{"id":40059,"date":"2023-04-11T06:40:04","date_gmt":"2023-04-11T10:40:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=40059"},"modified":"2023-04-11T06:40:04","modified_gmt":"2023-04-11T10:40:04","slug":"u-s-marshals-told-not-to-arrest-supreme-court-protesters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=40059","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Marshals told not to arrest supreme court protesters"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. When the decision to overturn Roe was illegally leaked from the Supreme Court, left wing protesters went to the homes of the conservative members of the court, the ones who most like voted to overturn Roe, and started the usual protests, by screaming threats at the justices.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

When this started happening, the United States Marshal Service, which as part of it\u2019s duties, protects judges, were deployed to the homes of the affected justices to \u201cProtect\u201d them. Many people wondered why some of the more violent protesters hadn\u2019t been arrested. It is against the law to threaten or intimidate a judge as a means to affect a ruling. The answer is simple and yet another reason Merrick Garland needs to be removed from office. Here are the details from the Washington Times<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

Deputy U.S. marshals assigned to guard Supreme Court<\/a> justices last year were directed to try not to make arrests, according to documents a U.S. senator revealed Tuesday, contradicting Attorney General Merrick Garland<\/a>\u2018s assurances to Congress. <\/b><\/p>\n

Sen. Katie Britt<\/a>, Alabama Republican, confronted Mr. Garland<\/a> with the training package used for the marshals deployed to protect justices. It said arrests were not to be a priorit<\/b>y.<\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n

What? Garland lied to congress again?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Conservatives have argued the protests, which erupted after a draft of the Dobbs ruling leaked last spring, violate a federal statute that outlaws protesting against a judge\u2019s home with the intent of influencing a ruling. Nobody was charged under that statute. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Now here is where it gets interesting. As stated above, none of the protesters were charged with trying to influence a ruling. There is a reason for this, and it\u2019s where Garland was once again caught out \u201cMisrepresenting the facts\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Garland<\/a> told senators earlier this month that his prosecutors couldn\u2019t bring cases unless the marshals made arrests, and the marshals on the scene didn\u2019t think there was a reason to do that. <\/b><\/p>\n

Which is accurate, as far as it goes. Of course, it\u2019s hard to prosecute anyone when the marshals were told to basically stand down.<\/p>\n

Ms. Britt<\/a> said the guidance documents show they were directed not to. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThey were actively discouraged from doing so,\u201d she said. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One section of the guidance specifically said<\/a> making arrests was \u201cnot the goal\u201d of the deployment, and another section said arrests should be \u201ca last resort to prevent physical harm.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

That seems to undercut Mr. Garland<\/a>\u2019s suggestion that agents were free to make arrests for protesting judges but just didn\u2019t see any need. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One page of the guidance dealt specifically with the law governing pressuring of judges. It said the law could invite legal challenges, and discouraged the marshals from making arrests under that section. <\/b><\/p>\n

So basically they think that the protesters, who looked ready to storm into the homes of the justices and murder them, might sue them for violating their rights under the 1st<\/sup> amendment? Sorry Charlie, that doesn\u2019t wash. Standing outside of someone\u2019s home and screaming at them is intimidating. As I recall, there were some actual threats made against the justices they assumed were going to overturn Roe.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Of course, Garland is one of the most corrupt Attorney General\u2019s we\u2019ve had in decades if not since the Civil War. He\u2019s making former Obama AG Eric Holder look like the height of honesty and competence.<\/p>\n

Ms. Britt asked Mr. Garland at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday whether he was aware of the directives.<\/b><\/p>\n

He said he was not aware, but stood by his earlier comments that the marshals were still able to act. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

He said their first responsibility was to protect the lives and property of the justices \u201cbut that doesn\u2019t mean they are in any way precluded from making other kinds of arrests.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s clear the marshals were given a different directive,\u201d Ms. Britt told him. \u201cI\u2019d ask you to look into that.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

He won\u2019t. Garland has been acting as the head of the Democrat Secret Police since he was confirmed. (A big mistake as we\u2019re discovering) He was Obama\u2019s choice to replace Antonin Scalia when he died, but was blocked in one of the few smart things Cocaine Mitch McConnell did as Senate Majority Leader. I\u2019ve said it and many others have as well. We dodged bullet when Garland was blocked form the court. He hasn\u2019t forgiven the Republicans or the greatest President of the 21st<\/sup> century, Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Well, thanks to the corrupt Manhattan District Attorney, when the Republicans regain the white house, Garland and all the others can be arrested. (Dumb Democrats never think about the future. They assume they will be in charge forever) The Uniparty GOP(e) members might not do anything, but the Ultra MAGA Deplorable Republicans have learned from the Democrats and will. We need a good house cleaning in Washington and gutting the DoJ and charging Garland with perjury would be a good start.<\/p>\n