Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, and I think it's fair to say it did not go well.
As we reported, Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) nailed Garland over contradictory testimony regarding the authority given to U.S. Attorney David Weiss to investigate and pursue the probe into Hunter Biden before he was made Special Counsel in the matter.
Rep. Thomas Massie grilled Garland over whether he had perjured himself about government assets/informants present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Garland unbelievably tried to claim that he didn't know if there had been any.
But that wasn't all.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also went to town on Garland over a variety of topics, including the Jan. 6 informants, Hunter Biden's art, and why the Trump Department of Justice initiative to check China's malign influence was dropped.
Gaetz started off a bit sarcastically, asking if anyone at the DOJ had told Joe Biden to "knock it off" when it came to his son.
Then he got down to some serious questions, including whether Garland had concerns about who was paying for Hunter Biden's art, given how Hunter had been used in the past to gain access to Joe Biden. Many have expressed concerns since the names of the buyers are being concealed from the public through a deal worked out by the White House, whether there's more influence peddling going on here.
"Can you guarantee the people buying Hunter Biden’s 'art' aren’t doing so to gain political favors from the Bidens?" Gaetz asked Garland.
Gaetz noted that there already had been one art buyer, a Democratic donor, who had received a prestigious appointment from Joe Biden.
Garland's response? He's not going to comment on the matter. "Not going to comment, not going to investigate," Gaetz snarked.
"That's right," Garland replies.
No wonder the FBI and the DOJ, in general, are such a mess with Garland at the helm. He's remarkably lacking in curiosity about such a questionable arrangement, particularly given the history of selling the Biden brand. Gaetz inquired of Garland whether he was confident that such issues weren't continuing, but Garland wouldn't even answer that, saying the matters were in the purview of the Special Counsel, David Weiss.
Then Gaetz got into the real concern about the potential compromise from the alleged influence peddling. He spoke about the Trump initiative that had been set up at the Department of Justice to go after the malign influence of the CCP. But the Biden DOJ dissolved this initiative meant to check China's bad actions in this country. Gaetz asked if the DOJ had any documents outlining/justifying this decision.
Garland's response didn't make a lot of sense. He said they needed to concentrate on the broad range of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. That's true, but why would that mean you would drop an initiative that helped against China? It didn't make a lot of sense.
Then Gaetz pointed out that millions, including money from Chinese nationals, had gone into a bunch of shell companies and then into Biden family bank accounts. For anyone with any curiosity about compromise, that would raise all kinds of questions. "It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens. And then you guys came in and got rid of the China initiative," Gaetz said pointedly.
But Garland claimed not to know anything about the shell companies.
Then Gaetz wrapped up by asking if the FBI had lost count of the number of informants it had at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and ordered an audit, as we previously reported. They supposed had to to an audit to figure out how many there were there. But Garland didn't want to answer that question; he wanted to continue to fight with Gaetz about his response to the China question. So his response was to that, ducking the Jan. 6 question altogether.
When Garland can't even give a simple answer to that question, he's worthless in his position. That's not even providing the simplest answer to those who have oversight over him, and it surely doesn't answer the question of greatest concern: whether or not Joe Biden has been compromised.