Law Merrick Garland: Antifa Attacks On Hatfield Courthouse Were Not 'Domestic Terrorism' - Terrorists Only Work From 9-5

Amidst numerous questions on domestic extremism and the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, attorney general nominee Merrick Garland was asked by Republican Senators on Monday about protests in Portland and if “assaults on federal property” constituted domestic terrorism.

“Let me ask you about assaults on federal property in places other than Washington, D.C. Portland, for instance,” Missouri Senator Josh Hawley said. “Do you regard assaults on federal courthouses or other federal properties as acts of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism?”

Garland said his personal view on the matter lined up with the statutory definition of terrorism.

“My own definition, which is about the same as the statutory definition, is the use of violence or threats of violence in an attempt to disrupt democratic processes,” Garland replied. “So an attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism.”

But Garland drew a distinction between an attack on a government property at night and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“Both are criminal but one is a core attack on our democratic institutions,” Garland added.

Garland appeared Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he vowed to prioritize combating extremist violence and depoliticizing the Justice Department. He said his first focus, if confirmed as attorney general, would be the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Soon after Sen. Hawley finished questioning Garland, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham again returned the focus to Portland.

“Do you promise to defend the Portland courthouse against anarchists?” Graham asked.

Garland repeated that attacking or damaging a federal building is a crime and anyone who does so will be prosecuted.

Garland is widely expected to sail through his confirmation process with bipartisan support.
Click to expand...
archive.is

Republicans question Merrick Garland on Portland protests during conf…

archived 23 Feb 2021 04:05:34 UTC
archive.is archive.is
 
  • Informative
  • Dislike
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, albert chan, Vyse Inglebard and 3 others
Click to expand...
>“My own definition, which is about the same as the statutory definition, is the use of violence or threats of violence in an attempt to disrupt democratic processes,” Garland replied. “So an attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism.”
Terrorism is for any political purpose, not just to 'disrupt democratic processes'. The actual fuck?

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Literally the google definition. Can I be attorney general now? I think the VP and I will get along well since I also want to throw all the niggers in jail.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Luck Skeleton, Bethesda's Todd Howard, Shield Breaker and 23 others
ShortBusDriver said:
He's the anti gun nutbag that we thankfully kept off the Supreme Court

It really doesn't matter who Biden picks to be AG they're going to a shill for the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people hated Obama, but I had a bigger problem with Holder.

Looks like the Dems are going to continue my streak of having beef with the AG more than their President.


TowinKarz said:
"It's okay if we do it" now DOJ policy... groovy....
Click to expand...

Always was; hundreds if not thousands of CP was found on DoJ computers under Obama's boy Holder. Guess how many got sent out to pasture for it.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, albert chan, Vyse Inglebard and 10 others
Garland you dumb fuck, your definition is only partially related to one of the three elements that make up the intent part of terrorism.
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and
Click to expand...

If throwing molotov cocktails and improvised explosives into court houses and police stations while screaming demands isn't "intended to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction," what is?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, albert chan, Vyse Inglebard and 10 others
So Timothy McVeigh wasn't a domestic terrorist, right? Nothing in that federal building but a bunch of paper-pushers, the democratic process was uninterrupted.

EDIT:
mr.moon1488 said:
Lol guess 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack then since it didn't happen during an election :story:
Click to expand...
There was actually a primary election held in New York City on 9/11. But it went on regardless, so I think we can chalk this up as non-terrorist.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, albert chan, Vyse Inglebard and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back