November 29, 2021

Senator Ted Cruz nails Attorney General Merrick Garland on critical race theory during Senate Judiciary Committee

The Washington, D.C., swamp is full of bottomfeeders who use their powerful positions to line their pockets. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called out one prominent official he charged was using policy to enrich a relative.

Cruz confronted Attorney General Merrick Garland for promoting a Critical Race Theory curriculum that benefits his son-in-law’s education company, the Daily Caller reported. This occurred Wednesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Garland’s son-in-law, Xan Tanner, is cofounder of Panorama Education, Inc. which conducts surveys for school districts that lay the groundwork for those schools to adopt CRT curricula purchased from other vendors, according to Forbes. It raked in $76 million dollars from private-sector investors and has contracted with 23,000 public school districts.

Parents have begun pushing back against CRT by showing up at school board meetings. Rather than hear parents out or let them have a say, Garland sent a memo suggesting the FBI start investigating those parents, a link that becomes problematic in light of his relationship to Tanner, the New York Post reported.

Cruz suggested that there may be an ethics violation given the cozy connection between Garland’s memo and the benefits to Tanner’s company. Garland refused to answer despite the GOP Senator’s repeated requests. “Yes or no did you seek an ethics opinion? Did you seek an ethics opinion? General are you refusing to answer if you sought an ethics opinion?” Cruz asked.

“I’m telling you that if I thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest,” Garland finally responded after Cruz repeated the question to him. The attorney general also insisted the FBI memo had no link to advancing CRT, though cooling dissent would mean the junk philosophy would survive.

“If critical race theory is taught in more schools does your son-in-law make more money? Yes or no?” Cruz further goaded Garland and again received no answer. It seems the silence said it all.

It’s not clear if Garland was using his position to further Tanner’s interests. However, the fact that the attorney general never sought guidance before dashing off a controversial missive that would benefit his son-in-law clearly smacks of swampiness enough to raise suspicions.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

OUR TWEETS

PRESIDENT'S TWEETS

Sign Up For The Daily Newsletter

SYNDICATED NEWS