WASHINGTON – Judge Merrick Garland on Monday offered a first glimpse of how he will handle last month’s US Capitol insurrection investigation if he is confirmed as the United States Attorney General, promising to give career prosecutors every opportunity. resources “that they might need” and following everyone leads “wherever they take us”.
Witnessing before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of his confirmation process, Garland called on the efforts of hundreds of supporters of former President Donald Trump to prevent Congress from meeting on January 6 to certify the results of the election of “the attack most hideous to the democracy process that I have ever seen and that I never expected to see in my life. “
More than 230 people have been indicted so far, and the Justice Department is exploring the involvement of hundreds more in a wide-ranging national investigation. Garland – a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the DC Circuit for more than two decades and, before that, a senior Justice Department official – told the committee that understanding what resources prosecutors and the FBI need for the investigation would be your “first priority” and “first briefing” if it is confirmed.
Garland talked about drawing on his experience as a principal prosecutor in the federal investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, not only in response to the attack on the Capitol, but also more broadly in combating the rise of white supremacy. He said there was a line that connected the January uprising to the Oklahoma City bombing and back to “the original Justice Department’s battles against the Ku Klux Klan”.
“We must do everything within the reach of the Department of Justice to avoid this kind of interference in the policies of American democratic institutions and I plan, if you confirm me as Attorney General, do everything in my power to ensure that we are protected, – said Garland.
Garland’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday was the hearing he never had in 2016, after former President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court. The top Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, refused to follow up on his nomination, arguing that the vacancy should be kept open until after that fall’s presidential election. Senator Chuck Grassley, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2016 and is the top Republican now that Democrats control the Senate, began his comments on Monday by defending the decision not to hold a hearing five years ago, but saying that he now gave the judge a “warm welcome” and described him as a “good choice” for the attorney general.
One of the big unresolved questions is whether former President Donald Trump or Trump’s allies involved in urging people to oppose Congressional certification of the election can face criminal prosecution; some defendants blamed the ex-president, saying they were following his instructions when he said to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell”.
Asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whether he would follow the “upstream” investigation for “funders, organizers, leaders or helpers and accomplices” of the January 6 violence, Garland said in general that he would apply this approach, but did not specifically commit to investigate any particular person.
“We start with people on the ground and work to reach those who are involved and even more involved, and we will look for those leads wherever they take us. This is the job of a prosecutor, ”said Garland.
Garland spoke several times about the desire to ensure that prosecutors and the FBI have the resources they need to proceed with the investigation. Union prosecutor in Washington, DC, Michael Sherwin, publicly rejected a report last month that prosecutors were considering not charging some people to conserve resources, saying there is no “labor problem”. When Senator Lindsey Graham asked Garland to inform the Judiciary Committee if the DOJ needed more resources, Garland replied that he was “looking forward” to having that conversation with senators.
Several Republican members of the committee demonstrated last year in Portland, Oregon, which involved violent nightly clashes between protesters and police around the federal court. Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican who graduated from the committee, asked Garland to commit to continuing that investigation, as well as that of the Capitol insurrection. Senator Josh Hawley – who raised his fist to encourage Trump supporters gathered in front of the Capitol on January 6, just hours before a crowd broke into the building – asked Garland if attacks on federal courts like what happened in Portland were acts of domestic extremism or domestic terrorism.
Hawley did not explicitly say that he was comparing what happened in Portland to the uprising, but Garland’s response made it clear that this was what he thought Hawley was doing. Garland said violence against a court is a “serious” crime that should be punished, but said it would draw a line between an attack on federal property and an attack that aims to prevent judges from hearing cases.
“Both are criminals, but one is the main attack on our democratic institutions,” said Garland.
Garland also invoked the insurrection when Hawley asked him during a separate conversation if Garland supported defunding police departments. Garland said that he, like Biden, did not know.
“We saw how difficult it was for cops to live in the videos of the body camera we saw when they were defending Capitol,” he said.
The attack on the Capitol revived Congress’ efforts to pass a law creating new categories of federal crimes for domestic terrorism. Garland refused to take a position on this. As a candidate, President Joe Biden expressed support for a new domestic terrorism law “that respects freedom of expression and civil liberties”. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have spoken out against it, arguing that, even if it was motivated now by the desire to eradicate white supremacy, any effort to give police authorities more vigilance and prosecution would end up harming communities of color.
Garland said he would need to find out whether existing federal criminal laws provide prosecutors with sufficient tools to respond to these types of cases before taking a stand on the new legislation. He noted that prosecutors were able to successfully prosecute other domestic terrorists in the past under existing laws, including Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in connection with the Oklahoma City bombing.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced plans to create an independent commission to investigate the insurrection, similar to the commission that Congress created after 9/11. Senator Chris Coons asked Garland if he would support him. Garland said he believed the 9/11 commission was useful and that Congress had the authority to do something similar again, but asked that any parallel investigation not “interfere” with the department’s ability to process – for example, revealing ongoing operations, revealing sources or soliciting the testimony of people in a way that complicates the Department of Justice’s ability to prosecute them.
Garland must clear the Senate Judiciary Committee without any problems and obtain confirmation when his nomination is for the final Senate-wide vote. One of the only times Republican members of the committee expressed hesitation about Garland on Monday was when they asked about their commitment to retain John Durham, a special attorney appointed by former Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate how the FBI and the Department de Justice handled the investigation into the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 elections. Trump and the Republicans frequently attacked this investigation as being politically motivated; reviews by the DOJ inspector general’s office identified flaws in how officers conducted the investigation in the beginning, but also did not support Trump’s allegations of a politically biased and pervasive “witch hunt”.
Garland said he saw “no reason” to end Durham’s work, but he did not believe it was appropriate to take a concrete position without understanding all the facts and the progress of the investigation.