A top Republican says the goal behind his recent flurry of document requests to the Justice Department and FBI is to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland to rescind his controversial school boards memo, which relied upon a since-withdrawn National School Boards Association letter likening protesting parents to domestic terrorists.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has fired off letter after letter to DOJ elements over the past couple of weeks, calling on them to hand over details about how they have carried out Garland’s early October directive.
The attorney general revealed last month that the DOJ and the White House communicated about the September NSBA letter just before he issued his memo, with the NSBA letter urging the DOJ to look into deploying the Patriot Act. Garland’s memo directed the FBI “to convene meetings” with law enforcement “in each federal judicial district” to help “open dedicated lines of communication” for threat reporting.
“We want the memo rescinded,” Jordan told the Washington Examiner in a recent interview. “I think the only appropriate thing, the only fair thing, the only smart thing, the only logical thing, whatever words you want, is for Merrick Garland to say, ‘We are not charging these 94 U.S. attorney districts and the U.S. attorneys to work with law enforcement there to set up these dedicated lines of threat reporting’ — these snitch lines.”
HOUSE GOP DEMANDS DETAILS FROM GARLAND AND FBI ON SCHOOL MEMO
Jordan sent a letter last week signed by himself and 18 fellow Republicans to FBI Director Christopher Wray, writing, “This unusual directive is particularly worrisome as it applies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation given the FBI’s illegal spying on the Trump campaign and its scandalous history of misconduct and politicization.” Garland previously testified to the House that “FBI agents will not be attending local school board meetings.”
While Garland’s memo did not mention the National Security Division, the accompanying press release did, naming it as part of DOJ’s new task force. House Republicans have asked it to provide details. They sent letters to all 93 U.S. attorneys as well.
“So, rescind that. Stop that. That is so authoritarian, big government — coming down on parents, moms, and dads — it’s just ridiculous and wrong,” Jordan said.
Republicans further demanded the NSBA hand over its communications with the White House, charging the parties with “collusion” to prompt the DOJ to involve itself in local school controversies. Emails from the NSBA showed its leadership was in touch with the White House about its letter prior to publication.
“My theory of the case is this was all coordinated from the get-go,” Jordan said.
Internal emails showed NSBA board members objected to sending the letter to Joe Biden, and the school boards group withdrew and apologized for the letter the day after Garland’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in late October. In addition, several state chapters under the NSBA quit in outrage over the letter.
Garland wouldn’t distance himself from his memo during Senate Judiciary Committee testimony last month, arguing that the NSBA’s follow-up apology “does not change the association’s concern about violence and threats of violence.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Republican senators and congressmen, along with parent groups and various activists, have questioned whether Garland has a conflict of interest because his daughter’s husband, Xan Tanner, co-founded Panorama Education, an education company.
Garland repeatedly dodged whether he had sought an ethics review related to his controversial DOJ school boards memo and his connections to his son-in-law’s company during testimony last month.
“I think that’s worth looking into. I don’t see it as a primary motivation. I think the primary motivation was politics, and it was about chilling the speech, restricting the speech, limiting the speech of moms and dads,” Jordan said. “Now, I do think there’s an obvious potential real connection there that is worthy of exploration, but my gut tells me that the main focus was this was politics. … But yeah, is there the added benefit of helping his family? It sure looks that way, and it probably should be investigated.”
