Nevertheless, in his congressional testimony, Garland expressed bafflement that anyone could suppose he was somehow responsible for the actions of a subordinate who followed his orders to a tee. Garland’s posture was, in essence, don’t blame me for some obscure prosecutor in flyover country who went off the reservation. In reality, it was a high-ranking prosecutor who answers to Garland and who diligently executed Garland’s plan.
Garland can’t bring himself to admit that, because the Montana letter is appalling. It summarizes a dozen offenses that could trigger federal investigations. For the most part, they are inapposite. The state law-enforcement officials to whom the letter was sent already know that if threats of violence are communicated through the U.S. mail or across state lines, there are potential federal crimes. That is not the situation they are dealing with.
In the main, Education Inc., a Democratic powerhouse, is grousing about parents who attend school-board meetings to protest against the marination of their children in gender radicalism, critical race theory, anti-Americanism, Marxism, and anti-religious bigotry. Overwhelmingly, the parents are not committing crimes, much less federal crimes. But how inventive of the Justice Department to suggest that, if parents are protesting a bit too vehemently for Education Inc.’s comfort, the FBI and federal prosecutors could seek warrants or convene grand juries to read their mail or scour their email correspondence — you know, just to make sure they’re not the next Timothy McVeigh.