The Marxist cult pushes and pushes until the Constitutional Americans
Surrender or have to defend their violence against us until our own is
necessary as a right to self defense of our own liberty and constitutional rights.
The Corral libs are able to celebrate their moral evil. They won everything of power and influence.
Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday held a belated press conference
<https://www.c-span.org/video/?522316-1/attorney-general-garland-approved-ma
r-lago-search-files-motion-unseal-warrant> to explain that he had
personally approved the FBI's raid of Donald Trump's Florida residence to
seize documents deemed U.S. government property.
A clearly agitated and nervous Garland sought to exude confidence in the
raid. He went on to heatedly defend the professionalism and integrity of the
Justice Department and FBI.
But almost immediately after his sermon, the Justice Department and its
affiliates were back to their usual selective leaking ("sources say" . . .
"according to people familiar with the investigation") to liberal
newspapers.
In no time, the Washington Post claimed
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-m
ar-a-lago/> the raid was aimed at finding Trump Administration documents
relating to "nuclear secrets." The now-familiar desired effect was achieved.
"Presidential historian" Michael Beschloss
<> quickly
tweeted a picture of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, noting that in the past
revealing such nuclear secrets had led to the death penalty. Former CIA
Director Michael Hayden, previously known for comparing Trump's border
detention facilities to Auschwitz and falsely claiming the Hunter Biden
laptop was Russian "disinformation," replied
<https://www.yahoo.com/video/sounds-ex-cia-chief-michael-194411070.html> :
"Sounds about right." That is, without any proof, it was legitimate to
imagine that the former president of the United States, like the Rosenbergs,
should be executed for passing nuclear secrets.
So, as intended, the Justice Department and FBI leaks touched off a round of
intended liberal hysteria of the sort we saw during Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian collusion with Trump's 2016
campaign aimed at disguising government misdeeds or overreach.
Sources Tell Us
Despite Garland's pious assertions, we know the modus operandi of selective
leaking from the career of Andrew McCabe. The disgraced former interim FBI
director admitted to lying
<https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/andrew-mccabe-said-he-lied-to-fbi-about-wall-
street-journal-leak/> to federal investigators about his role in leaking to
the Wall Street Journal. And the inspector general found McCabe lied on
several other occasions about his efforts to leak to and massage the media.
At this point, we should assume that "sources tell us" and "according to
unnamed sources" are indications that the sources are Justice Department and
FBI contacts who were given the green light to manipulate the news by their
superiors.
Let's put Garland's decision to approve the raid on Mar-a-Lago in the
context of the past seven years. The Justice Department and FBI in 2016
interfered in a presidential election in two major ways: They exonerated
Hillary Clinton's clearly illegal use of a private server and her
destruction of subpoenaed data. The FBI hired Clinton operative Christopher
Steele as an informant and gave its "Crossfire Hurricane" imprimatur to the
entire Russian collusion hoax
<https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/25/lets-call-the-russian-collusion-hoax-wha
t-it-really-is/> , feeding a 2016 left-wing mantra that Trump was a Russian
"asset."
In 2015, we learned that candidate Hillary Clinton, as Barack Obama's
secretary of state, had emailed classified government materials using her
own private server, likely as a way of skirting Freedom of Information Act
requirements.
In the thick of the 2016 campaign a year later, FBI Director James Comey
reported that Clinton had, in fact, broken the law. Yet he assumed a role of
federal attorney that was not his own, deciding Clinton's wrongdoing should
not lead to an indictment.
In that improper role, Comey, not U.S. attorneys, declined to hold Clinton
accountable. We learned later that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had met
secretly on an airport tarmac ("a brief, casual, social meeting
<https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.ht
ml> ") with Bill Clinton.
Somewhere within this tangle of lies (both said they met only to talk about
their grandchildren, not about whether the Justice Department would charge
Hillary Clinton), we learned: 1) Lynch abdicated her role and simply let
Comey play the role of investigator and prosecutor, and 2) Hillary Clinton
had "bleached" thousands of emails, some of them under federal subpoena, and
destroyed her communication devices and records-all federal felonies.
Trump won the election in 2016, but he never controlled the federal
government. For 22 months, at a cost of $40 million, Robert Mueller
investigated whether Trump had "colluded" with the Russians to take the
White House. Ironically, there was ample evidence to show that Hillary
Clinton may, in fact, have done exactly that.
After all, Clinton worked with the Democratic National Committee, which, in
turn, hired the Perkins Coie legal firm, which hired Fusion GPS, which hired
ex-spy Christopher Steele, who hired Russian disinformation source Igor
Dyachenko, who used Moscow-based former Clintonite Charles Dolan to find
dirt on Trump. Where Dyachenko and Dolan located their false dirt for
Steele, no one knows for certain. Some Russian source is most likely the
culprit.
In the end, the ruse was exposed. But in the process of exposing that
scandal, the Justice Department's inspector general found that FBI lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith had altered an application for a warrant from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court to make it appear Trump campaign volunteer
Carter Page was a Russian agent. (In reality, Page was working with the
CIA.) Clinesmith's FBI superiors had signed off on that fraudulent document
that contained legions of errors.
We learned also that two of the FBI investigators working for Mueller in
2017 were rank partisans and in their amorous exchanges before the 2016
election had texted about how to "stop" Trump amid slanders and slurs about
his candidacy and supporters. Until they were "reassigned," both had played
key roles in investigating Trump.
We also learned that the FBI had "lost" key cell phone data under court
request. We were told that the point man of Mueller's "dream team,"
"all-stars," and "hunter-killer team"-as the Left gushed of the liberal
legal ensemble-former Justice Department attorney Andrew Weismann, before,
during, and after his tenure on Mueller's team was a self-admitted
anti-Trump partisan.
Mueller closed shop in 2019, finding no evidence of collusion, after putting
two years of a presidency under a constant cloud of implied criminality.
Mueller under oath admitted he knew nothing of the Steele dossier or the
role of Fusion GPS in disseminating the fraud. No sane person could believe
Mueller, given that the role of the dossier and Fusion GPS were the two
chief catalysts leading to his own appointment. Was Mueller addled
<https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/24/this-was-the-most-powerful-man-in-americ
a-for-two-years/> or simply not telling the truth?
The Walls Are Forever Closing In
Throughout this sordid nightmare, the FBI and Justice Department routinely
leaked details the left-wing media serially blared were "bombshells" and
evidence that the "walls are closing in.
<> " All assured the public that
Trump and his family would soon be behind bars for their ties to Russia and
sundry other crimes
No one has been held accountable for these lies. James Comey hired the lying
Christopher Steele as an informant. The FBI fired him when they discovered
he kept leaking secret information to his own media friends. When Comey was
finally called to testify by Congress, he swore under oath 245 times that he
had no memory or knowledge of the questions asked.
Comey did admit, however, that after a private one-on-one conversation with
President Trump, he immediately memorialized his version of the confidential
discussion using FBI time and devices. He then acknowledged that he later
leaked his version of events to the media through a third party. The goal
was to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, eventually to be his
friend Robert Mueller. Comey went to great but vain lengths to explain how
leaking a government memo of a confidential presidential conversation, which
was either classified or confidential, was not illegal.
Comey also later bragged publicly how he sent agent Peter Strzok on a
preplanned mission to surprise National Security Advisor Michael Flynn in
hopes of finding Flynn in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that has
never been prosecuted successfully. Nevertheless, the threat of prosecution
was enough to take down a high-profile Trump appointee.
After Comey was rightly fired, his deputy Andrew McCabe assumed control of
the FBI. Again, he lied serially to federal investigators. McCabe oversaw
the notorious email investigation that exonerated Hillary Clinton-at the
very time his wife was running for office in Virginia, aided by funding from
a political action committee with ties to the Clintons. McCabe, remember,
also purportedly discussed wearing a wire stealthily to monitor Trump, in
hopes of recording embarrassing private conversations that would help
convince the cabinet to remove him under the 25th Amendment.
In 2020, the FBI sat on the Hunter Biden laptop and its analysts helped feed
leaks protecting Joe Biden's presidential campaign from otherwise damaging
disclosures.
Some of the laptop's contents, however, were in the public domain prior to
FBI confiscation, and they had variously suggested that Joe Biden and his
family were likely involved in selling influence for sizable sums to foreign
governments. The laptop evidence suggested, additionally, that Hunter Biden
had committed a series of tax, drug, and sex felonies.
Yet somehow, 50 former CIA and other intelligence officials-among them prior
intelligence heads John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, and James
Clapper-believed they had enough knowledge of the laptop on the eve of the
election to assure the country it was "Russian disinformation." Note that
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other senators believe that an FBI agent
and or analyst had deliberately mischaracterized the laptop as
"disinformation" to protect Biden.
Merrick Garland can defend but cannot explain the strange role of the FBI
informants. Aside from the infamous Steele, informants keep reappearing in
almost every sensationalized political event. Twelve of them apparently were
the de facto architects in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen
Whitmer
<https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/30/as-new-trial-looms-justice-department-si
lent-on-whitmer-plot/> .
Their nefarious role is one of the reasons why two of the charged defendants
were acquitted
<https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/12/whitmer-hoax-defendant-we-beat-them-we-g
ot-justice/> and two were not found guilty due to mistrials.
Nor could Garland explain the strange statement from New York Times reporter
Michael Rosenberg: "There were a ton of FBI informants among the people who
attacked the Capitol" on January 6, 2021.
There is also the strange asymmetry of the FBI. It routinely now resorts to
pre-dawn SWAT raids, shackling the legs and hands of elderly men, and
swooping in on would-be targets on the street. Trump associates Peter
Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman have all been confronted by the
FBI, and either arrested, had their offices searched, or had their phones
seized, or all three. But so far only Roger Stone, the target of an FBI SWAT
team-which CNN just happened to be on hand to cover-was charged and
convicted of a crime.
Last week's events at Mar-a-Lago are part of this pattern-raiding the home
of the current Republican presidential frontrunner who would beat Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris if the general election were held today
<https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3582999-trump-beats-biden-harris-in-h
ypothetical-2024-matchup-poll/> .
The FBI: What Not to Do
So, to answer Merrick Garland's scolding, how might the FBI not have lost
the faith of the American people?
It might not have altered documents to ruin the life of an American citizen.
When subpoenas arrived for phone records, it could have submitted them
rather than wipe them clean.
Its directors might not have stonewalled Congress while under oath or lied
to federal investigators or leaked confidential government memos to the
press. The FBI did not have to mislead about the contents of a controversial
laptop. There was no need to hire foreign nationals during a presidential
election to supply dirt on one of the two candidates.
The attorney general did not need to meet secretly with the husband of
someone under FBI investigation. Just as the FBI apparently did not need to
raid Kevin Clinesmith's home to find information about his doctoring of an
email, or to put legs irons on Andrew McCabe for lying to a federal
prosecutor, or to ambush Christopher Steele and grab his cell phone to
ensure he stopped leaking FBI information and lying to the bureau, so too it
had no need of shackling Peter Navarro or publicly seizing the phone of
Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.).
Finally, there are existential threats to the United States on the open
southern border, from cartel drug runners and terrorists to child
traffickers. For 120 days in 2020, Antifa and Black Lives Matter coordinated
violent riots that led to over 35 dead, $2 billion in property damage, and
over 1,500 law enforcement officers injured. A federal courthouse, a police
precinct, and the historic St. James Episcopal Church in Washington were at
various times torched. Rioters attempted to storm the White House grounds
and sent the Secret Service scrambling to a secure bunker with the
president.
All of the above were mostly ignored by the FBI. Yet these and other
violence and illegality posed far more dangers to the American people than
do the worried Virginia parents upset about the critical race theory
indoctrination of their children.
Finally, Garland has failed to explain why he had sought out a particular
federal magistrate to approve the warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago-a magistrate
who earlier had recused himself from another case involving Trump.
Apparently, Magistrate Bruce Reinhart felt that either his own past
partisanship or prior legal work made it impossible for him to remain
unbiased in cases involving the former president-except on the present
occasion to empower the FBI to raid Trump's home.
But again, Garland did give a spirited, almost angry defense of the Justice
Department and FBI. He was in hot denial that they were anything but
professional civil servants. Yet he did not explain why "nuclear secrets,"
long sitting in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago, were suddenly putting the
nation in harm's way in a manner they had not eight or 18 months ago.
That raises the question whether Garland is disingenuous or simply naïve.
After all, the American people have long trusted their FBI. They want to
remain confident in its leadership. Yet it was not the public, but
high-ranking Justice and FBI officials themselves-among them most recently
Merrick Garland himself-who squandered that confidence. And they should now
look inward rather than blast critics for what they have done to themselves
and to the country.
Surrender or have to defend their violence against us until our own is
necessary as a right to self defense of our own liberty and constitutional rights.
The Corral libs are able to celebrate their moral evil. They won everything of power and influence.
Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday held a belated press conference
<https://www.c-span.org/video/?522316-1/attorney-general-garland-approved-ma
r-lago-search-files-motion-unseal-warrant> to explain that he had
personally approved the FBI's raid of Donald Trump's Florida residence to
seize documents deemed U.S. government property.
A clearly agitated and nervous Garland sought to exude confidence in the
raid. He went on to heatedly defend the professionalism and integrity of the
Justice Department and FBI.
But almost immediately after his sermon, the Justice Department and its
affiliates were back to their usual selective leaking ("sources say" . . .
"according to people familiar with the investigation") to liberal
newspapers.
In no time, the Washington Post claimed
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-m
ar-a-lago/> the raid was aimed at finding Trump Administration documents
relating to "nuclear secrets." The now-familiar desired effect was achieved.
"Presidential historian" Michael Beschloss
<> quickly
tweeted a picture of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, noting that in the past
revealing such nuclear secrets had led to the death penalty. Former CIA
Director Michael Hayden, previously known for comparing Trump's border
detention facilities to Auschwitz and falsely claiming the Hunter Biden
laptop was Russian "disinformation," replied
<https://www.yahoo.com/video/sounds-ex-cia-chief-michael-194411070.html> :
"Sounds about right." That is, without any proof, it was legitimate to
imagine that the former president of the United States, like the Rosenbergs,
should be executed for passing nuclear secrets.
So, as intended, the Justice Department and FBI leaks touched off a round of
intended liberal hysteria of the sort we saw during Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian collusion with Trump's 2016
campaign aimed at disguising government misdeeds or overreach.
Sources Tell Us
Despite Garland's pious assertions, we know the modus operandi of selective
leaking from the career of Andrew McCabe. The disgraced former interim FBI
director admitted to lying
<https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/andrew-mccabe-said-he-lied-to-fbi-about-wall-
street-journal-leak/> to federal investigators about his role in leaking to
the Wall Street Journal. And the inspector general found McCabe lied on
several other occasions about his efforts to leak to and massage the media.
At this point, we should assume that "sources tell us" and "according to
unnamed sources" are indications that the sources are Justice Department and
FBI contacts who were given the green light to manipulate the news by their
superiors.
Let's put Garland's decision to approve the raid on Mar-a-Lago in the
context of the past seven years. The Justice Department and FBI in 2016
interfered in a presidential election in two major ways: They exonerated
Hillary Clinton's clearly illegal use of a private server and her
destruction of subpoenaed data. The FBI hired Clinton operative Christopher
Steele as an informant and gave its "Crossfire Hurricane" imprimatur to the
entire Russian collusion hoax
<https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/25/lets-call-the-russian-collusion-hoax-wha
t-it-really-is/> , feeding a 2016 left-wing mantra that Trump was a Russian
"asset."
In 2015, we learned that candidate Hillary Clinton, as Barack Obama's
secretary of state, had emailed classified government materials using her
own private server, likely as a way of skirting Freedom of Information Act
requirements.
In the thick of the 2016 campaign a year later, FBI Director James Comey
reported that Clinton had, in fact, broken the law. Yet he assumed a role of
federal attorney that was not his own, deciding Clinton's wrongdoing should
not lead to an indictment.
In that improper role, Comey, not U.S. attorneys, declined to hold Clinton
accountable. We learned later that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had met
secretly on an airport tarmac ("a brief, casual, social meeting
<https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.ht
ml> ") with Bill Clinton.
Somewhere within this tangle of lies (both said they met only to talk about
their grandchildren, not about whether the Justice Department would charge
Hillary Clinton), we learned: 1) Lynch abdicated her role and simply let
Comey play the role of investigator and prosecutor, and 2) Hillary Clinton
had "bleached" thousands of emails, some of them under federal subpoena, and
destroyed her communication devices and records-all federal felonies.
Trump won the election in 2016, but he never controlled the federal
government. For 22 months, at a cost of $40 million, Robert Mueller
investigated whether Trump had "colluded" with the Russians to take the
White House. Ironically, there was ample evidence to show that Hillary
Clinton may, in fact, have done exactly that.
After all, Clinton worked with the Democratic National Committee, which, in
turn, hired the Perkins Coie legal firm, which hired Fusion GPS, which hired
ex-spy Christopher Steele, who hired Russian disinformation source Igor
Dyachenko, who used Moscow-based former Clintonite Charles Dolan to find
dirt on Trump. Where Dyachenko and Dolan located their false dirt for
Steele, no one knows for certain. Some Russian source is most likely the
culprit.
In the end, the ruse was exposed. But in the process of exposing that
scandal, the Justice Department's inspector general found that FBI lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith had altered an application for a warrant from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court to make it appear Trump campaign volunteer
Carter Page was a Russian agent. (In reality, Page was working with the
CIA.) Clinesmith's FBI superiors had signed off on that fraudulent document
that contained legions of errors.
We learned also that two of the FBI investigators working for Mueller in
2017 were rank partisans and in their amorous exchanges before the 2016
election had texted about how to "stop" Trump amid slanders and slurs about
his candidacy and supporters. Until they were "reassigned," both had played
key roles in investigating Trump.
We also learned that the FBI had "lost" key cell phone data under court
request. We were told that the point man of Mueller's "dream team,"
"all-stars," and "hunter-killer team"-as the Left gushed of the liberal
legal ensemble-former Justice Department attorney Andrew Weismann, before,
during, and after his tenure on Mueller's team was a self-admitted
anti-Trump partisan.
Mueller closed shop in 2019, finding no evidence of collusion, after putting
two years of a presidency under a constant cloud of implied criminality.
Mueller under oath admitted he knew nothing of the Steele dossier or the
role of Fusion GPS in disseminating the fraud. No sane person could believe
Mueller, given that the role of the dossier and Fusion GPS were the two
chief catalysts leading to his own appointment. Was Mueller addled
<https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/24/this-was-the-most-powerful-man-in-americ
a-for-two-years/> or simply not telling the truth?
The Walls Are Forever Closing In
Throughout this sordid nightmare, the FBI and Justice Department routinely
leaked details the left-wing media serially blared were "bombshells" and
evidence that the "walls are closing in.
<> " All assured the public that
Trump and his family would soon be behind bars for their ties to Russia and
sundry other crimes
No one has been held accountable for these lies. James Comey hired the lying
Christopher Steele as an informant. The FBI fired him when they discovered
he kept leaking secret information to his own media friends. When Comey was
finally called to testify by Congress, he swore under oath 245 times that he
had no memory or knowledge of the questions asked.
Comey did admit, however, that after a private one-on-one conversation with
President Trump, he immediately memorialized his version of the confidential
discussion using FBI time and devices. He then acknowledged that he later
leaked his version of events to the media through a third party. The goal
was to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, eventually to be his
friend Robert Mueller. Comey went to great but vain lengths to explain how
leaking a government memo of a confidential presidential conversation, which
was either classified or confidential, was not illegal.
Comey also later bragged publicly how he sent agent Peter Strzok on a
preplanned mission to surprise National Security Advisor Michael Flynn in
hopes of finding Flynn in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that has
never been prosecuted successfully. Nevertheless, the threat of prosecution
was enough to take down a high-profile Trump appointee.
After Comey was rightly fired, his deputy Andrew McCabe assumed control of
the FBI. Again, he lied serially to federal investigators. McCabe oversaw
the notorious email investigation that exonerated Hillary Clinton-at the
very time his wife was running for office in Virginia, aided by funding from
a political action committee with ties to the Clintons. McCabe, remember,
also purportedly discussed wearing a wire stealthily to monitor Trump, in
hopes of recording embarrassing private conversations that would help
convince the cabinet to remove him under the 25th Amendment.
In 2020, the FBI sat on the Hunter Biden laptop and its analysts helped feed
leaks protecting Joe Biden's presidential campaign from otherwise damaging
disclosures.
Some of the laptop's contents, however, were in the public domain prior to
FBI confiscation, and they had variously suggested that Joe Biden and his
family were likely involved in selling influence for sizable sums to foreign
governments. The laptop evidence suggested, additionally, that Hunter Biden
had committed a series of tax, drug, and sex felonies.
Yet somehow, 50 former CIA and other intelligence officials-among them prior
intelligence heads John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, and James
Clapper-believed they had enough knowledge of the laptop on the eve of the
election to assure the country it was "Russian disinformation." Note that
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other senators believe that an FBI agent
and or analyst had deliberately mischaracterized the laptop as
"disinformation" to protect Biden.
Merrick Garland can defend but cannot explain the strange role of the FBI
informants. Aside from the infamous Steele, informants keep reappearing in
almost every sensationalized political event. Twelve of them apparently were
the de facto architects in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen
Whitmer
<https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/30/as-new-trial-looms-justice-department-si
lent-on-whitmer-plot/> .
Their nefarious role is one of the reasons why two of the charged defendants
were acquitted
<https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/12/whitmer-hoax-defendant-we-beat-them-we-g
ot-justice/> and two were not found guilty due to mistrials.
Nor could Garland explain the strange statement from New York Times reporter
Michael Rosenberg: "There were a ton of FBI informants among the people who
attacked the Capitol" on January 6, 2021.
There is also the strange asymmetry of the FBI. It routinely now resorts to
pre-dawn SWAT raids, shackling the legs and hands of elderly men, and
swooping in on would-be targets on the street. Trump associates Peter
Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman have all been confronted by the
FBI, and either arrested, had their offices searched, or had their phones
seized, or all three. But so far only Roger Stone, the target of an FBI SWAT
team-which CNN just happened to be on hand to cover-was charged and
convicted of a crime.
Last week's events at Mar-a-Lago are part of this pattern-raiding the home
of the current Republican presidential frontrunner who would beat Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris if the general election were held today
<https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3582999-trump-beats-biden-harris-in-h
ypothetical-2024-matchup-poll/> .
The FBI: What Not to Do
So, to answer Merrick Garland's scolding, how might the FBI not have lost
the faith of the American people?
It might not have altered documents to ruin the life of an American citizen.
When subpoenas arrived for phone records, it could have submitted them
rather than wipe them clean.
Its directors might not have stonewalled Congress while under oath or lied
to federal investigators or leaked confidential government memos to the
press. The FBI did not have to mislead about the contents of a controversial
laptop. There was no need to hire foreign nationals during a presidential
election to supply dirt on one of the two candidates.
The attorney general did not need to meet secretly with the husband of
someone under FBI investigation. Just as the FBI apparently did not need to
raid Kevin Clinesmith's home to find information about his doctoring of an
email, or to put legs irons on Andrew McCabe for lying to a federal
prosecutor, or to ambush Christopher Steele and grab his cell phone to
ensure he stopped leaking FBI information and lying to the bureau, so too it
had no need of shackling Peter Navarro or publicly seizing the phone of
Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.).
Finally, there are existential threats to the United States on the open
southern border, from cartel drug runners and terrorists to child
traffickers. For 120 days in 2020, Antifa and Black Lives Matter coordinated
violent riots that led to over 35 dead, $2 billion in property damage, and
over 1,500 law enforcement officers injured. A federal courthouse, a police
precinct, and the historic St. James Episcopal Church in Washington were at
various times torched. Rioters attempted to storm the White House grounds
and sent the Secret Service scrambling to a secure bunker with the
president.
All of the above were mostly ignored by the FBI. Yet these and other
violence and illegality posed far more dangers to the American people than
do the worried Virginia parents upset about the critical race theory
indoctrination of their children.
Finally, Garland has failed to explain why he had sought out a particular
federal magistrate to approve the warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago-a magistrate
who earlier had recused himself from another case involving Trump.
Apparently, Magistrate Bruce Reinhart felt that either his own past
partisanship or prior legal work made it impossible for him to remain
unbiased in cases involving the former president-except on the present
occasion to empower the FBI to raid Trump's home.
But again, Garland did give a spirited, almost angry defense of the Justice
Department and FBI. He was in hot denial that they were anything but
professional civil servants. Yet he did not explain why "nuclear secrets,"
long sitting in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago, were suddenly putting the
nation in harm's way in a manner they had not eight or 18 months ago.
That raises the question whether Garland is disingenuous or simply naïve.
After all, the American people have long trusted their FBI. They want to
remain confident in its leadership. Yet it was not the public, but
high-ranking Justice and FBI officials themselves-among them most recently
Merrick Garland himself-who squandered that confidence. And they should now
look inward rather than blast critics for what they have done to themselves
and to the country.
