When the Congress uses its power of the purse, Merrick Garland writes an op-ed saying “the attacks on the Justice Department must end”

Garland insists “the attacks on the Justice Department must end.”

The Washington Post allows Merrick Garland to play the part of a petulant schoolboy who would rather throw a fit instead of playing by the rules set for everyone else.

In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal and dangerous.

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund particular department investigations, most recently the special counsel’s prosecution of the former president.

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the Justice Department.

They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the FBI’s law enforcement operations that increase the risks faced by our agents.

They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out.

They come in the form of false claims that the department is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of an election. Such claims are often made by those who are themselves attempting to politicize the department’s work to influence the outcome of an election.

(Read the whole blather and misdirection at the Washington Post)

The swamp finds a way to circle its wagons: The DOJ circulates a memo saying Garland cannot be prosecuted for contempt over Biden-Hur audio.

The Hill defends the Department of “Justice” in its attempt to protect its swampy denizens.

An internal Justice Department (DOJ) memo argued Attorney General Merrick Garland would be protected from prosecution for contempt of Congress given President Biden’s assertion of executive privilege over audio tapes Republicans have sought by subpoena.

The 57-page memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), obtained by The Hill, lays out the case for Garland’s refusal to turn over the audio of Biden’s conversation with special counsel Robert Hur. The GOP already has a transcript of the interview.

The OLC, which operates as a legal adviser for the department, wrote that no administration official has been prosecuted for failing to comply with a subpoena when the president has claimed executive privilege.

(Read more defense of the socialist regime at The Hill)

So, where was the Department of “Justice” defense of Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon?

Is this just a club for crooked lawyers (like Eric Holder, who shielded Barack Obama from exposure resulting in his envolvement in the Fast and Furious gun running scheme and Merrick Garland, who now keeps Congress from seeing that the Hur transcripts of the Biden interview were heavily edited)?

How far does executive privilege extend? Does it go so far as to shield Biden from his own dementia?

As this case progresses, we will see.

…

Meanwhile, Steve Bannon finds himself ordered to prison while he challenges his conviction for defying the bogus “January 6 Committee” stacked by Nancy Pelosi

Politico predictably wades deep into the swamp in order to defend the likes of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and attack Steve Bannon.

A federal judge has ordered Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, to report to prison by July 1 for his conviction for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, previously paused Bannon’s four-month sentence while he appealed his conviction. But on Thursday, Nichols ruled that the original reasons for the postponement no longer apply because a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled strongly and unanimously last month against Bannon’s position.

Bannon intends to continue appealing the case to the full bench of the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court. But unless one of those courts steps in to block Nichols’ decision, Bannon is unlikely to be able to stave off prison in the meantime.

If Bannon indeed heads to prison on July 1, it would put him behind bars until just before the November election. In addition to keeping Bannon — who hosts a popular far-right podcast — off the air for a crucial stretch of the election cycle, Nichols’ decision would also effectively pardon-proof Bannon’s jail sentence. (Trump pardoned Bannon on the final day of his presidency on federal fraud charges.)

(Read more at Politico)

This, of course, mirrors the treatment of Peter Navarro

Neither of these cases should have resulted in jail time for members of President Trump’s administration.

In fact, nothing that the January 6 Committee did should be taken seriously, since they had to hire a videographer to manipulate the images in order to make their baseless case.

…

As proof of the dictatorial tendencies within the DOJ, memos show the FBI vetting an employee over his support ror Trump and the Second Amendment.

The Daily Wire details the way that the FBI singled out an employee for having conservative leanings by digging into his support for both President Trump and our Second Amendment rights.

An employee of the FBI had his security clearance revoked after the bureau investigated his support for former President Donald Trump and opposition to COVID vaccines, according to a complaint made public on Monday after it was recently filed against the Justice Department. 

The complaint, sent to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz by the government watchdog group Empower Oversight, claims that an FBI employee was punished by the bureau over his politically conservative views. According to documents included in the complaint, the FBI interviewed people familiar with the employee about his stances on Trump, COVID, and January 6. 

The FBI’s Security Division conducted the probe, referred to in the complaint as SecD. The investigation into the 12-year FBI employee was launched after he self-reported that he had been present in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. The employee’s name was redacted from the copy of the complaint made visible to the public. 

According to the filing, the employee, who was on personal leave, peacefully observed the protests near the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In April 2022, the employee had his security clearance revoked, and he was suspended without pay after the FBI investigated his political viewpoints. 

“I write today to formally disclose to you on our client’s behalf shocking documents in SecD’s investigative file that evidence an abuse of authority and a violation of our client’s rights under the First Amendment,” Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt wrote. “The documents appear to demonstrate SecD’s political bias and abuse of the security clearance process to purge the FBI of employees who expressed disfavored political views or concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine requirement.”

The Security Division asked those familiar with the employee multiple questions, including whether he had vocalized “support for President Trump,” vocalized “objection to Covid-19 vaccination,” and discussed “intent to attend 01/06/2021.”

Notes from interviewees told the FBI that the employee was a “gun nut” who attended a Second Amendment rally in Virginia but that he had not promoted violence. 

On the Trump questions, it was noted that the employee “very significantly supported” Trump and “would listen to talk shows. Trump did not lose. Dems stole it. Militant point of view. Never implied would do anything aggressive/physical.”

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

If you think this is justice, show me a supporter of Stacey Abrams who lost their job for maintaining that the election was stolen from her.

All I have to say is that the Democrats have one standard for themselves and another for everyone else.

…