If U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland didn’t lie in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago, then he betrayed a stunning ignorance of how U.S. marshals handled leftist protesters who threatened the lives of U.S. Supreme Court justices after last year’s leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.
After that major breach of SCOTUS security, crazed leftists doxed justices and appeared at their homes to harass and frighten them. The U.S. marshals whom Garland dispatched arrested just one person.
Yesterday, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, we found out why. Marshals were instructed to not arrest the deranged and seething would-be terrorists. That contradicted Garland’s testimony in early March, when he said the lawmen did indeed have the authority to arrest the criminals.
Two Hearings
Those arrests are mandated by federal law; protests outside the home of justices are against the law and punishable by up to one year in prison. In this case, the protesters showed up to scare the justices into changing their decision to overturn 1973’s unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized the mass murder of the unborn.
The one “protester” marshals did arrest showed up at Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with the intent to kill him. He pleaded not guilty.
But that arrest was it. Federal prosecutors charged no one else for their roles in the pro-abortion insurrection.
Weeks ago, GOP Senator Ted Cruz of Texas grilled Garland because federal prosecutors hadn’t charged anyone but Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin.
Repeatedly asked why the Department of Justice hadn’t prosecuted protesters, Garland said he was the first U.S. attorney general to order marshals to protect SCOTUS justices, and that doing so was their main priority.
“The United States marshals know that they have full authority [to make arrests],” Garland said:
Marshals on scene make that determination.… The attorney general does not decide whether to arrest.… The marshals on scene … make the decision of whether to make an arrest.… If they make an arrest, then it goes to the marshals [sic].”
Yesterday, during the appropriations panel hearing, Republican Senator Katie Boyd Britt of Alabama revealed that a guidance instructed marshals to not arrest the protesters. Protecting the justices, the guidance said, “involves a 1st A protected activity.”
Britt read from and showed slides that said “protest is not synonymous with unlawful activity” despite the clear text of the federal statute. As well, arrests were forbidden “unless absolutely necessary.” “Making arrests and initiating prosecutions is not the goal,” the guidance said.
Another slide said the marshals could not use actions to enforce the prohibition on such protests “beyond that which are strictly and immediately necessary and tailored to ensure the physical safety of the Justices and their families.”
Again, despite the law, the guidance restricted arrests to only “criminal threats and intimidation,” and said arrests must be a last resort. And marshals had to consult federal prosecutors before they cuffed one of the would-be terrorists.
When Britt asked Garland about the guidance, he pleaded ignorance.
“I think this is the first time I’ve seen the slide deck,” Garland told Britt. Noting that the marshals’ “principal responsibility is protecting the justices,” Garland said “that doesn’t mean that they are in any way precluded from bringing other kinds of arrests.”
That claim notwithstanding, federal law is clear:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Protests, Threat to Kill
But, again, marshals never arrested a soul, other than Nicholas John Roske, 26. He showed up outside Kavanaugh’s home on June 8 last year with a knife, handgun, pepper spray, and burglary tools.
Roske called the cops as he neared the residence to say he would assassinate the justice. The motive: revenge for the Dobbs decision, which Politico published on May 2 before justices finalized it.
Roske told someone online that “im gonna stop roe v wade from being overturned” and “remove some people from the supreme court.” He also researched how to assassinate someone, including the “most effective place to stab someone.”
Another outfit illegally harassed and intimidated Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic. Ruth Sent Us, so-named for deceased pro-abortion extremist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted a notice on Twitter that doxed Barrett’s kids by revealing the school they attended.
“If you’re in the DC metro area, join us,” the lunatics tweeted. “Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage”:
Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the Board of Directors for. She attends church DAILY.
That tweet appeared eight hours after cops arrested attempted assassin Roske.
H/T: The Washington Times
