AG Nominee Garland Waffles on Whether
Illegal Border Crossing Should Remain a Crime
Epoch Times,
by
Tom Ozimek
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
2/23/2021 2:56:25 PM
President Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland, gave an evasive answer during his Senate confirmation hearing Monday to the question of whether illegal border crossings should continue to be treated as a crime.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Garland during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing whether unlawful border crossings into the United States “should remain a crime.”
Garland replied by saying he had not “thought about that question.” (Snip)Garland, a federal appellate judge and former prosecutor, is widely expected to win Senate confirmation. He has said he plans to prioritize civil rights and combating domestic terrorism if confirmed.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Italiano 2/23/2021 2:59:20 PM (No. 705893)
He's just pathetic. A joke.
The joke is on America, unfortunately. What a nightmare we're living.
24 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Proud Texan 2/23/2021 3:00:58 PM (No. 705896)
Illegal border crossing is a crime by definition. The question is; "How big a criminal will we have for an AG?"
19 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 2/23/2021 3:03:04 PM (No. 705898)
An appellate judge who doesn't know what a crime is or is he lying.
13 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Enoch Powell 2/23/2021 3:10:41 PM (No. 705901)
He is a towering legal scholar, obviously. Perhaps he is even more brilliant than “wing man” Eric Holder. He has announced he will try to prosecute his political opponents so no doubt dems will vote to confirm.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ThreeBadCats3 2/23/2021 3:11:40 PM (No. 705904)
Biden is playing spin the wheel, or spin the bottle to pick his top representatives.
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 2/23/2021 3:15:04 PM (No. 705908)
He hasn’t THOUGHT about it? What’s to think about? It’s illegal!
This is the best guy Biden can come up with?
13 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
montwoodcliff 2/23/2021 3:15:21 PM (No. 705909)
It was a simple yes or no question about crossing the border. This guy is not to be trusted. He is Eric Holder II! He is no moderate like the media tries to portray him and he would be a disaster as AG. Thank our lucky stars that the Republican Senate back in 2015 cited the Biden Rule in not considering him for the Supreme Court. I would say that politically he is left of Mao Tse Tung or Zedong or whatever.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
marbles 2/23/2021 3:31:50 PM (No. 705924)
Discussing whether a crime is a crime...... from his graduate work at the Bill Clinton school of etymology.
7 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
john56 2/23/2021 3:39:23 PM (No. 705926)
Well, that's a relief. He's "waffling" about it.
I kinda expected that he'd say it wasn't a crime outright.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
starboard 2/23/2021 3:53:41 PM (No. 705936)
Not only was he not prepared and didn't come across well, he possess the vitriolic attitude of an Eric Holder, which is probably a good thing.
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
natpock1 2/23/2021 3:56:42 PM (No. 705941)
Gee and to think he could have been on the Supreme Court with a lifetime appointment, maybe with that much time he could figure out what a crime is.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
skacmar 2/23/2021 4:34:40 PM (No. 705961)
Gee, I guess we wouldn't want an Attorney General who knew that he knew that his job was to enforce the laws as written and not as he wishes they were. The good things about written laws is they are black and white. They are yes and no. For the most part, something is illegal, or it is not. If there is a law saying that it is illegal to come across the border at a place other than a designated border crossing, then it is illegal. Merrick Garland's hesitation in answering shows that he clearly does not understand what his job would be. REPUBLICANS SHOULD JUST VOTE NO ON MERRICK GARLAND for Attorney General. They need to make their displeasure known about Biden's poor choices for his Cabinet.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
snapper451 2/23/2021 4:45:07 PM (No. 705974)
Perhaps a better question for Garland would have been: "...do you subscribe and believe in the rule of law..."? A follow up would be: "...should we expect the DOJ to pick and choose which laws to enforce and not enforce from your DOJ if you are confirmed..."?
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
MDConservative 2/23/2021 4:49:06 PM (No. 705981)
Never thought about it...what a pathetic excuse. If I were a United States Senator, not a partisan hack, on that alone, I'd vote "No!" The party hack vote will get his nomination to the floor...and what will Mitch do? I'm sure the US Chamber has given him a call already...Mitcvh doesn't know what a crime is anymore, either.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
smokincol 2/23/2021 4:59:29 PM (No. 706007)
did he have fried chicken with his waffles? oh, that's right fried chicken and waffles is a black brothers and sisters meal, any liberal wouldn't be caught dead eating black man's food. liberals only like enslaving our black brothers and sisters, not respecting them as human beings.
0 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Historybuff 2/23/2021 5:02:06 PM (No. 706009)
Hey Garland - what countries DON'T consider it a crime?
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Buzzman 2/23/2021 5:10:48 PM (No. 706019)
How cute. A lawyer and judge who doesn't understand what a law means. We are now a lawless society.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
red1066 2/23/2021 5:13:57 PM (No. 706023)
Did this guy even go to law school?
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
dst4life 2/23/2021 5:22:58 PM (No. 706041)
Garland isn't answering because his plan as to what classifies as a crime will evolve with time. He is a "tabula rasa" like Heels Up. When she gets into the White House, she and Garland will collaborate working on her "final solution" for Christians.
2 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
bighambone 2/23/2021 5:57:15 PM (No. 706079)
That essentially “open borders” statement by Judge Garland, along with the numerous statements by the Democrats that a provision (loophole) in the US asylum laws requires the US Government to allow unlimited numbers of aliens from all over the world into the USA if the aliens say that they wish to pursue their asylum claims in the US courts, a process that takes years in most individual cases, will ensure that the illegal alien population in the USA will continue to increase exponentially and unimpeded.
Under those circumstances there is nothing to keep any foreign country from loading up ships with their surplus population groups and sailing them to US ports with the intention that each individual alien, in unlimited numbers, will be filing applications for asylum in the USA. China alone could send over 12 million Uighur Muslim people from China on ships with the US Government allowing them all into the USA to file for asylum, after all the Democrats are claiming that US asylum law requires that. And China is just one country, with other such countries having surplus population groups numbering into the billions of poor, uneducated, unskilled, and socialist oriented people who would love to get into the USA.
Obviously the leftist and liberal Democrats don’t care about the disruption to US society that their “open borders” schemes are going to cause. As the Democrat objective is to grant a “pathway to citizenship” amnesty and US voting rights to every illegal alien they can find, to overwhelm the current “deplorable” majority in the USA by permanently changing future US voting demographics to their great favor using a conglomeration of tens of millions of foreign origin peoples who would fit into one of the Democrat future minority group categories and likely to become reliable Democrat voters in the future. If the USA is transformed into another Bangladesh, the Democrats could care less as long as they retain one party political control.
0 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Geoman 2/23/2021 6:36:09 PM (No. 706141)
He's a democrat, so it all depends on what the meaning of "illegal" is.
3 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
stablemoney 2/23/2021 6:45:20 PM (No. 706151)
Garland don't think it "is a crime", so will enforce any such laws.
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
jinx 2/23/2021 6:46:55 PM (No. 706152)
Garland must be pretty dumb to be that ignorant about the questions he is being asked. Even I, who is not a lawyer or politician, could answer the questions with knowledge of the subject. He really is not very impressive.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Is there anything this guy knows anything about?