A FEW MOMENTS AGO, SENATOR TOM COTTON OF THE GREAT STATE OF ARKANSAS LIT UP THE ROOM. WATCH THIS. >> LET’S TURN TO YOUR OUTRAGEOUS DIRECTIVE SICKING THE FEDS ON PARENTS AT SCHOOL BOARDS ACROSS AMERICA. WHEN YOU CRAFTED THAT OCTOBER 4 MEMO, DID YOU CONSULT WITH SENIOR LEADER AT AT THE FBI?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE MEMO OR THE IDEA OF THE MEMO HAD BEEN DISCUSSED. >> ANYONE AT THE FBI EXPRESS ANY DOUBT OR DISAGREEMENT OR HESITATION WITH YOUR DECISION TO ISSUE THAT MEMO? >> NO ONE EXPRESSED THAT TO ME. >> NO ONE? >> TO ME, NO ONE EXPRESSED THAT TO ME, NO.
>> A LOT OF THEM HAVE CONTACTED US AND SAID THEY DID. >> I’M SORRY? >> A LOT OF FBI CONTACTED ME AND SAID THAT THEY OPPOSED THIS DECISION. >> I DOUBT THEY SPOKE TO ME ABOUT IT. I DIDN’T SPEAK TO ANY ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. JUDGE, YOU’VE REPEATEDLY DISSEMBLED THIS MORNING ABOUT
THAT DIRECTIVE. FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION. CHUCK GRASSLEY ASKED YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION WHY YOU’D WOULD YOU SICK THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ON PARENTS. JOHN CORNYN ASKED YOU THE SAME THING. YOU SAID IT WASN’T IN YOUR OCTOBER 4 MEMORANDUM. IT WAS IN A PRESS RELEASE FROM
YOUR OFFICE HERE IN FRONT OF ME. YOU WERE GOING TO CREDIT A TASK FORCE THAT INCLUDES THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION. WHAT ON EARTH DO THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION HAVE TO DO WITH PARENTS EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENTS AT SCHOOL BOARDS? >> NOTHING IN THIS MEMORANDUM OR ANY MEMORANDUM IS ABOUT PARENTS EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENTS WITH
THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS. THE MEMORANDUM MAKES CLEAR THAT PARENTS ARE ENTITLED AND PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO HAVE VIGOROUS DEBATES. WE DON’T — THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT QUESTION AT ALL. >> OKAY. SO EVEN IN THAT CASE, WHAT IS THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, JUDGE? THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE CHASING JIHADISTS AND CHINESE SPIES. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PARENTS AT SCHOOL BOARDS? >> THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS AT SCHOOL BOARDS. IT’S ABOUT THREATS OF VIOLENCE. >> LET ME TURN TO THAT BECAUSE YOU’VE SAID THAT PHRASE REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THE MORNING. THREATS — VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE.
WE’VE HEARD IT A DOZEN TIMES THIS MORNING. AS SENATOR LEE POINTED OUT, THE VERY FIRST LINE IN YOUR OCTOBER 4 MEMORANDUM REFERS TO HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION. WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO TELL THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THREATS AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE WHEN YOU’RE MEMO SAYS HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION?
>> I SAID IT INVOLVES OTHER TYPES OF DUCT. THE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF THOSE TERMS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF THOSE TERMS INVOLVE THREATS SOLVE VIOLENCE. >> LET’S LOOK AT THOSE STATUTES. SECTION 223. THAT STATUTE COVERS THE USE OF NOT JUST TELEPHONES BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES TO ANNOY SOMEONE.
SO ARE YOU GOING TO SOCIAL THE FBI ON A PARENT’S GROUP IF THEY POST ON FACEBOOK SOMETHING — >> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. THE PROVISION THAT I WAS PARTICULARLY DRAWING TO HIS ATTENTION WAS 2261 A, WHICH WAS TO ENGAGE — >> I WASN’T TALKING ABOUT 2261 A. YOU MENTION 2213.
THAT’S WHAT I MENTIONED. YOU ALSO TOLD SENATOR KLOBUCHAR THAT THIS MEMORANDUM WAS ABOUT MEETINGS AND COORDINATION. WHAT I HAVE IN MY HAND HERE THAT I’LL SUBMIT TO THE RECORD, A LETTER FROM ONE OF YOUR U.S. ATTORNEYS TO ALL OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS, TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO ALL SHERIFFS, TO THE
SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION OF THIS STATE IN WHICH HE TALKS ABOUT FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION. IT’S NOT ABOUT MEETINGS. IT’S ABOUT FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION. DID YOU DIRECT YOUR U.S. ATTORNEYS TO ISSUE SUCH A LETTER? >> I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT LETTER. >> IT’S THREE PAGES. THREE PAGES OF SPREADSHEET ABOUT
THE FEDERAL CRIMES THAT A PARENT COULD BE CHARGED WITH TO INCLUDE THE ONES YOU CITED. THE MAIN JUSTICE MAKE THIS SPREADSHEET, JUDGE? >> I DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA. MY MEMORANDUM SPEAKS ABOUT SETTING UP MEETINGS. CONVENE MEETINGS — >> JUDGE, WE’VE ALL READ YOUR MEMORANDUM. WE HEARD YOU DISSEMBLE ABOUT YOUR MEMORANDUM.
I HAVE SHOWED ONE OF YOUR U.S. ATTORNEYS SENDING OUT A LETTER ABOUT FEDERAL PROSECUTION INVESTIGATION AND LISTS IN DETAIL THE FEDERAL STATUTES. YOU TALKED A LOT ABOUT INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT. HAVE YOU ISSUED A MEMORANDUM LIKE YOUR OCTOBER 4 MEDIUM RANDOM ABOUT BLACK LIVES MATTERS RIOTS? >> IN THE SUMMER OF 2020 —
>> A LOT OF CRIMES COMMITTED. >> THEY WERE UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. >> WHAT ABOUT THIS? IT’S NO DOUBT — EVEN THOUGH PARENTS AT SCHOOL BOARDS AREN’T WITHIN FEDERAL JURISDICTION, THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT FEDERAL OFFICIALS ARE. YOU KEEP SAYING SENATORS. HAVE YOU STATED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HARASSMENT OF KYRSTEN
SINEMA IN A BATHROOM BECAUSE SHE WON’T GO ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S BIG TAX AND SPEND AGENDA? THAT IS A SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR BEING HARASSED IN A BATHROOM. >> I DON’T KNOW IF THE SENATOR HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OR NOT. >> YOU’VE CITED AS A BASIS FOR
THAT DIRECTIVE THE NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION’S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 29. WAS THAT DIRECTIVE BEING PREPARED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 29, BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION LETTER WAS ISSUED? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >> OKAY. THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. >> I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. >> YOU KEEP CITING THE SCHOOL BOARD LETTER AND NEWS REPORTS.
ONE OF THE NEWS REPORTS THAT YOU MEAN IS FROM LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA. >> THAT’S NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. >> YOU KEEP CITING NEWS REPORTS. THAT’S THE MOST PROMINENT NEWS REPORT THAT ANYONE IN AMERICA HAS SEEN. THAT REFERS TO SCOTT SMITH WHOSE 15-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS RAPED.
SHE WAS RAPED IN A BATHROOM BY A BOY WEARING GIRL’S CLOTHS. THE LOUDOUN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD COVERED IT UP BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE INTERFERED WITH THEIR TRANSGENDER POLICY DURING PRIDE MONTH. THAT MAN, SCOTT SMITH, BECAUSE HE WENT TO A SCHOOL BOARD AND TRIED TO DEFEND HIS DAUGHTER’S RIGHTS WAS CONDEMNED.
DO YOU APOLOGIZE TO SCOTT SMITH AND HIS 15-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, JUDGE? >> SENATOR, ANYONE WHO’S CHILD WAS RAPED IS THE MOST HORRIFIC CRIME I CAN IMAGINE AND WAS ENTITLED AND PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROTEST TO THEIR SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THIS. >> HE WAS CITED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION AS A DOMESTIC
TERRORIST. WE KNOW THAT LETTER AND THOSE REPORTS WERE THE BASIS — >> NO, SENATOR THAT IS WRONG. >> THIS IS SHAMEFUL. THIS TESTIMONY, YOUR DIRECTIVE, YOUR PERFORMANCE IS SHAMEFUL. >> THAT’S NOT — >> THANK GOD YOU’RE NOT ON THE SUPREME COURT. YOU SHOULD RESIGN IN DISGRACE, JUDGE. Z. >> GENERAL GARLAND —
>> I’M NOT SURE THERE WAS A QUESTION THERE. THE NEWS REPORTS I’M TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT THE NEWS REPORTS IN THAT LETTER. THERE WERE OTHER NEWS REPORTS THAT EVERYBODY HERE HAS HEARD ABOUT, SUBSEQUENT REPORTS THAT EVERYBODY HAS HEARD ABOUT. THERE’S NOTHING IN THIS MEMORANDUM AND I WISH IF SENATORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS THEY WOULD QUOTE MY WORDS. THIS MEMORANDUM IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS BEING ABLE TO OBJECT IN THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS. THEY’RE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AS LONG AS THERE’S NO THREATS OF VIOLENCE, THEY ARE COMPLETELY PROTECTED. SO PARENTS WITH OBJECT TO THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS ABOUT CURRICULUM, ABOUT THE TREATMENTS OF THEIR
CHILDREN, ABOUT SCHOOL POLICY, ALL OF THAT IS 100% PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THERE’S NOTHING IN THIS MEMORANDUM
