Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, stonewalled on the issue of his orders that could benefit his son-in-law’s company financially and …
Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, stonewalled on the issue of his orders that could benefit his son-in-law’s company financially and denied characterizing public school parents as domestic terrorists during an appearance before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. He also took a tongue-lashing from Sen. Jim Jordan over his political agenda. Fox News reported Garland refused to answer questions whether he sought any « ethics guidance » regarding Panorama Education, started and run by his son-in-law, and which is in line to benefit financially from Garland’s campaign against parents who oppose its left-leaning, pro-LGBT and pro-Critical Race Theory ideologies. Garland was asked by Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., about the conflicts of interest inherent when a government official takes action that benefits his family financially. Fox News reported Panorama reportedly has been paid $27 million from more than a thousand school districts – triggering concerns about the family’s financial fortunes and how they benefit from Garland’s decision to crack down on opposition to leftist school board agendas. Responding to a letter from a school boards group in America that described those opponents to leftist ideals as domestic terrorists, the Biden administration, through Garland, assigned the FBI to begin investigating and prosecuting those parents. « We now know that company publishes and sells critical race theory and so-called anti-racism materials to schools across the country, and it works with school districts nationwide to obtain and analyze data on students, often without parental consent, » said Johnson. But Garland said « nothing » in his memorandum has « any effect on the kinds of curriculums that are taught or the ability of parents to complain. » Fox explained, « Johnson pressed the attorney general on whether he sought ethics guidance concerning his son’s business before he sent out his controversial Oct.4 memo, which directed the FBI and U.S. attorney offices to hold meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement leaders within 30 days to discuss ways to combat what the DOJ described as an ‘increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools.' » Johnson pointed out that the very basis of parental concerns about their local boards’ actions is the « very curricula that your son-in-law is selling.
