Welcome to The Daily 202 newsletter! Today, we look at attorney general nominee Merrick Garland and “defund the police.” But don’t miss the latest on President Biden's economic rescue package and Cabinet picks. Sometimes local or regional news is national news in disguise, so send me your most interesting published items from outside the Beltway. And tell your friends to sign up here. Merrick Garland yesterday told senators considering his confirmation as attorney general the Justice Department will police the police, not defund them, if he gets the job. But he did echo one proposal from the racial justice movement: A shift to having mental health professionals, instead of armed officers, respond to some standoffs. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republicans, asked Garland whether he would support the “defund” calls if he becomes the nation’s top law-enforcement officer. “President Biden has said he does not support defunding the police and neither do I,” Garland answered. “We saw how difficult the lives of police officers were in the body-cam videos we saw when they were defending the Capitol.”  Merrick Garland, President Biden's nominee for attorney general, testifies Monday at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post) |
It was unclear whether Garland’s reference to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection was a jab at Hawley, subject of a viral photograph from that day in which he gave an encouraging fist-pump to protestors outside Congress hours before he voted to overthrow Biden’s election, as the rioters themselves sought to do. The senator gave no sign that he saw it as such.
There’s no single agreed-upon definition of “defund the police,” a movement that gained velocity last year after a Minneapolis police officer pinned George Floyd’s neck under his knee, killing him. Some progressive Democrats at the federal, state, and local level argue that cutting law enforcement funds must be central to the response to systemic racism that results in disproportionate deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police. But Biden has charted a more middle-of-the-road path ever since the Democratic presidential primary and his Cabinet picks mostly reflect his outlook. Biden has argued for shifting some of the money spent on police to other agencies. One goal would be for a mental health-care worker, not an armed officer, to go speak to a troubled citizen, potentially reducing the likelihood that the encounter would end in a deadly shooting. That seemed to be what Garland, who is all but certain to be confirmed by a bipartisan Senate majority, supports.The issue could come up again today in his second of two days of confirmation hearings. “I do believe — and President Biden believes in — in giving resources to police departments to help them reform and gain the trust of their communities,” he told the committee. “We do need to put resources into alternative ways of confronting some actors, particularly those who are mentally ill and those who are suicidal, so that police officers don't have to do a job that they're not trained for and that, from what I understand, they do not want to do.” To defund or not to defund has become fraught in Democratic politics. “You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done,” Obama told Snapchat political journalist Peter Hamby. “Do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) fired back on Twitter: Garland indicated he was inclined to police the police — notably through “consent decrees,” court-approved agreements between local law enforcement and the Justice Department. The Trump administration, which frequently celebrated its close ties to police, essentially abandoned the practice. The Justice Department, Garland said, has “the authority and the responsibility to investigate patterns or practices of law enforcement entities' conduct that violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.” And “the statute further provides that if the department finds this pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct, that it can seek equitable remedies from the court” Garland continued. “And one of the kinds of equitable remedies, which has proven effective in the past, are consent decrees. So where they are necessary to assure accountability, it's very important that we use that tool.” On another front, Garland committed to helping the congressional investigation into former president Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, under which large numbers of parents were separated from young children. “I think that the policy was shameful,” he said.“I can't imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children. And we will provide all the cooperation that we possibly can.” As my colleagues Matt Zapotosky, Ann E. Marimow, and Devlin Barrett note, the centerpiece of Garland’s testimony was his promise to make the investigation into the Jan. 6 riot his top priority. He vowed to follow the evidence to the doorstep of any organizers, leaders, or funders: “We begin with the people on the ground and we work our way up to those who are involved and further involved,” Garland said, adding later, “We also have to have a focus on what is happening all over the country and on where this could spread, and where this came from.” Notably, though, Garland seemed skeptical of bipartisan calls for legislation granting the Justice Department more power to hunt down domestic extremists. He pointed back to his successful supervision of the prosecution against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, author of the worst domestic terrorist attack in modern times. “The first thing we have to do before we look for new tools is figure out whether the tools we have are sufficient,” he said. “I want to have to determine whether the law, which are quite capable and which were capable of the charges against McVeigh and (accused co-conspirator Terry Nichols) and many other terrorist over the years.” “And then I'd be interested in speaking with you and other members of the committee about what other additions might be made,” Garland said. “But I’ve first got to know whether anything more is necessary.” | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment