Posted on 10/27/2021 10:19:20 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
I don’t why Cotton and Kennedy used the word, “vessel”. The correct word in this context is “tool”. Garland is a tool being used by the White House. Biden’s “wing man”.
“Silence is Violence.” According to the Garland types.
As bad as Tim Scott whining about how the nasty-wasty Democrats won’t even let him in the room where they are deciding how best to wreck the country.
Even the “best” Republicans are spineless wimps. We voted for Senators who would represent We The People, not a debating club that hides behind their own made-up rules.
“’This memorandum is not about parents being able to object in their school boards,’ Garland said.”
He’s right. That memorandum was 100% about INTIMIDATION — to frighten and stifle parents.
the only one that I recall since moving here was Tom Coburn...that was worth darn...and he was great!!
i was watching, priceless...
So far none of these Senators have hit the nail on the head - at least not what I have seen. Maybe they want to gather the testimony and they are not wrong to bring up the question of the poor girl sexually assaulted in the girls bathroom. That pulls the heart-strings.
But what Garland’s memo is all about, why the White House was involved, and why they brought in an “unusual party” to send a letter of concern was because the political operatives in the WH and their allies are concerned that school board meetings will become a source of political organizing. They don’t want a repeat of 2010, or 1994, when the party in power was swept out due to political action among the plebeians.
It was to stifle parents from political organizing.
Full Exchange: Sen. Ted Cruz versus Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding school board memo
https://rumble.com/vobo5h-full-exchange-sen.-tom-cotton-versus-attorney-general-merrick-garland-regar.html
Listening to the Senate/Garland hearings today show the Dems have solidly aligned themselves with restricting freedom of speech. If the Dems hold the Senate and the Congress majority, freedoms as we know them are going by the wayside.
I got the sense that Cotton was driving his line of questioning in a specific direction, and was determined to get there no matter what Garland might say. Indeed, there were two or three moments where Garland had more to comment, but was cut off, and it seemed to me at least a couple of those instances were just raw politics. While I’m no fan of Garland, I think there were salient points he was making, and was cut off from making, at least one of which he was finally able to clarify at the very end, and there may have been more benefit realized in the overall exchange had he been permitted to complete a couple of his remarks.
Unfortunately there’s conflation going on, because the memo was badly worded, ill-timed, and obviously unclear in its thrust; to the degree that there’s now a 3-page letter out there enumerating the possible Federal crimes a parent might commit at a School Board meeting, which is outrageous.
I don’t get the overall sense that Garland intended this matter go that direction, but there was a resounding lack of protest out of his office when it did, and that’s evidence of either unresponsiveness, or underlying complicity.
And I get that many would like to tear off a mask and reveal an underlying, nefarious agenda — I don’t think presuming there is always that sort of thing going on accomplishes much more than marginalizing one’s self as a wingnut. Sometimes it’s better, and more accurate, to assess that somebody’s just not a superhero at their job. When Cotton was waving that three-page letter around, a truly productive set of questions would have been to ask, “Judge, did you know about this letter?” “When did you plan to publicly condemn this letter, and clarify to everyone nationwide that this is NOT the result you had in mind when you drafted your memo?”
Because I’ve heard no such condemnation out of Garland’s office, which actually suggests agreement, and that’s a tactical failure on his part if, indeed, he disagrees with the thrust of the letter. If there isn’t agreement on his part, Garland needs to get up under the lights with a hot mic and cameras and say so, and he needs to do it, like, YESTERDAY; especially now that it’s been brought to the fore during Cotton’s questioning.
Any which way you slice it, though, I must agree with Cotton at this point: THANK GOD Garland isn’t on the Supreme Court.
Tom Cotton is deep state.
No kiddin'? This is the first I've heard of it. Got any details?
Lankford quit the committee in the middle of the last Congress. I don’t have any more info. Sorry. Rubio & Cotton stayed mute while the committee attacked President Trump and his supporters.
Then you have the committee security guy who was sleeping and leaking with the bimbo “reporter” scandal, too.
The Senate intel committee is a bottom of the beltway barrel.
Thanks.
For the same reason, I have to give Snarlin’ Arlen Specter credit for giving us Judge Clarence Thomas.
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.