Merrick Garland pushes House GOP on ‘dangerous’ rhetoric

Attorney General Merrick Garland struck a stronger tone before the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly challenging Republican rhetoric, calling it “false” and “dangerous.”

The backlash from the mild-mannered attorney general comes amid heightened Republican attention to investigations into former President Trump, particularly those being conducted by district attorneys.

Garland has also been criticized for his decision not to release audio tapes of interviews between President Biden and special counsel Robert Hur, even though it is unclear when Republicans will vote on a pending resolution to censure him.

The controversy surrounding Trump’s conviction

Even though the Justice Department has not been involved in any state-level prosecutions against the former president, a New York jury recently convicted Trump on charges related to covering up hush money payments before the 2016 election, it was a major focus for Republicans during the hearings.

Garland took a tough stance against Republicans who have slammed the Justice Department following the ruling, calling such claims a “conspiracy theory” that is an “assault on the very process of justice.”

“This New York lawsuit was brought independently and on the basis of the Manhattan district attorney’s own determination that he violated state law,” Garland said.

“I do not control the Manhattan District Attorney. The Manhattan District Attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan District Attorney makes his own decisions about cases he wants to bring under state law.”

But Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said Garland had not fully responded to their requests for records about coordination between the Justice Department and state prosecutors.

“They come in and attack this as a conspiracy theory that there’s coordinated law enforcement against Trump, and then we say, ‘OK, give us the documents and the correspondence,’ and then it becomes clear whether it’s a conspiracy theory or not,” Gaetz said.

“But when you say, ‘Okay, we’ll accept your request and then run it through the Department of Justice coordination process,’ you’re actually promoting the very dangerous conspiracy theories that you’re concerned about.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Oregon) complained about the plethora of state and federal lawsuits being filed against President Trump.

“I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think the American people think it’s fair that a former president is being collectively attacked by both the federal government and the state government. I don’t think that’s right.”

But Democrats on the committee argued that Trump faces numerous charges as a result of his own actions.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, said Republicans were using Garland’s appearance to “create a platform to spew even more absurd conspiracy theories.”

“That’s why they held hearings on what they call ‘loafer’ – the absurd claim that the State Department was somehow orchestrating a state prosecution of a former president for well-documented criminal conduct,” Garland said.

Garland refutes Trump assassination claims

Garland also addressed Trump’s false claim that he authorized the assassination of Trump by including the Justice Department’s standard use-of-force policy in preparing the Mar-a-Lago search warrant.

The use-of-force policy, which Trump denounced as a license to “take me out,” is something that is “routinely included in search warrant packages,” Garland said.

“The document being discussed is our standard use of force protocol, which sets out the limitations on the use of force, and is typically included in search warrant packages and was included in the package for the search of President Biden’s home,” Garland said during a review of the classified documents.

The statement Trump pointed to authorizes the use of lethal force “only when necessary,” such as when someone “poses imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.”

Yet Trump repeatedly claimed that both the Justice Department and President Biden were “authorized to shoot” him, and he used the use of force policy to raise funds.

Garland directly addressed the allegations, saying, “That allegation is not true.”

In his opening remarks, Garland implicitly criticised Trump’s claims, saying they were “spreading unfounded and deeply dangerous falsehoods about the FBI’s law enforcement activities.”

Balance of contempt

Garland appeared before the committee just weeks after members voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur during their investigation of classified documents.

Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio files on the eve of the committee meeting, followed by separate remarks on the same subject from the House Oversight Committee.

The Justice Department has also resisted turning over the tapes, arguing that Republicans already have records of the conversations and that they show the conversations don’t overlap with many areas of the impeachment inquiry for which Republicans say they need the audio files.

Garland called the move to censure him “only the latest in a long line of attacks on the work of the Department of Justice.”

“Release of the audio would likely reduce cooperation with the Department of Justice in future investigations and could affect witness responses if they believe that audio of their law enforcement interrogations may be broadcast to Congress and the public,” Garland told lawmakers.

Republican lawmakers cited a number of reasons why the tapes are needed.

Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., said the interview would provide “attitudinal evidence” of Biden’s character.

And Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said the audio data could provide important insights into whether the silence lasted “a minute or two” and whether Biden faltered.

“A transcript may be accurate, but you know what? An audio can tell you so much more,” he said.

Biggs was subsequently criticized by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who said his interest in seeing whether Biden would repeat himself was an attempt to mock the president’s struggles with stuttering.

At various points during the hearing, Garland told lawmakers he had not yet found a legitimate legislative purpose to justify the audio requirement.

“I understand why it would be better to hear the audio rather than listen to the transcript and read it,” Garland said in a more diplomatic exchange with Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R.N.D., during the hearing.

“I still don’t understand the legislative purpose. I don’t believe that listening to the audio changes anything in terms of the legislation that you have in mind…. The elements of the impeachment resolution don’t change with respect to the information in the audio. The words are the same, the transcript is the same as the audio, that’s my explanation,” Garland said.

Both the Oversight and Judiciary committees are in favor of a resolution to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the effort has dragged on because it’s unclear whether Republicans will have the support to pass the resolution by a slim margin.

House Republican leaders have not yet announced when they plan to hold a vote on the issue.