Playing politics with terrorism: Merrick Garland’s absurd warning

In the latest episode of The McCarthy Report, Rich Lowry and I explored Attorney General Merrick Garland’s claim that he has never, in his long career in law enforcement and as a federal judge, seen a “more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol” on January 6. If I were inclined to take Garland seriously, I’d be stunned. But, alas, he is best understood as just another spouter of the insidious narrative that currently drives Democratic politics — and not for the first time.

As detailed in reporting by NR’s Caroline Downey, the AG said last week that the top domestic extremist threat comes from “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” Garland’s remarks, which were echoed by Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, came during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on domestic terrorism.

So why is the AG’s assessment so astonishing in light of professional experience?

I came to know and admire Garland when he was a high-ranking Clinton Justice Department official. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the subsequently thwarted plot to bomb New York City landmarks happened on his watch. So did the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 members of the U.S. Air Force were killed. That is, Garland was not merely dealing with the onset of a jihadist wave in the United States but the strategic support of that project by Iran, which choreographed the Khobar Towers strike, backed anti-American militarism by both Sunni and Shiite jihadist organizations, and induced the Clinton administration to frustrate the FBI’s investigation.

In the interim, Garland took a very hands-on role in DOJ’s response to Timothy McVeigh’s April 19, 1995, bombing of the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. McVeigh was ultimately convicted and put to death — punishment that reflected the atrociousness of his crimes.

The prosecution of McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who conspired with him, makes for a useful comparison to the January 6 unrest. Nichols received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, and was subsequently prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma, too — not surprising given that, though he was not nearly as culpable as McVeigh, the bombing involved the mass murder of 168 people, including children and law-enforcement officials. Another 759 people sustained injuries, many of them life-shattering.

Regarding January 6, by contrast, the Justice Department is struggling to develop serious charges against the “invaders” it has identified, many of whom were merely trespassing, and some of whom convincingly claim that they never entered the Capitol. Hundreds of people did, of course. Some in the mob fought with security forces (as many as 100 police officers may have been injured to some degree or another). Some committed acts of vandalism. All of that was felony conduct, to be sure, but nothing like the destruction and loss of life probed in Garland’s Oklahoma City case. That is why Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored.