Here’s what a “moderate” looks like these days, from Garland’s statement on his nomination to be Biden’s AG:

That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice. Communities of color and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and climate change. 150 years after the Department’s founding, battling extremist attacks on our democratic institutions also remains central to its mission. From 1995 to 1997, I supervised the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government. If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 — a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.

So Garland already believes he knows why all those heinous attackers – the majority of whom attacked no one and nothing – were there, even though they say they were there to demonstrate in support of holding a hearing in Congress to evaluate some of the allegations of election fraud. I would think the “peaceful transfer of power” would involve a close look at allegations of fraud – but apparently not.

The left is fond of saying there’s “no evidence” of this or that which the right is claiming – that certain assertions of the right are “baseless.” I wouldn’t doubt that there were a couple of white supremacists in the crowd at the Capitol on January 6th, but the idea that the rioters and the demonstrators (two different things) there that day were driven by that philosophy is – wait for it – baseless.

But why would it be surprising that the DOJ and FBI have now dedicated so much of their resources and energy to pursuing people on the right whose offenses were smaller than those on the left who have been either ignored or winked at? After all, those two government institutions have led the charge against Trump and his administration for over four long years.

If you’d like to see some of the differential treatment of the rioters and demonstrators, please see this, this, and this. From the latter:

[Barnett] turned himself in to Arkansas police two days after the riot, and was charged with entering a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, and theft of “public property,” aka the envelope.

A week later, after hearing from seven character witnesses, Arkansas magistrate Erin Wiedemann refused the government’s demand that he be held without bail until trial.

She ordered him released on $5,000 bail, and his wife, Tammy Newburn, was to pick him up the next day. But prosecutors swiftly appealed and, that night, a judge in DC, Chief Judge Beryl Howell, ruled he remain in jail.

He was whisked away to a federal prison in Oklahoma and later moved to DC with others from around the country who have been charged over the Jan. 6 riot.
see also

Richard Barnett accused of carrying stun gun during Capitol riot

Barnett waived his Miranda rights when the FBI interrogated him and spent his entire lifesavings of $25,000 on legal fees that did not save him from jail. An additional weapons charge was added, for a stun stick that he claims had no batteries.

He fired his lawyer and is currently unrepresented and broke.

Veteran New York criminal-defense lawyer Steven Metcalf, representing 25-year-old Jake Lang, who is facing federal riot charges, says he never has seen such heavy-handed treatment of defendants outside of “international drug-kingpin clients.”

Lang also was transferred to DC in the dead of night without his lawyers being informed.

“There is zero logical sense why they were transferred to DC,” Metcalf said. “All the [court] proceedings are going to be virtually conducted [online] for the foreseeable future…It just goes to show the unfair treatment and aggressive prosecution.” …

His cousin has been trying to gather donations for his legal defence but has been hampered by the fact fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe have banned anyone involved in the Capitol riot.

Yet a 28-year-old woman shown on video punching a female Trump supporter in the face has raised $250,000 on GoFundMe.

Barnett shouldn’t have brought the stun stick to the Capitol, obviously, and shouldn’t have put his foot up on the desk that turned out not to be Pelosi’s, but her aide’s.

He maintains he did not break into the Capitol but was carried by the crowd through open doors. Halpin, his cousin, has footage from his cellphone recorded as he entered the building, in a fast-moving crush of bodies. You can see his hand try to grab the door jamb as the crowd surges through.

Even before reading that, I had wondered whether a significant number of the people in the Capitol that day might have been carried in by the crush of the crowd, without originally having intended to enter the building.

But back to Garland. His remarks about January 6th weren’t his only important statements that indicate a certain frame of mind. For example, there’s also this:

For now, Garland is handling the tension between his rejection of discrimination as a moral wrong and the Biden equity doctrine by pretending that the latter is something other than what it is — indeed, that it is the opposite of what it is. Parrying Cotton’s line of inquiry, Garland said he had read “the opening of that executive order” (why not the whole thing?) and was struck by its definition of equity as “the fair and impartial treatment of every person, without regard to their status, and including individuals who are in underserved communities where they were not accorded that before.”…

…[But] in Biden’s definition of equity, the administration is not pledging to treat all people fairly and impartially, as Garland intimated. The definition says the government must consistently undertake to ensure systematically that people are treated not only fairly and impartially but justly. That is, we are talking social justice: Not equal treatment under the law, but rather the displacement of our current system, which the Left insists is inherently racist, by a newly imposed system designed to achieve the Left’s peculiar conception of justice: the utopia of equal outcomes.

Of course, equality of outcomes is not possible in this life, since we all have different talents and flaws…

Plainly, if the goal of promoting equity truly were to treat everyone equally, there would be no need to catalogue different statuses. Instead, Biden’s order would simply say what Garland incorrectly claimed that it does say, namely, that all people must be treated equally regardless of their status. Alas, Biden’s equity doctrine cannot do that. Its modus operandi is to factor status into every equation, in order to assess whether there has been a disparate outcome between different racial groups; or between a) Biden’s list of preferred statuses (collectively, the “underserved”) and b) those who don’t make Biden’s list — i.e., the oppressor class of white heterosexuals who are not poor, disabled, or residing in rural areas.

Garland either is an ignorant fool or a lying hypocrite on this – or, I suppose, he can rationalize it to himself in some way. But the promotion of that sort of “equity” used to be a radical leftist point of view, which now has become the mainstream Democrat position.

The left’s approach is to redefine and label things in a certain way and act on those redefinitions. Even those Capitol demonstrators who were not violent and had little to nothing to say about white vs. black (which was certainly not the subject matter of the demonstration) are “insurrectionist white supremacists.” If need be, the press and Democratic politicians and pundits will lie repeatedly about the extent and meaning of the violence – just think of the stories in the MSM of Officer Sicknick’s cause of death, an attempt to pin it on the demonstrators. If need be, redefine legal concepts and give them nice-sounding labels such as “equity” – who would object to equity? – and sell that to the public as you institute policies they would never vote for if informed of what they actually meant.

[NOTE: Because Garland is a human being, I would not rule out the idea that he also is still angry at the right for the blocking of his Supreme Court nomination.]