Attorney General Merrick Garland hit back at Republicans for what he described as unprecedented attacks on the Justice Department Tuesday, telling lawmakers who have sought to hold him in contempt that he will “not be intimidated.”
Appearing before a House panel led by allies of former President Donald Trump, Garland condemned what he called the “conspiracy theory” that the department was behind Trump’s state court prosecution in New York in which the former Republican president was convicted of 34 felony charges.
Garland defended the independence and integrity of the Justice Department amid an onslaught by Trump and his allies against the U.S. criminal justice system. Republicans have claimed President Joe Biden has weaponized the department to go after Trump, even as Biden’s son Hunter stands trial on federal charges in Delaware.
Garland described the claim that the Justice Department was involved in the New York case against Trump as an “attack on the judicial process itself.” And he slammed as dangerous Trump's claim that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 were “authorized to shoot" him and were “locked & loaded ready" to take him out.
Garland said the attacks on the Justice Department "have not, and they will not, influence our decision making.”
“I will not be intimidated,” Garland said. “And the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy.”
His appearance came as Republicans have moved to hold him in contempt for the Biden administration's refusal to hand over audio of President Joe Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur, which focused on the president's handling of classified documents.
A transcript of Biden's interview has been made public, but the president asserted executive privilege over the audio last month to block its release. The White House has said Republican lawmakers only want the audio so they can chop it up and use it for political purposes.
The Justice Department has argued witnesses might be less likely to cooperate if they know their interviews might become public. Garland told lawmakers he would not “jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations."
Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee’s top Republican, criticized Garland in his opening statement for a broad array of what he depicted as politically motivated decisions by federal law enforcement — including the conclusions by different special counsels that Trump criminally mishandled classified documents while Biden did not.
“Many Americans believe there’s now a double standard in our justice system. They believe that because there is,” Jordan said.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, who was investigated by the Justice Department but not charged in a sex trafficking inquiry, had a tense exchange early in the hearing when he demanded to know if the department would produce records related to the New York state case in which Trump was convicted last week.
Garland disputed as false allegations by Gaetz that he had “dispatched” to the Manhattan District Attorney office a Justice Department attorney who later became part of the Trump prosecution team, insisting that he had nothing to do with it.
Garland strongly pushed back on Republican questions he said were underpinned by false premises, and Republicans seemed exasperated at some points by his refusal to be drawn into extensive back-and-forth. When at one point, Garland asked for the ability to finish his answer, Rep. Andy Biggs, a conservative Arizona Republican, said no because he was being “nonresponsive.”
But the attorney general also appeared uneasy at some friendly questions from Democrats who tried to underscore the Justice Department’s independence by discussing specific cases. Garland refused repeatedly to respond to questions about specific investigations. For example, when one lawmaker asked Garland whether Trump had been interviewed by federal prosecutors before his indictments, he refused to answer, even though the answer is known to be no.