Full Exchange: Sen. Tom Cotton unleashes on Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding school board memo
https://rumble.com/vobkjh-full-exchange-sen.-tom-cotton-unleashes-on-attorney-general-merrick-garland.html
Thank God and McConnell.
Maybe they should follow up with a strongly worded letter.
There is still a possibility this POS could end up on the Court. Republicans confirmed him as Attorney General, and with voter fraud stealing seats every election, it’s quite possible that Democrats could take a larger majority in the Senate, and this guy could get seated over the next 3 years, if an opening occurs. Nothing is impossible.
Bttt.
5.56mm
The should have capitalized God in “Thank God. . . “ — but they didn’t, showing their pagan/atheist bias.
Seems like a reasonable point Garland makes, until you ponder how fungible the term "violence" is when used by leftists. What makes Garland's attention so vile, however, is the school board is the most local of all public political venues - as far outside the jurisdiction of the federal government as you can get. So just to issue the threat of the federal government injecting their power into these local venues is heinous and almost the worst abuse of federal power I can imagine.
“’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.
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.
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.