![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Capitol_Breach_Subpoenas_00174.jpg-07895_c0-204-4887-3053_s885x516.jpg\")
Photo by: Julio Cortez
In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. A House committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection is moving swiftly to hold at least one of Donald Trumps allies, former White House aide Steve Bannon, in contempt. That’s happening as the former president is pushing back on the probe in a new lawsuit. (AP Photo\/Julio Cortez)<\/p><\/div>\n
Merrick Garland<\/a>\u2018s memo about angry parents at\u00a0school board<\/a>\u00a0meetings was a flashpoint in\u00a0his<\/a>\u00a0appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, with Republicans accusing the attorney general of chilling time-honored dissent in communities grappling with issues such as critical race theory and mask mandates.<\/p>\n Conservative lawmakers repeatedly pressured Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0about why\u00a0he<\/a>\u00a0issued the Oct. 4 memo, which directed the\u00a0FBI<\/a>\u00a0to investigate a \u201cdisturbing spike\u201d in threats of violence, harassment and intimidation against school officials. They also accused\u00a0him<\/a>\u00a0of having a conflict of interest because\u00a0his<\/a>\u00a0son-in-law leads an education firm that markets curricula related to critical race theory.<\/p>\n Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, noted that Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a> issued the directive just five days after the National School Boards Association requested help from President Biden to quell stormy meetings across the country. The lawmaker called it \u201ca snitch line on parents \u2026 who object to some racist, hate-America curriculum.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf that\u2019s not political, I don\u2019t know what is,\u201d Mr. Jordan told the attorney general. \u201cAmericans are afraid. They tell me, for the first time, they fear their government. I think your memo \u2026 was the last straw. It was the catalyst for a great awakening that is just getting started. Americans are pushing back because Americans value freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n The attorney general said the sources for his finding of a \u201cdisturbing spike\u201d in threats were primarily the NSBA letter and news reports.<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0repeatedly told lawmakers that\u00a0his<\/a>\u00a0memo addressed threats of violence and actual violence, not free speech.\u00a0He<\/a>\u00a0said the Justice Department \u201csupports and defends the First Amendment rights of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in schools.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words \u2018domestic terrorism\u2019 or \u2018Patriot Act,\u2019\u201d Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0said. \u201cI can\u2019t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstance of parents\u2019 complaint about their children.\u201d<\/p>\n He<\/a>\u00a0said\u00a0FBI<\/a>\u00a0agents won\u2019t be attending\u00a0school board<\/a>\u00a0meetings and that\u00a0his<\/a>\u00a0memo was intended to foster cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.<\/p>\n On other hot-button issues, Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0fared little better.\u00a0He<\/a> seemed to struggle to respond to questioning by Rep. Tom McClintock, California Republican, about the Justice Department\u2019s role in enforcing immigration judges\u2019 orders. The department oversees immigration judges.<\/p>\n Trump White House adviser and immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller tweeted that it was a \u201cstunning exchange.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cGarland<\/a>\u00a0refused to say that illegals who skipped court hearings should be found & deported and seemed scarily clueless about the fact that Biden\u2019s DHS has barred ICE officers from doing so,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0deflected Democrats\u2019 questions on whether\u00a0his<\/a>\u00a0department would pursue former President Donald Trump for suspected legal violations. He also dodged a question from Rep. Ken Buck, Colorado Republican, on whether he would appoint a special counsel to investigate\u00a0Hunter Biden<\/a>\u2018s high-priced art sales. The attorney general said he would take it \u201cunder advisement.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe Department of Justice has a long-standing policy of not commenting on investigations,\u201d Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0said. \u201cI\u2019m going to have to rest on that.\u201d<\/p>\n Democrats also zeroed in on voting rights, prosecution of hate crimes and investigations into the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0said the Justice Department \u201chas undertaken an extraordinary effort to ensure that the perpetrators of criminal acts on Jan. 6 are held accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n The attorney general called the attack on the Capitol \u201can intolerable assault, not only on the Capitol and the brave law enforcement personnel who sought to protect it, but also on a fundamental element of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power.\u201d<\/p>\n Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, told Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0that the Jan. 6 attack is part of a \u201cgrowth in extremist ideology [that] is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers,\u00a0school board<\/a>\u00a0members and election workers.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a broader pattern here. In each of these cases \u2014 former President Trump\u2019s big lie, the rise in hate crimes against citizens of Asian descent, and the growing threats of violence against public servants \u2014 the same set of individuals have leveraged the same sorts of misinformation, stoked the same sorts of grievances and shown remarkably little interest in solving our problems,\u201d Mr. Nadler said in his opening statement.<\/p>\n Republicans steered the hearing time and again to Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u2018s memo about\u00a0school board<\/a>\u00a0meetings.<\/p>\n Under questioning by Rep. Chip Roy, Texas Republican, Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0said\u00a0he<\/a>\u00a0was unaware of a high-profile rape case in the Loudoun County, Virginia, school system that led to one heated school board meeting.<\/p>\n \u201cThis sounds like a state case, and I\u2019m not familiar with it. \u2026 I don\u2019t know any of the facts of this case,\u201d Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0told the lawmaker. \u201cNo, I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitute domestic terrorism. It\u2019s not even a close question.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Roy said later on social media, \u201cIt defies logic that the Attorney General of the United States, having issued a memorandum targeting parents at school boards, is unaware of the absolute travesty of Loudoun County and the treatment of Scott Smith [the father of the girl who said she was raped] in advance of a radical, woke, leftist agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican, said it was \u201cdeeply disturbing\u201d that the White House chose to \u201csic\u201d Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0on parents.<\/p>\n \u201cNot in a million years did we dream that one day we\u2019d see the Justice Department treat parents as domestic terrorists,\u201d Mr. Chabot said. \u201cParents speaking up at a\u00a0school board<\/a>\u00a0meeting \u2026 is clearly a First Amendment activity. \u2026 These parents have every right to be heard, even if former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe [a candidate for governor again this year] thinks otherwise. We don\u2019t need you, your Justice Department and the\u00a0FBI<\/a>\u00a0trampling on the rights of American parents who just want the best possible education for their children.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0rejected accusations by Rep. Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, that he has a conflict of interest with his son-in-law\u2019s work for an education firm that pushes school curricula related to critical race theory.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are no conflicts of interest that anyone could have,\u201d Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0testified.<\/p>\n Mr. Johnson noted that Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u2018s son-in-law, Xan Tanner, co-founded Panorama Education, which he said has pushed ideas related to critical race theory and provided services to school districts across the country. The relationship has raised questions about how much Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u2018s family could benefit from a crackdown on protests against school boards.<\/p>\n \u201cThe very basis of [parents\u2019] objection is the curricula that your son-in-law is selling,\u201d Mr. Johnson told the attorney general. \u201cWhy wouldn\u2019t you submit to a simple ethics review? You are not respecting our rules. \u2026 This is a great concern.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Johnson said federal regulations require ethics reviews in cases where officials\u2019 actions could benefit his family, \u201cand your son-in-law clearly meets that definition.\u201d The lawmaker said the issue is \u201cworthy of investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0replied, \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in this [Oct. 4] memorandum on the kinds of curriculum that are taught. This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence.\u201d<\/p>\n Asked again whether\u00a0he<\/a>\u00a0sought ethics guidance before issuing the memo, Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>\u00a0replied, \u201cThis memorandum was not related to the financial interests of anyone. This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t get to make that decision yourself,\u201d Mr. Johnson said. \u201cYour impartiality is being called into question.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI am exquisitely aware of the ethics requirements,\u201d said Mr.\u00a0Garland<\/a>, a former federal judge.<\/p>\n \u201cBut you\u2019re not following them,\u201d Mr. Johnson responded.<\/p>\n Central to critical race theory is the idea that U.S. laws and institutions are inherently racist and that Whites still oppress Blacks and other people of color more than 150 years after the end of slavery and decades after advances of the civil rights movement.<\/p>\n Many Republican lawmakers say this school of thought is spreading dangerously through American classrooms, workplaces and government offices. It grew out of a field called critical legal theory, which took root in the 1970s, according to the American Bar Association.<\/p>\n