National security leaders at the Department of Justice and FBI downplayed their role in carrying out Attorney General Merrick Garland’s divisive school board memo, which followed a since-withdrawn letter referring to parent protesters as domestic terrorists.
Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ’s National Security Division, and Jill Sanborn, the executive assistant director of the FBI’s national security branch, testified Tuesday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeming to distance themselves from the controversial Biden DOJ initiative.
Garland’s early October directive was released a few days after the National School Boards Association argued to President Joe Biden that “the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes” and called upon DOJ to review whether the Patriot Act “in regards to domestic terrorism” could be deployed.
EDUCATION SECRETARY MIGUEL CARDONA UNDER FIRE FOR SOLICITING PARENTS-AS-TERRORISTS LETTER
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley told Olsen on Tuesday, “Your division has a very big job keeping track of both domestic terrorism and international terrorism, so I was surprised to see the attorney general think that your division should redirect time from those threats to policing matters of local school boards” and said that the DOJ effort had a “chilling effect on freedom of speech and the freedom to petition your government.”
Grassley asked Olsen what the DOJ national security division was doing related to school boards. Olsen insisted that nothing was deterring DOJ’s focus on combating terrorism but downplayed his efforts related to the memo.
“There has been an increase in violence and threats of violence against individuals who serve in positions of public trust — school board members, teachers, other public officials — and this is a serious concern, and it’s a concern that I share,” Olsen said. “The national security division, for its part, is providing an advisory role supporting the department, making sure that when there may be a case that would rise to the level of one where we have some role to play that we are there to support the rest of the department, but certainly not a particular focus for the national security division nor do I have any anticipation that it would be.”
Olsen also announced the creation of a new “domestic terrorism unit” during testimony focused on the domestic terrorism threat after the Capitol riot.
Garland revealed that DOJ and the White House communicated about the NSBA letter before he issued his memo, and emails from the NSBA showed it was in touch with the White House prior to publishing. NSBA ended up withdrawing and apologizing for the letter.
A newly unearthed email exchange between an NSBA board member and the NSBA’s treasurer claimed that the letter was written in response to “a request by” Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.
Garland wouldn’t distance himself from his memo during Senate Judiciary Committee testimony late last year, arguing the NSBA’s follow-up apology “does not change the association’s concern about violence and threats of violence.”
While Garland’s memo did not mention DOJ’s National Security Division, the accompanying DOJ press release named it, along with the FBI, as part of DOJ’s new task force.
Grassley also asked Sanborn if the FBI’s counterterrorism division was tracking school board cases and if she believed this was improper, and she too downplayed her role.
“I would echo that this is not a particular focus for the counterterrorism division and nothing has changed in our authorities, our policies, or how we go about investing our cases,” Sanborn said. “I would just add to the tagging question that you asked is, first of all, something would have to rise to be either an allegation of violating federal law or had already violated federal law for the FBI to even be involved in investigating that, and the tagging is simply an administrative process to be able to better analyze trends, et cetera.”
House Republicans say an FBI whistleblower email shows the agency is using “counterterrorism tools” to monitor threats against school board members and teachers, which the GOP says conflicts with testimony by Garland.
One email, which was signed by Timothy Langan, the FBI’s assistant director for counterterrorism, said the Counterterrorism Division and Criminal Division had created a “threat tag” for FBI officials to use. The email directs bureau agents to tag threats as “EDUOFFICIALS” and to “attempt to identify” the motivation behind the threat and whether there are “federal violations that can be investigated and charged.”
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley asked Olsen how many personnel in his division were working on concerns tied to Garland’s memo.
“The national security division plays an informal advisory role,” Olsen insisted. “There is no one that is dedicated to that on any sort of full-time or really even part-time basis. I think we’re available to consult with if the facts warrant that level of consultation with the national security division.”
When asked by Hawley, a Missouri Republican, what actions his division had taken to “track parents” at school board meetings, Olsen insisted, “I don’t think we’ve had any particular role or done anything in a particular regard to that effort.” When asked if his DOJ section had coordinated with local officials, Olsen added, “I’ve not heard of anyone in my division having any role.”
Garland said during testimony last year, “I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Democratic Chairman Dick Durbin ended Tuesday’s hearing by saying he believed Olsen was saying “that the ordinary appearance before a school board in a peaceful manner expressing your point of view is not a crime.”
Olsen agreed, saying, “This effort is focused on protecting our public servants from acts of violence and threats of violence.”
