Archive for the ‘Eric Holder’ Category

OP ED: Collins, Nossel part of problem, not solution The Bowdoin Orient – The Bowdoin Orient

Kyra Tan

Two weeks ago, President Rose announced a series of speakers who will each discuss an aspect of American democracy in light of the January 6 Capitol insurrection. While the series is laudable, Bowdoin has invited two figures who offer right-of-center opinions or votes that most Bowdoin students should consider problematic. In particular, the College has invited senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), but no corresponding Democratic-leaning politician (senator Angus King (I-Maine), again?) to discuss these recent events. In addition, the series next speaker, Suzanne Nossel, is a staunch opponent of what is often called cancel culture and has misconstrued the intentions and actions of its proponents, who are simply holding individuals responsible for their words, opinions and actions. The College has brought in some fantastic speakers this year, particularly Senator King, Eric Holder and DeRay McKesson 07, but I am disappointed by the invitation of these specific individuals for this series.

Collins, who said we need to get to know people who arent just like us and called for hearing opposing ideas at a 2016 talk at Bowdoin, has herself been avoiding voters who disagree with her, as she has not held a town hall in over 20 years. Collins, despite being the Republican senator who broke with Trump most often, has received significant criticism for her votes on federal justices and the Trump tax cuts and exhibits a level of hypocrisy that exemplifies the poor state of our political system, the subject of her talk.

Collins called the FBI investigation on the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh very thorough, despite the failure to interview key witnesses and indications that the White House prevented a further investigation of perjury by Kavanaugh. She refused to support impeachment after President Trump asked for a Ukranian investigation of the Bidens and opposes the use of reconciliation for a new stimulus package despite voting for the Bush tax cuts, passed through reconciliation, after the Bush administration fired the Senate parliamentarian for his rulings on reconciliation. Still, as long as the often-evasive Collins is willing to take questions from students, this talk is a fantastic opportunity to hold her accountable for her past votes and statements, even if that is not Bowdoins intended purpose.

Nossel, meanwhile, is a Federalist Society (best known as a breeding ground for conservative justices) contributor who has criticized what she labels as cancel culture in op-eds and her recent book, Dare to Speak: Defining Free Speech for All. Nossel claims that cancel culture causes individuals to fear anything they say can and will be used against them by the places they depend on for education, employment and political representation. Nossel admits there are times when content is too vitriolic, bigoted, deceitful or misleading to be shared online, but seems to misunderstand, or willfully ignore, the part of cancel culture in which individuals face consequences for actions or speech that may be discriminatory or downright hurtful to certain groups of people.

The idea that individuals should not face consequences for their speech or opinions is laughably absurd. Newspapers, like the Bowdoin Orient itself, have the right to hire and fire journalists and columnists as they see fit and to publish other submissions in the same manner. In her 2020 resignation letter to the New York Times, former op-ed staff editor Bari Weiss described constant bullying by colleagues who pushed for her removal, but has since appeared on The View, published an op-ed on fighting back against woke culture in the New York Post, one of the most-read papers in the country, and operates a Substack titled common sense. Weiss, for all her talk about this New McCarthyism, is doing just fine.

There is also the question of community association in addition to perceived restrictions on speech. Workplaces and campus communities, as two examples, are ultimately collectives of individuals who make their own decisions about who they want to engage with. Interviewers consider the cultural fit of job applicants, so surely employers should care about the impact of a persons beliefs on their colleagues and customers. These groups are not some oppressive power about to crush vocal dissidents, but communities that care about the wellbeing of their members. Individuals who refuse to respect and validate their peers and colleagues, and who refuse to learn from those experiences, are capable of creating much more damage than any benefits from diversity of thought. Nobody should be cancelled for anything less extreme, but to suggest that we must engage with hostile and malicious people is just as constraining as any perceived censorship. I look forward to Collins and Nossels talks, but they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Michael Borecki is a member of the Class of 2021.

Original post:
OP ED: Collins, Nossel part of problem, not solution The Bowdoin Orient - The Bowdoin Orient

Letter From The Editor: Welcome to Crypto – Decrypt

We all see it, right? Cryptocurrency is having a moment again.

It last had a mainstream moment in late 2017, followed by the infamous crash in 2018. But that was, in hindsight, mostly mania and hype.

This time looks different, and dare I say more mature and more enduring. This time it's Joe Main Street and Wall Street buying in. The current run has been driven by institutions, but not just investment firms. Square, MicroStrategy, and Tesla loaded up. Notable hedge fund heads changed their public tune on crypto.

But Bitcoin hasn't changed. The perceptions merely changed, as former skeptics decided it's time to reexamine crypto. The narratives changed, and crypto is an industry driven by narratives. (Remember when big banks were all talking up "blockchain without Bitcoin?") The pandemic created a perfect storm for crypto adoption, as bullish narratives converged with a retail investor revolution.

And people have a lot of questions. Is Bitcoin really a form of currency, or merely digital gold? Is crypto mining bad for the environment? What's the deal with these wild auction prices for digital collectibles (NFTs)?

Decrypt is here to answer all your questions. We are here for people at every level of crypto understanding, whether you're starting from zero (see: What is crypto?) or you're deep down the rabbit hole of DeFi investing, yield farming, and staking.

We cover daily crypto news for the folks that live and breathe this stuff (and lately, there's a flood of daily news, from Tether and Bitfinex settling in New York to Coinbase preparing to go public); we answer specific questions we keep hearing from newbies (Why does Coinbase have 3 different apps?); and we present handy explainers in our excellent Learn section.

I first wrote about Bitcoin in 2011 at Fortune. Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Joe Manchin (VA) had written a letter of concern to then-Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to look into Bitcoin after Gawker (R.I.P.) ran an expos on Silk Road, which used Bitcoin as its form of payment.

Since then, regulation has become a buzzy topic in the crypto industry, but has developed at a snail's paceas regulation does. Multiple government agencies, including the SEC, CFTC, and IRS, all appear to want some jurisdiction over crypto regulation. There's also a fascinating push-and-pull between the Wall Street types who welcome more regulation, and the original Bitcoin true believers who were attracted to the space specifically because it wasn't regulated and was outside of government reach.

And since then, media coverage of crypto has evolved. Legacy media outlets have assigned more reporters to the crypto beat, new crypto news outlets have launched, and existing crypto news outlets are staffing up.

But the crypto news space has two pervasive problems: too many of the articles are written in an insidery, jargon-filled tone aimed at those who are already experts; and too many writers in the space are shills for the coins they cover.

We aim to be your go-to place for clear-eyed, discerning coverage of crypto: the good, the bad, and the baffling.

Decrypt made some hiring moves in February. I joined as its new Editor-in-Chief, after a decade of covering crypto and sports business at Fortune and then Yahoo Finance. (Fun fact: I collaborated with Decrypt on an investigative story about the SEC's quiet crackdown on ICOs back in 2018, not knowing I'd come join the site three years later.) Jeff John Roberts (no relation!), formerly of Fortune and GigaOm before that, joined as our Executive Editor; his recently published book about Coinbase, Kings of Crypto,makes him the leading expert on the red-hot company. (If you ask Jeff, Coinbase is the next Facebook. Really.) Alanna Roazzi-Laforet, a former Cond Nast digital sales exec, became our publisher. Matt Hussey, another co-founder and our former Editor-in-Chief, is now heading up the sales side. We join the existing excellent Decrypt team.

To call out just a few of Decrypt's recent engaging features: read Adriana Hamacher on what happened when a digital artist made $900,000 from buyers who thought they were buying Banksy pieces; Scott Chipolina on the man who put up Bitcoin billboards in every U.S. city with a Federal Reserve Bank; Tim Copeland's nuanced analysis of Elon Musk's public journey toward Bitcoin understanding; and Jeff Benson's examination of Janet Yellen's (bearish) comments about Bitcoin.

We're bringing on big guests: see our extensive new video interview with Mark Cuban, who talks DeFi and his obsession with NFTs; listen to NBA star Spencer Dinwiddie on our Decrypt Daily podcast; and read our interview with Miami Mayor Francisco Suarez, who told us he's planning to personally buy some coins. We've got more big interviews to come.

We're also actively participating in the industry we cover with our reader token, which rewards you for reading and learning with Decrypt. The token has been in an invite-only beta, but will very soon open to the pubic for our first "season," sponsored by Filecoin. Just download our beautiful mobile app. It's our hope that we can help spur the advent of Web3, when tokenization reduces the friction of paying for digital news content. And make sure you subscribe to our daily email newsletter.

To the 4.6 million people who came to Decrypt in February: Thank you, and buckle up, because it's all likely to get even crazier. And to all the newly curious: Welcome to crypto.

Read more:
Letter From The Editor: Welcome to Crypto - Decrypt

Alabama’s 1st Black Congresswoman on the Sacrifices of the Elder Generation – NBC10 Boston

For the entire month of February, NBC will showcase essays about Black Americans who pioneered change in United States history during the Civil Rights Movement that led to nationwide desegregation. Pioneers include those who led local efforts to desegregate schools, professionals who forged ahead to become luminaries within their industries, and advocates who stoked the wave of change head-on in the nation's bid for racial justice and equality.

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, Feb. 15, 2015.

I know that the journey I'm now on was only made possible because others made those sacrifices and took a journey.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, the first Black woman elected to Alabamas congressional delegation, reminds herself daily that her personal success is not her birthright; rather, that it was made possible only as a result of the blood, sweat and tears poured out by the women, men and children who came before her.

Sewell represents Alabamas 7th Congressional District, the focal point of numerous notable civil rights events in the 1960s. She thinks often about a tragedy that occurred just two years before her birth.

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, talks about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing by the Ku Klux Klan that killed four young girls, and how they were finally recognized for their sacrifice fifty years later.

It was Sunday morning, Sept. 15, 1963, a day that began like any other for parishioners of Birminghams 16th Street Baptist Church. It was the citys largest Black parish, and a hub of civil rights activism where leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Fred Shuttlesworth rallied the community. On this particular morning, 400 congregants had gathered to attend service.

Shortly before 10:30 a.m., a box containing more than a dozen sticks of dynamitedetonatedbeneath the church steps. Twenty-two churchgoers were wounded, but most poignantly, the lives of four young girls attending Sunday school were cut short.

The Four Spirits statue in Birminghams Kelly Ingram Park memorializes the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins and Cynthia Wesley.

The murder of Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley, aged 11 to 14,shook the nation. But it wasnt until 2013 50 years after the Ku Klux Klan bombing that the victims were officially acknowledged for their sacrifice with what Sewell described as, "the highest civilian honor that Congress can bestow upon anyone."

Sewell was the sponsor of a bill thatposthumously awardeda Congressional Gold Medal to the girls, an action that came as the result of a sense of personal duty.

"I am a direct beneficiary of the [civil rights] movement. I know that I drink deep from wells that I did not dig," Sewell said. "I get to walk the halls of Congress today, because Addie Mae, Denise, Carole and Cynthia cannot [...] I walk in their shoes."

"The four little girls are a symbolic representation an embodiment of the promise of America, and their loss of life is a lost opportunity. [...] We, who have been beneficiaries, must make every effort to live up to the promise that their loss of life symbolizes."

Barack Obama designates the Congressional Gold Medal to commemorate the four young girls killed during the 1963 bombing of 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, as Birmingham Mayor William Bell, Dr. Sharon Malone Holder, Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Terri Sewell, Thelma Pippen McNair, Lisa McNair and Dianne Braddock look on May 24, 2013, in Washington, D.C.

Since becoming a congresswoman, Sewell has sought to make good on that promise, dedicating herself to elevating public awareness of the four Birmingham girls and other pioneers and milestones that helped forge new achievements in civil rights.

The year 2020 marked the 55th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," a day of violence in which peaceful marchers were assaulted on their journey from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. They marched in defiance of the policies that kept them separate, but not necessarily equal, and above all else, protested for their right to vote.

Sewell again worked to honor those who opened doors for future generations of people of color. She mobilized fellow lawmakers and secured unanimous passage of a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the "foot soldiers" who "were so brave to be brutally beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge."

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, talks about the figures and events of the Civil Rights era that have become the foundation for Black success in the United States, including her own as the first Black Congresswoman for Alabama.

"We have tofind strengthin the fact that there were, in ageneration aheadof us, folks that didnt just complain, but they nonviolently organized and protested. [...] Its a testament to the enduring nature of our American values that are so enshrined in the Constitution," Sewell said.

It is the persistence and sacrifice of Selmas marchers and Birminghams four young "heroines," Sewell said, that make it possible for her to hold the keys to an office on Capitol Hill.

She contemplates that reality each day, and is encouraged and committed to ensuring that yesterdays sacrifices continue to create new opportunities for tomorrows youth: "We cannot rest on our laurels. We have to build upon [the sacrifices of others] and run our leg of the race with as much gusto ... empowered and emblazoned by the fortitude and bravery of those that came before us."

We cannot rest on our laurels. We have to build upon [the sacrifices of others] and run our leg of the race with as much gusto... empowered and emblazoned by the fortitude and bravery of those that came before us.

Comcast NBCUniversals Voices of the Civil Rights Movement platform honors the legacy and impact of Americas civil rights champions. Watch more than 17 hours of firsthand accounts and historical moments, online and on Xfinity On Demand.

Content owned and funded by Comcast NBCUniversal, parent company of this station.

The rest is here:
Alabama's 1st Black Congresswoman on the Sacrifices of the Elder Generation - NBC10 Boston

It Was Garlands Hearingbut Women of Color Were on Trial – The Nation

Judge Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden's pick to be attorney general, answers questions from Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Monday, February 22, 2021. (J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo)

Merrick Garland is going to be confirmed as the next attorney general. Hes a white man who hasnt sent mean tweets to Republican lawmakers, which should make him palatable enough for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Hes even likely to pick up some Republican votes: Hes an eminently qualified lawyer with an affable and inoffensive nature. The dude even got choked up during his hearing when speaking about how the country welcomed his grandparents from Europe, protecting them from anti-Semitism, and explained that being the attorney general would be the highest, best use of his skills to pay the country back. After finishing a pointed line of questioning, Republican senator and faux-folksy Rhodes Scholar John Kennedy let slip, I think youll make a fine attorney general before he cut his mic.

Hes getting confirmed. I tend to think of the attorney general as the most important cabinet appointment (come at me, State Department bros), and Biden nominated a guy who will be confirmed in a bipartisan walk. Its a victory for the new administration, but its a victory that rests on the banality of whiteness. Garlands status as a white man seems to be insulating him from the thing Republicans really want to do, which is to make it difficult for people of color to be in charge of the law.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, even members of the Sedition Caucus, didnt have anything they could use to poke holes in Garlands flawless rsum or anodyne public profile. So instead, they directed their attacks at the two women of color Biden has nominated to join Garland at the Justice Department: Vanita Gupta (nominated as associate attorney general) and Kristen Clarke (nominated to head the Civil Rights Division).

Senator Mike Lee did most of the hatchet work at the hearing. He asked Garland about statements attributed to Gupta and Clarke in the past: For Gupta, it was over her opposition to the confirmation of alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh; for Clarke, he had to go all the way back to her college career to drum up allegations of anti-Semitism and find an article she published that Republicans claim advocated for the superiority of the Black race over white people.

Lee didnt have any heat for Lisa Monaco, who has been nominated to be deputy attorney general, but is white.

It has become de rigueur for Republicans to allege or imply that Black civil rights activists, like Clarke, are secretly anti-Semitic. Clarke was the head of a campus organization at Harvard that invited Tony Martin, an anti-Semitic author, to speak out against Charles Murrays The Bell Curve. Clarke was 19 at the time, and she has said she made a mistake.

Perhaps if Clarke had tried to rape Martin, instead of inviting him as a speaker, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee would accept her apology for her youthful error. As it is, accusing Black people of anti-Semitism is just what they do now, while ignoring the actual anti-Semites in their party who march and commit hate crimes and come up with limericks about replacement theory.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

For Gupta, Republicans are trying to run the same game that appears to have successfully blocked Neera Tanden: That brown girl was mean to me.

Garland, to his credit, forcefully defended both women from Lees attacks. He didnt have to. That doesnt sound like a question for me, Senator would have been a perfectly acceptable non-answer to the filthy questions posed by Lee. I guess when Republicans make you wait five years to get a hearing, it makes you less inclined to let their crap slide.

But the Republican long game isnt just to trash the specific appointments of Gupta and Clarke, both of whom are as qualified as Garland is for the top job at the Justice Department, and more than qualified for the positions to which theyve been nominated. Their goal is to delegitimize the quest for social and racial justice and accuse anybody who strives for equality under the law to be harboring anti-white (which to them means anti-American) views.

Lee rounded out his questioning by asking Garland to give assurances that Garlands DOJ would protect religious people, as if its the attorney generals job to make discrimination against the LGBTQ community constitutional if people claim Jesus made them do it. Ted Cruz wasted all his time criticizing the politicization and weaponization of the Justice Department under (wait for it) Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. Presumably, Cruz was in Cancn during the tenures of Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr. Kennedy asked Garland to explain systemic racism and implicit bias in a truly bizarre set of questions that seemed almost like he was trying to bait Garland into calling him a racist.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

And Tom Cotton asked: Are you aware President Biden has signed an executive order stating his administration will affirmatively advance racial equity, not racial equality but racial equity? Those two words mean the same thing, but clearly Cotton wanted the white people listening to think there is a difference. One thing I find curious about the most openly racist people in our society is that they are sure the real goal of racial justice is to treat white people like Black people have been treated, as opposed to the stated and logical goal of treating Black people like people-people, which is something this country has still never tried. Republicans like Cotton are truly only ever able to see racial equality as a zero-sum game: One race always has to be preferred over all others, in his mind. Its why Cotton will always fail.

Garland gave the right answers to all of these questions. He said he didnt see a difference between equality and equity. He wouldnt comment about Holder or Lynch. He didnt take Kennedys weird bait (I absolutely would have called Kennedy racist to his face, but I dont want to be AG), and instead gave a very legalistic definition of systemic racism. Like most judges who come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Garland is more knowledgeable about the law than most of the people asking him questions.

But thats not why Garland will get Republican votes. Gupta or Clarke or any other Black or brown person could have answered these bad-faith questions with the same calm and clarity that Garland did, but Republicans would not have been persuaded. Even when people of color toe the line in front of Senate committees, most Republicans still find a way to vote against them. They call them toxic, or say they are divisive, or question their experience or qualifications. Those are all things Manchin (not a Republican, according to some), Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney have said about Tanden within the past week.

Some people will say Tanden is a special case, but just roll the tape back and look at what Republicans did to the last Democrat nominated for attorney general, Loretta Lynch. During her confirmation hearing, Republicans spent most of their time criticizing her predecessor, Eric Holder. Then they criticized her willingness to apply Obamas immigration laws. (Sessions, then still a senator, called those laws indefensible and her position very troubling.) Despite not being able to lay a glove on her during the hearing, Republicans refused to hold a vote on her appointment for six months. She was eventually confirmed with 10 Republican votes (five of those crossover senators are no longer in the Senate), over the loud objections of Sessions, Cruz, and Chuck Grassley, then chair of the Judiciary Committee.Related Article

Garland wont have as difficult a ride. Remember: The reason Mitch McConnell denied Garland a hearing when he was nominated for the Supreme Court was that he would have been easily confirmed, with support from Republican senators, if McConnell had ever allowed his nomination to come to a vote. The kinds of games Republicans play just dont work on white male cis-het normies.

I suppose all of this was very smart on the part of the Biden administration. The next attorney general has a lot of work to do; Garland said that bringing the Capitol insurrectionists to justice was his number-one priority. Putting forward an unobjectionable white man is a good way to fill this important post quickly and get to the business of restoring the Justice Department after its reputation and mission have been degraded by Sessions and Barr.

But I wish Biden had just nominated a woman of color who would put the fear of God into these Republicans. I wouldnt have minded an AG that was confirmed 51-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie.

Promoting women of color cannot be done in a bipartisan fashion. Republicans will not allow it. When Democrats look for nominees that can be confirmed with strong bipartisan support, they are essentially excluding women of color simply because Republicans will vociferously object to any woman of color put forward. The solution is not to ignore those qualified candidates, but to ignore Republicans and get other Democrats to fall in line.

Picking your battles is an important part of governance. But the fact that Republicans force a battle over every woman of color who is nominated for anything is the precise definition I would have given for systemic racism in front of the Judiciary Committee.

More:
It Was Garlands Hearingbut Women of Color Were on Trial - The Nation

Garland vows at confirmation hearing to keep politics out of DOJ while drawing bipartisan praise – kuna noticias y kuna radio

Merrick Garland, President Joe Bidens attorney general nominee, vowed Monday to keep politics out of the Justice Department and to fully prosecute the heinous crimes committed in the attack on the US Capitol in the deadly riot on January 6.

Garland was praised by Republicans and Democrats alike in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, where he faced questions about the politically charged investigations that await him if confirmed to lead the Justice Department, including a federal probe into Bidens son Hunter Biden and whether the DOJ should wade into former President Donald Trumps role in the riot.

Garland, who led the Justice Department investigation into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, said that the current threat from White supremacists now is a more dangerous period than we faced at that time, vowing to make his first priority to ensure investigators have all the resources they need to investigate the attack on the Capitol. He also pledged to redouble the Justice Departments efforts to fight discrimination in law enforcement and provide equal justice amid heated policy debates over race and the criminal justice system.

If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of White supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government, Garland said Monday.

The hearing was often a lightning round through the myriad issues under the purview of the Justice Department and federal investigators, moving from questions about consent decrees and policing to immigration and border security to DOJs antitrust lawsuit against Google. Garland repeatedly said he would not be influenced by political considerations, with Republicans lamenting a politicized DOJ during the Obama administration and Democrats charging the department was used as a political weapon in the Trump administration.

I dont care who pressures me in any direction, Garland said. The Department, if I am confirmed, will be under my protection for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or other improper motive in making any kind of investigation or prosecution. Thats my vow. Thats the only reason Im willing to do this job.

While Garland declined to weigh in on some of the controversies of the Trump administration, he strongly rebuked the Trump administrations child separation immigration policy, calling it shameful and committing to aiding a Senate investigation into the matter.

I think that the policy was shameful. I cant imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children, and we will provide all of the cooperation that we possibility can, Garland told Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The attorney general nominee also stressed that the Justice Departments role is meant to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law, noting that last year was the 150th anniversary of the Justice Departments founding in the aftermath of the Civil War, and that its core mission was to secure the civil rights promised by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice, Garland said. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system.

Garland is testifying Monday before the Judiciary Committee five years after he became the poster child for the Republican blockade of an open Supreme Court seat in the final year of President Barack Obamas term when Senate Republicans denied even a hearing for Garland as Obamas Supreme Court nominee.

After Trump won the White House in 2016 and selected a new Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, Garland returned to his position as the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. While he stepped down from that position a year ago, he remains on the appellate court and has served on the federal bench for more than two decades.

Hell be leaving that appointment to take over a department often at the center of the political crises of the Trump administration.

While Republicans blocked Garlands Supreme Court nomination, his selection at attorney general was lauded by both Democrats and Republicans on Monday, and he is expected to be easily confirmed.

Garlands hearing will continue for a second day on Tuesday, with outside witnesses testifying before the Judiciary Committee. Durbin told CNN on Monday that he expected Garlands nomination would be approved by his panel next Monday, and he expects the full Senate will confirm Garland later that week. He said Republicans have agreed not to delay next Mondays committee vote, which they can do for one week under the rules.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the panels top Republican, used his opening statement to defend the 2016 decision he made as the committees chairman not to hold a hearing for Garland.

I took a position on hearings and I stuck to it, and thats it, Grassley said. I admire Judge Garlands public service.

After the hearing, Grassley told reporters he was inclined to support Garlands nomination. Right now it looks good but I dont want to make a final decision, Grassley said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he would most likely support Garland. And Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said he expected to vote for Garland.

Thats my intention, Cornyn said. I think hes had an incredible career. And I think he seems like a fundamentally decent human being.

During the hearing, Republicans pressed Garland on whether he would allow the investigations into both Hunter Biden and the FBIs handling of the 2016 Russia investigation to continue unimpeded, as well as questions on policy fights theyre likely to have with the Biden administration.

Grassley asked Garland whether he had spoken to Biden about his sons case, where federal investigators in Delaware have been examining multiple financial issues involving the younger Biden, including whether he violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China, two people briefed on the probe told CNN in December.

I have not, Garland responded. The President made abundantly clear in every public statement before and after my nomination that decisions about investigations and prosecutions will be left to the Justice Department. That was the reason that I was willing to take on this job.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, asked him about whether he would be Bidens wing man, in a dig at former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder.

I am not the Presidents lawyer, Garland responded. I am the United States lawyer.

Multiple Republicans asked Garland about the problems with the FBIs Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants in the Russia investigation, which were documented by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. And they urged Garland to allow John Durham, whom former Attorney General William Barr made a special counsel last year as he investigated the FBIs handling of the Russia case, to complete that investigation, just as Barr allowed former special counsel Robert Mueller to do.

Garland said he needed to speak with Durham about the probe before he could make any commitments, but added, I dont have any reason to think he should not remain in place.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican considered a possible 2024 presidential candidate, asked Garland whether he supported defunding the police. Garland responded by saying neither he nor Biden support that, while noting, We saw how difficult the lives of police officers were in the bodycam videos we saw when they were defending the Capitol.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, another potential 2024 GOP candidate, got into a lengthy discussion with Garland over the federal death penalty, asking if he regretted supporting the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing case.

Garland responded he did not have any regret for supporting the death penalty in that case, but he has developed concerns in the two decades since, including over exonerations, the arbitrary way its applied and the impact its had on communities of color.

Democrats have charged that the Trump administration damaged the Justice Departments credibility, from its handling of cases involving Trumps friends and aides to the former Presidents use of his pardon power and they were hopeful Garland would restore it.

The publics faith in the Department of Justice has been shaken the result of four years of Departmental leadership consumed with advancing the personal and political interests of one man Donald Trump, Durbin said in his opening statement. Judge Garland, we are confident that you can rebuild the Departments once hallowed halls. That you can restore the faith of the American people in the rule of law. And that you can deliver equal justice for all.

Democrats largely didnt mention Trump by name when asking about the investigation into the January 6 riot, but they touched on the question of whether the Justice Department should examine the former Presidents role, which led to his impeachment. Even Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, after voting to acquit Trump in the Senate trial, suggested that the criminal justice system is the right venue in which to consider those allegations.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, encouraged Garland to look upstream, asking whether it was a fair question for the investigation to not rule out investigation of funders, organizers, ringleaders or aiders and abettors who were not present in the Capitol on January 6.

Fair question, Garland responded. We will pursue these leads wherever they take us.

Later, Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, raised Trumps role in inciting the January 6 riot, but didnt ask Garland about whether Trump should be investigated.

Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, and several other Democrats asked Garland how the Justice Department can address the disparate treatment Black Americans receive in the justice system and problems with police discrimination.

Garland pointed specifically to mass incarceration as one issue that should be tackled. We can focus our attention on violent crimes and other crimes that put great danger in our society, and not allocate our resources to something like marijuana possession, Garland said.

Durbin raised what he said was a mistake that both he and Biden made two decades ago backing legislation that implemented disproportionate sentences for crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine. Garland said it was an issue he planned to examine further.

At the end of his exchange with Booker, Garland fought back tears after Booker asked him about his motivations for taking on the role and his own family history confronting hate and discrimination.

I come from a family where my grandparents fled anti-Semitism and persecution, Garland said. I feel an obligation to the country to pay back for protecting us.

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments Monday.

Link:
Garland vows at confirmation hearing to keep politics out of DOJ while drawing bipartisan praise - kuna noticias y kuna radio