With Guns Drawn
-
And Cotton gets his licks in...
Link to video -
And the "Aw, shucks" style of Kennedy, where he nicely tells Garland he's a liar...
Link to video -
Ah, here it is...
Link to video@Jolly said in With Guns Drawn:
Ah, here it is...
Link to videoIn Senate testimony Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland insulted our intelligence. In response to questions by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas), he acknowledged that no protesters had been arrested for demonstrating outside the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that doing so is against federal criminal law. Yet he claimed that the decision on whether to commence criminal proceedings had been up to the United States Marshals Service — an agency within the Justice Department.
It should go without saying that the attorney general runs the Justice Department and guides the activities of its component agencies, including the Marshals Service. It should also be obvious enough that the marshals’ main jobs are to provide security for judges, courthouses, and some other federal personnel and facilities, and to apprehend fugitives. They do not do much criminal investigation. Criminal investigations are mainly handled by the FBI and other DOJ agencies that specialize in specific crime categories (e.g., the DEA handles drug-trafficking probes). Those investigations evolve into prosecutions when those agencies work in conjunction with Justice Department prosecutors.
Garland knows what he told the Senate is rubbish. Federal prosecution rarely involves crimes witnessed by law-enforcement agents who then make arrests on the scene. (That scenario is more common in local policing — but even there, most crime is reported to cops who then investigate, not witnessed by cops who make instantaneous arrests.) In the vast majority of federal cases, evidence of criminal activity is reported to agents. Based on leads from witnesses, the agents conduct follow-up investigation. When they have amassed enough evidence, they seek an arrest warrant and make an arrest — very often days, weeks, or even months after the criminal conduct occurred. Moreover, as Senator Cruz pointed out in questioning Garland, it is the Justice Department prosecutors who make the charging decision, not the federal investigative agencies.
An obvious example of this is the Capitol-riot prosecutions. Most of the over 900 cases that have been brought in connection with the riot resulted from exhaustive reviews by investigators (principally, the FBI) of tens of thousands of hours of video collected from innumerable sources, including people who made amateur recordings on January 6, 2021. The agents have also scoured telephone records (including cell-tower surveillance) and social-media platforms. If they identify even a nonviolent protester who was seen in a restricted zone on January 6, agents will travel across the country to find him and drag him back to Washington for a trial, even if the conduct in question was not only trivial but actually encouraged by police.
The FBI and other agencies are performing this arduous work at the behest of the Biden Justice Department. Prosecutors have made it clear, in light of the obvious political dimensions of the Capitol riot, that they will bring charges the Justice Department ordinarily would never bring, even against first offenders, and even for such misdemeanor crimes as parading and unlawful presence in a prohibited area — precisely the kinds of crimes the Justice Department, under Garland’s guidance, has refused to prosecute in connection with the protests at the justices’ homes.
The protesters were easily identifiable. The demonstrations at the justices’ homes were on television day after day. They were the subject of numerous amateur video recordings, just like the Capitol riot had been. The Justice Department did not need the marshals to make arrests on the spot in order to charge the lawbreakers. No charges were brought because the Biden administration encouraged the protesters’ aims and their illegal methods.
Lacking the courage of his convictions, Attorney General Garland would now have you believe that the United States Marshals Service, the most unlikely of Justice Department agencies, made the call — as if a low-level deputy marshal would have dared make an arrest on the scene when it could not have been made clearer that the Biden administration supported the protests as long as there was no physical violence. That’s a pathetic display of cowardice. It’s not that Garland could not prosecute; it’s that Garland would not prosecute.
-
@Jolly said in With Guns Drawn:
Ah, here it is...
Link to videoIn Senate testimony Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland insulted our intelligence. In response to questions by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas), he acknowledged that no protesters had been arrested for demonstrating outside the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that doing so is against federal criminal law. Yet he claimed that the decision on whether to commence criminal proceedings had been up to the United States Marshals Service — an agency within the Justice Department.
It should go without saying that the attorney general runs the Justice Department and guides the activities of its component agencies, including the Marshals Service. It should also be obvious enough that the marshals’ main jobs are to provide security for judges, courthouses, and some other federal personnel and facilities, and to apprehend fugitives. They do not do much criminal investigation. Criminal investigations are mainly handled by the FBI and other DOJ agencies that specialize in specific crime categories (e.g., the DEA handles drug-trafficking probes). Those investigations evolve into prosecutions when those agencies work in conjunction with Justice Department prosecutors.
Garland knows what he told the Senate is rubbish. Federal prosecution rarely involves crimes witnessed by law-enforcement agents who then make arrests on the scene. (That scenario is more common in local policing — but even there, most crime is reported to cops who then investigate, not witnessed by cops who make instantaneous arrests.) In the vast majority of federal cases, evidence of criminal activity is reported to agents. Based on leads from witnesses, the agents conduct follow-up investigation. When they have amassed enough evidence, they seek an arrest warrant and make an arrest — very often days, weeks, or even months after the criminal conduct occurred. Moreover, as Senator Cruz pointed out in questioning Garland, it is the Justice Department prosecutors who make the charging decision, not the federal investigative agencies.
An obvious example of this is the Capitol-riot prosecutions. Most of the over 900 cases that have been brought in connection with the riot resulted from exhaustive reviews by investigators (principally, the FBI) of tens of thousands of hours of video collected from innumerable sources, including people who made amateur recordings on January 6, 2021. The agents have also scoured telephone records (including cell-tower surveillance) and social-media platforms. If they identify even a nonviolent protester who was seen in a restricted zone on January 6, agents will travel across the country to find him and drag him back to Washington for a trial, even if the conduct in question was not only trivial but actually encouraged by police.
The FBI and other agencies are performing this arduous work at the behest of the Biden Justice Department. Prosecutors have made it clear, in light of the obvious political dimensions of the Capitol riot, that they will bring charges the Justice Department ordinarily would never bring, even against first offenders, and even for such misdemeanor crimes as parading and unlawful presence in a prohibited area — precisely the kinds of crimes the Justice Department, under Garland’s guidance, has refused to prosecute in connection with the protests at the justices’ homes.
The protesters were easily identifiable. The demonstrations at the justices’ homes were on television day after day. They were the subject of numerous amateur video recordings, just like the Capitol riot had been. The Justice Department did not need the marshals to make arrests on the spot in order to charge the lawbreakers. No charges were brought because the Biden administration encouraged the protesters’ aims and their illegal methods.
Lacking the courage of his convictions, Attorney General Garland would now have you believe that the United States Marshals Service, the most unlikely of Justice Department agencies, made the call — as if a low-level deputy marshal would have dared make an arrest on the scene when it could not have been made clearer that the Biden administration supported the protests as long as there was no physical violence. That’s a pathetic display of cowardice. It’s not that Garland could not prosecute; it’s that Garland would not prosecute.
@George-K said in With Guns Drawn:
The FBI and other agencies are performing this arduous work at the behest of the Biden Justice Department. Prosecutors have made it clear, in light of the obvious political dimensions of the Capitol riot, that they will bring charges the Justice Department ordinarily would never bring, even against first offenders, and even for such misdemeanor crimes as parading and unlawful presence in a prohibited area — precisely the kinds of crimes the Justice Department, under Garland’s guidance, has refused to prosecute in connection with the protests at the justices’ homes.
Thank God this political hack never made it to SCOTUS.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Don’t forget that they can’t catch the guys firebombing Pro-Life Centers because they happen at night and in the dark…
-
@George-K said in With Guns Drawn:
The FBI and other agencies are performing this arduous work at the behest of the Biden Justice Department. Prosecutors have made it clear, in light of the obvious political dimensions of the Capitol riot, that they will bring charges the Justice Department ordinarily would never bring, even against first offenders, and even for such misdemeanor crimes as parading and unlawful presence in a prohibited area — precisely the kinds of crimes the Justice Department, under Garland’s guidance, has refused to prosecute in connection with the protests at the justices’ homes.
Thank God this political hack never made it to SCOTUS.
@Jolly said in With Guns Drawn:
@George-K said in With Guns Drawn:
The FBI and other agencies are performing this arduous work at the behest of the Biden Justice Department. Prosecutors have made it clear, in light of the obvious political dimensions of the Capitol riot, that they will bring charges the Justice Department ordinarily would never bring, even against first offenders, and even for such misdemeanor crimes as parading and unlawful presence in a prohibited area — precisely the kinds of crimes the Justice Department, under Garland’s guidance, has refused to prosecute in connection with the protests at the justices’ homes.
Thank God this political hack never made it to SCOTUS.
Too bad political hackery is a feature rather than a bug, to the Democrats.
It's of the choicest oblivious tribalism, when typical lefties view the conservative judges as the ones consumed by ideology over constitution. I don't think there are any people in the country more hated by the left, than the "conservative" SCOTUS justices. Of course, "conservative" just means, not completely ideologically captured by leftist pop culture.
-
G George K referenced this topic on
-
Mark Houck, Family Sue Biden DOJ for ‘Malicious and Retaliatory Prosecution’
Pro-life activist Mark Houck and his wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, are suing the federal Department of Justice over the DOJ’s treatment of their family, accusing the DOJ of a “faulty” investigation that led to an excessively forceful arrest and a “malicious and retaliatory prosecution” that has severely impacted their entire family.
Houck is a Catholic father of seven who was arrested and charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act by President Joe Biden’s administration. A jury found him not guilty of the federal charges in January, and he announced in August that he is running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District.
The DOJ’s FACE Act charges stemmed from a 2021 incident outside a Philadelphia-based Planned Parenthood where Houck pushed an abortion clinic volunteer who was repeatedly harassing his son, Mark Jr. Local authorities ultimately dismissed the matter—until the Biden DOJ re-upped it in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Mark and Ryan-Marie Houck believe they were targeted by the Biden DOJ in an effort to intimidate, silence, and scare the family for their pro-life work—praying outside abortion clinics for the women headed inside to abort their unborn babies...
He added: “Mark and his wife have valid and critical claims against the government that raided their house and pointed guns at them and their screaming children. Mark, his wife, and their seven children have been devastated by this horrific event, which should never have happened if not for the bigotry of our compromised DOJ.”
-
What say our more liberal contingent?
-
@Jolly said in With Guns Drawn:
What say our more liberal contingent?
Assuming the way they're describing it is what happened, then I hope he wins
