Judging Freedom - Sen. Cruz accuses Garland of politicizing DOJ

Episode Date: March 1, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, March 1st, 2023. It's about 3.45 in the afternoon. My apologies that we are a little late, some technical issues. Earlier today, the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, who is a former federal judge, federal appellate judge for 20 years, and before that was a lifelong career prosecutor in the DOJ, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and some sparks flew when Senator Ted Cruz was more or less cross-examining the Attorney General. Senator Cruz's concerns are for the safety of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and their families. You may recall

that a young man, a crazy young man, was arrested at 1 o'clock in the morning outside the home of Justice and Mrs. Brett Kavanaugh and their children. And he indicated at the time of his arrest that he intended to break in the home and kill Justice Kavanaugh, and he had a loaded weapon with him. There were two U.S. Marshals outside of Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh's home at one in the morning, and because this kid acted suspiciously, they called the local police who came en masse, arrested him, and no one was harmed. He's still in jail and awaiting trial. The issue before Justice or Senator Cruz was whether or not the Justice Department takes seriously the obligation to protect members of the court. The Attorney General, as you will see, attempted to say, we send U.S. Marshals there. We dispatched 70 U.S. Marshals to protect nine people. That's more than we've

ever dispatched to protect nine people in the history of the Department of Justice. Senator Cruz would have none of it. We're saying, why don't you prosecute people for it? It is a crime to protest in front of or within hearing distance of the home of a federal judge with the intent of influencing the judge. I suppose you could stand there with a sign saying Kavanaugh is a dope, or Kavanaugh voted wrong on the Dobbs case, but to scream and shout in an effort to intimidate the judge or justice, or affect his or her vote before it's cast is a federal crime for which no one has been prosecuted. And that's something that the attorney general was reluctant to say. So here's this is a little difficult to watch because it's very contentious. But here is Senator Cruz pandering to the crowd back home, I think, but making a very good point, as only he can, that the attorney general is not doing his job. Take a listen.

When the Dobbs draft was leaked, I did something no attorney general in the history of the department had ever done before. For the first time in history, I ordered United States Marshals 24-7 to defend every residence of every justice. Garland, as a judge, you're familiar with asking counsel to answer a question. I am. Has the Department of Justice enforced this statute? Have you brought a single case against any of these protesters threatening the judgment justices under 18 USC section 1507 you brought even one senator you asked me whether I sat on my hands and quite the opposite I sent 70 United

States Marshal try again and has the Department of Justice brought even a single case under this statute so yes no question it's not a give a speech on the other things you did the job of the a yes no question it's not a get give a speech on the other things you did the job of the united states marshals is to defend the lives of the answer is no is to defend the lives of the justices and that's our number one priority they have to are you unwilling to say no the answers no you know it's no i know it's no everyone in this in this hearing room knows it's no

you're not willing to answer a question have you brought a case under the statute yes or no as i know we haven haven't and what we have done is defended to the lies of the justices with over 70 U.S. Marshals. How do you decide which criminal statutes the DOJ enforces and which one it doesn't? The United States Marshals know that they have full authority. I recognize you want to give a separate speech. No, I don't want to give a separate speech. How do you decide which statutes you enforce and which ones you don't? The Marshals on scene make that determination in light of the priority of defense.

The marshals do not make a determination over whether to prosecute you. The Attorney General will make a determination. And you spent 20 years as a judge, and you're perfectly content with justices being afraid for their children's lives, and you did nothing to prosecute it. Let's shift to another area. Can I answer the question? No, you shift to another area can i answer the question no you cannot you have refused to answer i am answering your question the attorney general does not decide whether to or how did you choose not all right so obviously senator cruz uh wanted

to score some points against the uh democratic department of justice i don't blame them that him that's what these hearings do the. That's what these hearings do. That's what these hearings essentially are for. The attorney general was, I thought, a model of patience and decorum. It's very difficult to have somebody badger you, ask you questions, and not let you answer the way you want to answer. That would never happen in a courtroom. However, Senator Cruz is correct. It is not the job of U.S. Marshals or basically cops in plain clothes at the scene to decide whether or not to prosecute. They make a determination of whether they have observed anybody committing a crime. The only person that they observed committing a crime was this nut that was arrested at one in the morning

outside Justice and Mrs. Kavanaugh's home. The other justices whose homes have been picketed, the six conservative justices, not the three liberals, who have had picketers outside their homes with yelling and screaming, the marshals have quieted the people down and sent them home. They haven't arrested anybody. The decision to arrest is made at the scene by the cop or in this case by the U.S. marshal. Here's where Senator Cruz is correct. The decision to prosecute is made in the quiet of the DOJ offices after they read the reports of what happened at the scene and assess whether or not this is a case worth prosecuting and decide whether or not they have enough evidence to get an indictment and to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty to a jury. The decision to prosecute is also made based upon the rational assessment of resources. What do I mean? Some prosecutions are more important

than others, and the resources of the DOJ may be stretched so thin that this is not something they want to prosecute now. As well, sometimes victims don't want the court or don't want the DOJ to prosecute. Was anybody victimized here? Did any justice call up the DOJ saying, my spouse and I can't sleep at night, my kids are afraid to go to their soccer game because these nutjobs in front of the house do something about it, arrest them, get rid of them? Or is all of this just a lot of fluff and noise? That's really for the viewers like you and in Senator Cruz's case, the voters in Texas to decide. Two other issues this afternoon. The jury in the Alex Murdoch case will get the case tomorrow. Right now, as I speak, the lawyers are presenting their closing arguments. So far, the closing arguments

which are bombastic and loud and each side accuses the other of exaggerating the truth, there haven't been any bombshells. The lawyers can't really say something in a closing argument that's not based on the evidence that came in in the courtroom. If they did that, then they would be testifying, and they can't be witnesses and lawyers in the same case. The closing argument's purpose is to marshal the evidence in a manner persuasive to your case, whether you're the government or whether you're a defense counsel. So generally, there's no surprises in closing argument, and theoretically, there can't be any. The other news this morning is Havana syndrome. Remember that? Havana syndrome was some sort of brain injury inflicted on American diplomats in the American consulate. It's not an embassy, it's a consulate, so it's one level below an embassy because we don't have an ambassador in Cuba. The American consulate in

Havana, people going there left with some sort of brain injury and horrific headaches and neurological ailments, which didn't last forever, but lasted for a while. And the government thought, well, this is coming from the Cuban government. Well, the CIA, I guess I could stop right there. Who believes them? The CIA said, no, it's not coming from the Cuban government, even though CIA agents themselves, including very high ranking CIA agents, the number two and three persons in the CIA themselves were inflicted with this. And even though the same thing happened to American diplomats in India, I think there's something fishy here and the CIA doesn't want us to know the truth. Oh, right, Judge. When does the CIA ever want us to know the truth. Oh, right, Judge. When does the CIA ever want us to know the truth? According to Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State, the former director of the CIA, former CIA agent, number one in his class at West Point, number one in his

class at Harvard Law School, CIA's job is to steal secrets and lie about it. And that they do very well. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.