :
Let me ask you about assaults on federal property in places other than Washington, DC — Portland, for instance, Seattle. Do you regard assaults on federal courthouses or other federal property as acts of domestic terrorism?
Garland: My own definition, which is about the same as the statutory definition, is the use of violence or threats of violence in attempt to disrupt the democratic processes. So an attack on a courthouse, while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic terrorism. An attack simply on a government property at night is a clear crime and a serious one, and should be punished. I don’t know enough about the facts of the example you’re talking about. But that’s where I draw the line. One is — both are criminal, but one is a core attack on our democratic institutions.
Garland cited the domestic terrorism statute, which defines “domestic terrorism” as follows (18 USC § 2331):
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Notably, the statute does not confine acts of domestic terrorism to working hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
After seeing and hearing him for the first time today, I was stunned that this is the guy they made such a stink about! He looks and sounds like a feeble, old, partisan weasel.
There should have been a follow up question asking whether locking police in the station and trying to set it on fire while they were inside was terrorism. These republicans are so lame and uninformed.
If memory serves, they closed the courthouse down because of the riots in Portland. It was closed during the day. How/why can you differentiate this as if somehow they were keeping regular hours and a schedule during the day when the business of the court was shut down 24/7 because of the riots?
Words mean what democrats say they mean. There is no rule of law.
If McVeigh had only blown up the Oklahoma federal building on off hours.
Garland is just stupid enough to fit right in with the democrooks. There isn’t a one that could win anything legally.
These “confirmation hearings” have become a joke for both parties. The politicians pontificate and try to score partisan points and the nominees try to say nothing for the duration of the hearing and presto - the votes come in.
It is frightening that some of his nominees may be too extreme to slip through the process, but Garland is not one of those and the republicrats will also vote to confirm him.
Eggs Ackley!
Instead of this leftist hack, we got cowards on SCOTUS.
But if it's is successfully burned to the ground overnight, wouldn't all the files on the docket be burned also, the computer systems and databases destroyed, the judge's chambers and the courtrooms themselves destroyed...
How can a judge then decide a case the next day when it IS work hours?
How is THAT not terrorism? The terrorists/crminals achieved their goals!
“If I recall, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred before the courts were scheduled to open that morning.”
Were there people in the building? I think what Garland was trying to convey (incorrectly) is that attacking a government building when it is closed with no one occupying it is not an act of terrorism so much as a criminal act.
Any attacks against a government owned facility or feature (such as a statue) is a terrorist activity because it does in fact display an act of violence to promote a political agenda.
Words have no meaning any more, make up what you please.
So by Garlands definition, 9/11 would not have been terrorism if it had happened on 9/9. Got it.
It’s clear why 0bola wanted him on SCOTUS.
“I like you, I respect you, and I think you are a good pick for this job,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, early in a Monday hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley is the top Republican on the committee.
“I think you’re a very good pick for this job,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who previously served as Judiciary chairman.
https://www.aol.com/merrick-garland-appears-set-confirmation-213401885.html
Now that takes the cake for dumb sh*t reasoning.
BEYOND BELIEF
Peking Mitch McConnell supports this giy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.