Garland's ‘impartial’ DOJ claims conflict with reports of political interference, bias

Attorney General Merrick Garland delivered a speech Thursday, promising that his department would remain impartial, free from partisanship, and will not be used as a “political weapon.” However, reports since the beginning of the Biden administration show Garland’s Department of Justice has been plagued by accusations of bias, undue interference in sensitive investigations, and selective prosecution.

In his speech to the entire department Thursday, Garland said the norms established in the wake of the Watergate scandal—norms he helped to craft—protect the agency he now leads from political bias or weaponization. 

“Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations. Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon,” he said.

“And our norms are a promise that we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics,” he added to a round of applause from the attendees.

However, several whistleblowers’ complaints, an inspector general report, and an FBI scandal are just part of the growing body of evidence that the DOJ has not held to its the core values and norms that Garland said protect the independence of the department.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News. 

Inspector General Finds Appearance of Bias

Early in the the Biden administration, the DOJ Inspector General found the agency squandered public trust by straying from the very same policies designed to avoid the appearance of political bias and meddling and by permitting some employees to escape accountability for misconduct by leaving the department before investigations were complete, Just the News reported. 

The rebuke from Inspector General Michael Horowitz came as the department was still suffering public criticism for its failures in the discredited Russia collusion probe as well as revelations that Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the FBI to investigate school parents as protesting classroom policies, who would later be branded as "domestic terrorists." 

In October of 2021 Garland sent a memo to the federal law enforcement agency directing it to coordinate with the nation's 14,000 school districts. According to Reason magazine, the Biden administration received a plea from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to protect schools from the "imminent threat" of parents sending "threatening letters and cyberbullying" school officials. The association considers such activities to be akin to "domestic terrorism."

"The Department faces a challenge in addressing public perception about its objectivity and insulation from political influence," Horowitz wrote in a report that cited recent polling showing greater public concern and division over the perception of bias inside federal law enforcement.

"The Department's efficacy as the guardian of the rule of law depends on maintaining the public trust in its integrity, impartiality, and ability to effectively administer justice," he added. 

The Classified Documents Cases

One of the recent cases that has given rise to the claim that the department is infected by bias is the disparate treatment of the Trump and Biden classified documents cases. In both cases, Trump and Biden were alleged to have mishandled classified information after finishing their terms in office, for the presidency and the vice presidency, respectively. 

Though the DOJ's case was ultimately thrown out by the federal judge, Trump was prosecuted by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith and charged with 37 counts of mishandling classified documents. 

By contrast, despite a separate special counsel’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents finding that the president willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, prosecution was not recommended by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Hur because of Biden's age and memory issues. 

“You can't have two different laws for similar acts," former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Just the News when the report was released in February. "You have to have one single standard of justice.”

Trump, the main political rival of Garland’s boss, Joe Biden, was also charged in a second case led by special counsel Smith in Washington, D.C. Smith charged Trump with four counts in that case related to the Jan. 6 capitol riot, including conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. 

IRS whistleblowers & “preferential treatment” of Hunter Biden

In May 2023, an IRS whistleblower approached Congress with complaints that the DOJ prosecutors handling the investigation into Hunter Biden engaged in "preferential treatment and politics" to prevent charges from being filed against the first son. The whistleblower further alleged that his entire investigative team had been sidelined after he made protected disclosures about the interference up the chain of command and to Congress. 

The whistleblower, now identified as Gary Shapley, and his fellow agent Joseph Ziegler both told the House Ways and Means committee last year the DOJ had provided preferential treatment to Hunter Biden during the probe into his alleged tax violations by blocking search warrants and limiting the investigators’ pursuit of information related Joe Biden.

Shapley testified to the House Ways and Means Committee this summer that, in fact, Weiss told the investigative team that he was “not the deciding person” on bringing charges against the first son, according to his contemporaneous, handwritten notes that he provided to Congress. Later, Weiss admitted that he always had the authority. 

A former FBI agent told the House Oversight Committee in July of last year that the Bureau tipped off President Biden’s transition team about plans to interview first son Hunter Biden in December 2020, backing key testimony from an IRS whistleblower.

Other witnesses that testified before the committee corroborated the key claims of the whistleblowers. For example, the Justice Department’s chief tax prosecutor told Congress that U.S. Attorney Weiss was required to secure prior Justice Department approval before he could bring charges against Hunter Biden. The two U.S. attorneys from the districts where Hunter Biden alleged tax violations took place also testified that Weiss was prevented from bringing charges in their jurisdictions. 

FBI whistleblowers & Bureau "political litmus test"

Last year, yet more whistleblowers also came forward alleging the FBI has politicized investigations while retaliating against internal whistleblowers. The agents and analysts with the bureau told the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that officers were directed to investigate citizens for First Amendment activity and for expressing political views—like support for pro-life policies, Just the News previously reported. 

One FBI whistleblower, Garret O’Boyle,  testified that he was suspended by the bureau in retaliation for making protected disclosures to Congress. O'Boyle was suspended, he recounted, as his family was preparing to move from Kansas to Virginia for a job transfer within the bureau. 

O’Boyle had raised concerns that following the Supreme Court's decision to return abortion to the states in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the FBI had prioritized possible threats against the justices from pro-lifers, focusing on "pro-life adherence.”

"Why are you focusing on pro-life people?" O'Boyle recalled wondering. "It's pro-choice people who are the ones protesting or otherwise threatening violence in front of Supreme Court Justices' houses.”

But the accusations of politicization at the FBI continued. In June, Just the News reported that FBI officials conducting a top-secret security clearance review for a longtime employee asked witnesses whether that employee was known to support former President Donald Trump, if he had expressed concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine or had attended a Second Amendment rally, according to internal memos. 

The employee’s security clearance was revoked months after the interviews, which confirmed his support for Trump and gun rights and his concerns about the COVID vaccine, according to the documents obtained by Just the News.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who heads the premier law enforcement agency under the Justice Department, claimed the incident was isolated and that the interview form was designed by a contractor, not an FBI employee. 

Other pieces in the growing body of evidence include: 

• Prosecution of pro-life activists, like Mark Houck, for allegedly violating a law guaranteeing access to clinics. Houck was acquitted and sued the DOJ for "malicious prosecution.” 
• DOJ through special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a two-year investigation into alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia and turned up nothing on the former president. 
• Several IG investigations that found the James Comey-era FBI intentionally misled the FISA court in the Russia probe and wrongly usurped prosecutors' powers by declining prosecution in the Hillary Clinton email probe. 
• Marcus Allen, a former FBI employee who raised questions about the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot testified at a congressional hearing after the FBI revoked the security clearances of three agents who either attended the riot at the Capitol or espoused alternate theories about the Capitol attack. Allen had his security clearance reinstated and was awarded 27 months of backpay after being suspended since February 2022.