J.D. Vance released this video yesterday announcing that until he secures agreement from Merrick Garland to de-politicize the Department of Justice, he will block all nominees to the same department:
Until Merrick Garland stops using his agency to harass Joe Biden’s political opponents, I will hold all DoJ nominees. pic.twitter.com/UVRwi6Ue01
— J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) June 13, 2023
Please note that this isn’t just about Trump. It’s probably best to say that Trump is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back.
But it shouldn’t surprise you that he got the other Donald Trump’s support:
🔥🔥🔥
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 13, 2023
JD Vance is one of the few Republicans in the US Senate who isn't afraid to stand up to Biden, Garland and the radical left. https://t.co/eAWZqpisl2
Yes @JDVance1!
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 13, 2023
Thank you!
Action is the only way forward.
Stop the weaponized government and hold them accountable! https://t.co/9BNnbVXlQW
Let’s Go JD!!!! https://t.co/SArI6SiH3C
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) June 13, 2023
Every single Republican Senator should be making this pledge.
— 🔺remnant. (@remnantposting) June 13, 2023
Nobody wants to listen to these guys just pretending to care about this stuff. Vance is the only one actually doing something. https://t.co/lGeu205C47
This is a decent first step by JD Vance. https://t.co/VHs1WBMf5C
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) June 13, 2023
Of course, he also got some pushback:
If Trump was innocent, wouldn’t he want to clear his name?
— ❤️🧡💛ᗰia💚💙💜 (@mommamia1217) June 13, 2023
What rational person wants to go through an entire criminal trial, innocent or not? Especially since an acquittal doesn't mean you are innocent. Ask O.J. Simpson. So even if Trump wins, liberals will still say he is guilty. So what exactly is the upside of going through a trial?
JD Vance sounds like he’s trying to obstruct justice. Isn’t that a crime?
— The New York Independent (@nyi_news) June 13, 2023
Refusing to give consent needed under the Constitution for an appointment is not a crime and cannot be a crime. But thank you for reinforcing Senator Vance’s point about the left’s criminalization of politics.
Congressional Republicans are using your tax dollars to act as Trump’s legal defense team. https://t.co/tI1pEc2I5E
— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) June 13, 2023
Except the senator pointed out that it wasn’t just about Trump. Good talk.
As a Yale law grad, you flat out know this is false. A Florida grand jury recommended indictment. Garland appointed Smith as an independent counsel and has no say in Smith's decisions. https://t.co/qGdMoNSnka
— DrDinD🟧🇺🇲🇺🇦 He/Him (@DrDinD) June 13, 2023
Actually, it’s true. Who appointed Jack Smith, the special counsel? Merrick Garland. And Garland knew what he was getting:
Jack Smith decided not to open any investigations into IRS scandalhttps://t.co/Sx9uWLy780
— Sir Batman (@SirBatman65) June 13, 2023
From the article:
‘Jack Smith was looking for ways to prosecute the innocent Americans that Lois Lerner targeted during the IRS scandal,’ Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), expected to lead the House Judiciary Committee next year, told the Washington Examiner.
It also outlines how Smith read an article discussing conservative charities and sought to crack down on them:
After reading [the article], Smith wrote to DOJ colleagues: ‘Check out [the] article on front page of ny times regarding misuse of nonprofits for indirectly funding campaigns. This seems egregious to me — could we ever charge a [18 U.S.C. §] 371 conspiracy to violate laws of the USA for misuse of such non profits to get around existing campaign finance laws + limits? ... IRS Commissioner sarah ingram oversees these groups. Let’s discuss tomorrow but maybe we should try to set up a meeting.’
…
Smith organized meetings with his senior leadership, including Richard Pilger, director of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch, with one meeting saying the DOJ considered a ‘possible 501 / campaign finance investigation.’
…
Smith recommended his unit meet with Ingram to discuss DOJ enforcement. Pilger expressed skepticism and told Smith it would be ‘very challenging as criminal work in the near term.’ Nancy Simmons, the unit’s senior counsel, said she didn't see ‘a viable way to make a prosecutable federal case.’
Smith nevertheless pushed forward. Pilger reached out to Ingram’s office in September 2010 to set up an IRS meeting. Ingram told her staff, ‘‘We have to do this,’’ and asked Lerner to organize.
Pilger met with Lerner and other IRS officials, saying the goal was to talk with Lerner about being ‘more vigilant to the opportunities from more crime in the ... 501(c)(4) area.’
So, Garland knew what Smith was: A blatantly partisan attack dog who wanted to criminalize the opposition. And he sicked him on Trump. And Garland could stop all of this now—and he won’t.
And any person who thinks that a grand jury is some kind of guard against partisanship is wrong. Every lawyer knows that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Jack Smith made it happen, and he was picked to make it happen by Garland.
Even ‘Mad Scientist Fat Albert’ got involved in the liberal pushback:
This could be stopped with 51 votes to change the rules but... Manchin and Sinema (and Coons and Feinstein and a bunch of other weak ass electeds that dodge accountability because Manchin and Sinema) https://t.co/1DyPDqhCXJ
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 13, 2023
And some of that pushback was actually from the right:
You will hold all nominees "that" . . . . What's with the restrictive clause?
— Sean Ross Callaghan (@seanrcallaghan) June 13, 2023
"Until Merrick Garland promises . . . ." I don't want to hear that man say another word.
Hold all nominees until the next presidential administration.
How about until Garland is impeached and then indicted? That would be doing it properly.
— L Hazard (@LHazard7) June 13, 2023
Finally, left wing catfisher influencer @JoJoFromJerz was either being stupid or just lying:
So… you’re going to WEAPONIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in other words??
— Jo🌻 (@JoJoFromJerz) June 13, 2023
She predictably got dragged:
I think getting is back to “justice” and away from liberal one sided corruption is a good thing HoHo! Just because you are a one sided bigot doesn’t mean we all have to be.
— 🐶Captain DogO🐶 (@CaptianDogO) June 13, 2023
Sweetie that's already been done by Biden!
— Senora L (@SenoraLm) June 14, 2023
— 🇺🇸🇺🇸 MAGA SCOTT 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@SCOTTWI69160244) June 13, 2023
Getting to the substance of the argument … no, fighting the weaponization of the federal government is not weaponizing it, the same way that suing a person is not the same as defending yourself from a lawsuit.
Honestly, is she playing dumb, or actually that dumb? Or does she merely think her followers are dumb?
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member