During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) strongly criticized Attorney General Merrick Garland for what he perceived as the politicization and weaponization of the Justice Department under Garland’s leadership. Nehls accused Garland of being the most corrupt Attorney General in US history, alleging that he is undermining constitutional rights on a daily basis.
One of the main points raised by Nehls was the video of Joe Biden openly admitting to pressuring Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden. Nehls forced Garland to watch the footage, highlighting Biden’s statement about withholding $1 billion from Ukraine unless Shokin was fired. This incident ultimately led to Shokin’s dismissal.
The context of this situation is important. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, and its CEO Mykola Zlochevsky for corruption. Several properties and vehicles belonging to Zlochevsky had been seized. Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, was serving on the board of Burisma, which raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Nehls emphasized the significance of Biden’s statements, questioning whether it was the official policy of the United States to engage in such behavior. Garland was about to answer, but Nehls abruptly interrupted him, insisting that Biden’s actions constituted a quid pro quo and bribery. Nehls declared it impeachable and demanded to know if Garland planned to take any action regarding the matter.
Before Garland had a chance to respond, Nehls interrupted him again, stating that he doubted any action would be taken and suggesting that Garland should also be impeached. Rep. Nadler attempted to interrupt Nehls, but he brushed off the interruption and continued to make his point about Biden’s alleged wrongdoing.
The hearing showcased the contentious nature of the discussion regarding Ukraine and the Biden family’s involvement. The issue of whether Biden’s actions constituted a quid pro quo or bribery has been a subject of considerable debate. Nehls firmly believed that Biden’s actions were improper, while others may view them as within the realm of foreign policy decision-making.
The exchange between Nehls and Garland highlighted the deep divisions within Congress and the wider political landscape. Disagreements over the handling of investigations and allegations of corruption further fuel the partisan divide. Meanwhile, scrutiny of the Justice Department under Garland’s leadership continues, with critics accusing him of prioritizing political interests over justice.
Overall, the hearing served as a platform for Rep. Nehls to express his concerns about the alleged politicization and weaponization of the Justice Department under Attorney General Garland’s watch. Nehls used the opportunity to question the appropriateness of Joe Biden’s actions in Ukraine and called for accountability. Whether these allegations will lead to any tangible consequences for Garland or Biden remains to be seen.