reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @theamgreatness
@theamgreatness - American Greatness
WATCH: Chasing Trump is the very first documentary produced by American Greatness. We do a deep dive into the backgrounds of the four leftwing prosecutors targeting President Trump. You can watch the whole documentary right here for free! https://t.co/97UUpGdlP2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Four politically motivated prosecutors, Jack Smith, Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Tish James, are targeting Donald Trump in a series of unprecedented investigations. These prosecutors are driven by a "get Trump" philosophy and are using their positions to influence the 2024 election. They are employing questionable tactics, such as violating attorney-client privilege and bringing charges based on novel legal theories. The prosecutors have shown bias and have diverted resources from fighting crime to pursue their political agenda. Their actions undermine the principles of justice and the rule of law. America deserves better.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Four corrupt politically motivated prosecutors. One target, Donald Trump. They say they're upholding the law, but a close examination reveals politics of the very worst kind meant to influence the 2024 election. Investigations unprecedented in American history, part of a broader attempt to silence and penalize a president who challenged the status quo.
Speaker 1: You have 4 or 5 different prosecutions in different form on different highly aggressive theories and applications of the law. On the eve of an election for the president of the United States, can there be any doubt that there's a sentiment of this is get Trump? Get Trump.
Speaker 2: It is prosecutions against president Trump, both the criminal prosecution along with the civil fraud prosecution is blatant, election interference. It's democrat warfare to take out president Trump. They fear that they can't beat Trump on November 5, 2024, and so they just want to throw him in prison for the rest of his life. They want to bankrupt him. And if that doesn't work, they wanna disqualify him under the 14th amendment with a bogus legal theory.
The people who pretend like they're protecting democracy are using republic ending tactics to take out the leading presidential candidates.
Speaker 0: A unanimous supreme court ruled that these partisan efforts to take Trump off state ballots were illegal, but that's not stopping these prosecutors.
Speaker 2: The key tell that this is all political is that these prosecutors waited 30 months to bring these unprecedented indictments against a former president.
Speaker 0: Let's meet the 4 prosecutors. Jack Smith, heading Joe Biden's weaponized criminal division at the Department of Justice. Smith is on a mission, but it's not a mission for honest justice. It's a fanatical get Trump philosophy that is driving him.
Speaker 3: Jack Smith is very political. He's very partisan. He hates Donald Trump. He's got a long history with, trying to get Trump. This is a guy who will stop at nothing to manipulate the situation in order to get what he wants politically.
Speaker 4: This Jack Smith who would drop this hammer right after dropping the other hammer on the Mar a Lago's case, I mean, he's out for blood. And now he's just on a mission to take out Donald Trump. It's very clear.
Speaker 3: He's not pursuing justice or the idea that no one is above the law. He's trying to influence your vote with this case.
Speaker 0: While Smith prosecutes Trump for having presidential papers at Mar a Lago, the justice department takes no action against Biden for having vice presidential and senate papers in open boxes strewn across his garage, and Biden told his ghostwriter where he could find the classified papers.
Speaker 5: Evidence included an audio recorded conversation during which during which mister Biden told his ghostwriter that he had, quote, just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote. When mister Biden said this, he was a private citizen speaking to his ghostwriter in his private rental home in Virginia. We also identified other recorded conversations during which mister Biden read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter.
Speaker 0: Well, it
Speaker 6: is a double standard. I mean, number 1, president Trump is covered by the Presidential Records Act where then vice president and then senator, Joe Biden was not. So he has a right to those documents. What we see again is that Joe Biden gets off, Donald Trump gets the book thrown at him, and it's very plain for the American people to see this. 2 ex officials with classified documents.
1 gets the book thrown at him, 1 gets off scot free. And it's not a hard case to make for the American people to see how differently these two men are being treated.
Speaker 0: After failing to get Trump as one of the lead attorneys in the Mueller Russia collusion investigation, Smith will stop at nothing to get his target, including prosecutorial misconduct and forcing Trump attorneys to testify against him in violation of attorney client privilege.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith takes very hard charging, high risk legal tactics in his case. He forces attorneys to testify against their clients. It's a bedrock constitutional, principle, the of the attorney client privilege that that, clients can get candid advice from their attorneys, and they didn't don't they don't have to worry about prosecutors or other government officials hauling in their attorneys to testify against them.
Speaker 0: Smith's case is built on novel legal theories and a shredding of a president's first amendment rights to protest an election and speak out as a private citizen.
Speaker 2: There is no one doing more damage to the first amendments than Biden, special counsel, Jack Smith. They are eviscerating the first amendment with this bogus legal theory that they're using to go after Trump on January 6th, where they're trying to criminalize clearly protected speech and conduct. You are allowed to object to presidential elections in America, both under the electoral count act of 18/87 and the first amendment. You are allowed as a criminal defendant to speak out against the judge, witnesses. That is protected by the first amendment.
If there's anyone on the planet who needs the bill the ability to speak out, it is a criminal defendant who believes he's being politically targeted by his enemies.
Speaker 1: Jack Smith's prosecution of Donald Trump will chill every future president, every future leader from expressing themselves about the operation of government and whether it's lawful or not and whether there are forces at work that are trying to undermine our American constitution and our values and our way of life. And when you chill free speech, you seriously undermine our ability as a government to act in a transparent, open, and honest way.
Speaker 0: And Smith's prosecution team tried to coerce a witness by threatening the judgeship application of his attorney.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith's top deputy is Jay Bratt. Jay Bratt stands credibly accused of threatening Walt Nada's attorney, Stanley Woodward. Walt Nada is a codefendant of president Trump in the Mar a Lago case. He's a longtime personal aid of president Trump, and Jack Smith named both president Trump and Walt Nada as codefendants in the Mar a Lago case. And Jay Bratz allegedly told Stanley Woodward, the attorney to codefendant Walt Nada, that, essentially, Stanley Woodward's application to be a a DC judge could be in jeopardy if Walt Nada didn't turn on president Trump.
It wasn't that explicit, but
Speaker 7: is the prosecutor who will try to go after any possible thing, and, frankly, he's somewhat of of a lunatic. We saw this with how he went after Bob McDonald, the former governor of Virginia, and that case had to be thrown out. At the end of the day, the reason why Merrick Garland chose Jack Smith is because Jack Smith will do anything, and I mean anything, to try to get a conviction.
Speaker 8: It was not only my case, but it was John Edwards. It was the lowest lowest learner investigation of conservatives. He had a lot of high profile people where I think this was his error. I think he's overzealous and overaggressive and willing to extend the law to the point to get a win, and that's absolutely wrong.
Speaker 0: In a 2019 complaint and request for investigation by the respected legal firm, Mayer Brown, evidence was found of prosecutorial misconduct by Smith, including improper media leaks, illegal wiretaps, concealment of exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence, destruction of evidence, and introduction of false testimony. And according to congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the house committee on oversight, Smith was the leading legal voice in the Obama administration urging the IRS to improperly target conservative organizations. Smith was likely promoted by Obama and Biden due to his history of going after Republicans. And it's a family business too. Smith's wife donated to Biden and produced a fawning documentary over Michelle Obama and another attacking conservatives.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith's wife produced a documentary on the Obamas. Right? That seems pretty a pretty cozy relationship that the special counsel who Merrick Garland hand selected to take out president Trump is married to a democrat activist who has a very cozy relationship with Barack and Michelle Obama, producing a documentary and donating to Biden and Obama's political campaigns.
Speaker 1: They would have been wiser to have an independent prosecutor who is truly, purely independent of one political party or the other. I don't think the prosecutor should be able someone who's got a long track record as a democrat. I think there are many, many prosecutors out there who are apolitical, and that's what you want. That's what we should have so that you rise above those questions. I don't think Jack Smith, fits that independent definition.
Speaker 2: What makes Jack Smith so biased is he brings these novel, which is another way of saying bogus legal theories, untested legal theories, and these high stakes cases that where you're gonna try to take out a former president and the leading presidential candidate under a bogus legal theory, a bogus legal theory that it's somehow a crime to object to a presidential election. If it were illegal to object, democrats would be in jail for objecting to republican wins at 19 68, 2000, 2004, 2016. Objections are allowed by the electoral count act of 18/87. Twisting arms politically, is allowed by the first amendment. And if it were a crime to be a jerk, every politician in Washington DC with very few exceptions would be in jail.
Speaker 0: Then there's Fannie Willis, the Democrat activist district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia who has used her indictment of Donald Trump to raise money for her campaign.
Speaker 8: As you know, she, put up a website just a few days before coming out with this indictment,
Speaker 9: political race.
Speaker 1: For Fannie Willis to campaign and to raise money on the basis of I will prosecute a particular individual, That's wrong. There were no facts established. There was no grand jury investigations. It's based upon suspicion, and prosecutors don't make commitments based on suspicions. Prosecutors are supposed to make commitments and take action based upon objective, provable facts.
And to raise money in a campaign on the basis that you're gonna prosecute president Trump is completely unprofessional. It's completely uncalled for and and, frankly, is abhorrent.
Speaker 10: When you put the eyes before everybody that everybody's gonna be looking for Fawnee Willis and you put a a page out there for Democrats across the country to donate to, that's the best time to do it. But it then does invite the criticism that it's a political, deal. This is done to uplift a a political agenda.
Speaker 0: In a grotesque display of her partisan intent, Fannie Willis took two and a half years to indict Trump, timing the trial to begin right before the 2024 presidential election, and forced Trump to be fingerprinted and pose for a criminal mugshot.
Speaker 2: Fannie Willis waited 30 months to bring her January 6th racketeering criminal case against president Trump and 18 codefendants, and now she's, demanding a trial in August right before the presidential election in November. If that's not blatant election interference, I don't know what is.
Speaker 11: This is a county district attorney. 4th indictment, and now you're seeing a mugshot. Why is it that out of 4 indictments, the 4th one, now you're seeing the mugshot. It appears that this is for political reasons, that this is a claim to fame for her, and that she had campaigned on going after president Trump.
Speaker 0: And Fannie Willis hired her boyfriend who had no prosecutorial experience to be a lead investigator in the Trump case.
Speaker 6: A former Trump campaign official filed the motion this week alleging that Fulton County District Attorney Fawnee Willis became romantically involved with attorney Nathan Wade prior to appointing him special prosecutor in the case in authorizing payments of more than $650,000 to his law office over the past couple years.
Speaker 12: This is absurd to pay half a $1,000,000 to apparently her boyfriend, so that they can go after Donald Trump. I I can't imagine that any fair minded judge would look at this case and say, yeah. This is all on the up and up.
Speaker 13: Wade's ex wife submitted bank records showing Willis and Wade took multiple trips together during the investigation into the Georgia election interference case involving former president Donald Trump.
Speaker 14: Did you take a trip with miss Willis in 2023 to Belize?
Speaker 10: I did.
Speaker 14: Did you take a trip to California with miss Willis in 2023?
Speaker 2: I did.
Speaker 9: Maybe we should give Fawney Willis the benefit of the doubt. Maybe maybe she didn't know it was a conflict of interest to have sex with an employee.
Speaker 15: In 2020, Fawnee Willis was asked why Fulton County voters should elect her as DA instead of her opponent.
Speaker 16: They deserve a DA that won't have sex with his employees because they deserve a DA that won't put money in their own pocket.
Speaker 14: Did you disclose your relationship to anybody at Fulton County? No. I don't think so. Are you aware that Fulton County requires you to disclose any relationship with someone that you're doing business with? I'm not aware.
Speaker 15: To me, that was stunning. Again, she's going after Trump for election interference. She doesn't even know her own ethical obligations.
Speaker 0: In a decision handed down by judge McAfee, he ruled that the Willis Wade relationship created the perception of a conflict of interest and forced Nathan Wade to resign. The judge went on to say that Willis had engaged in a tremendous lapse in judgment, had testified in an unprofessional manner, and that there were reasonable questions about whether they had testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship.
Speaker 17: The judge calls out the DA's, quote, tremendous lack in judgment, the odor of mendacity. He says that the speech the public speech she made in the church was, quote, legally improper. And the judge even says in the ruling, it may be time for a gag order on the DA.
Speaker 18: So while, yes, this is about Fonnie Willis' fate in terms of leading this, there's something much more at stake, which is trust in the judicial system. So anyone who says that this is a win for Fonnie Willis, it's a technical victory. I would argue this this helps the the Trump team.
Speaker 0: And it has also been revealed that Willis and Wade visited the White House, raising questions about whether this prosecution is evidence of the Biden administration unethically coordinating these prosecutions against Trump.
Speaker 19: Even more concerning now is these reports that we hear that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade were taking, were taking meetings at the White House. And what I really wanna know about those meetings is whether there was an improper purpose. Were they trying to, set the timing up so that it would interfere with the 2024 election? All of these questions need very serious answers.
Speaker 0: Fannie Willis has a history of partisan political activity, such as endorsing and fundraising for Democrats, including raising money against the target of her criminal investigation. In fact, a judge barred Willis from investigating pro Trump Republican state senator Bert Jones due to her political bias, stating that her actions were a conflict of interest with horrific optics.
Speaker 20: I use that phrase, what were you thinking, where the prosecutors thought I could prosecute the codefendant, someone I defended. It's a what are you thinking moment. If we are trying to maintain confidence that this investigation is pursuing facts in a nonpartisan sense. No matter who the district attorney is, we follow the evidence where it goes and ignore the fact that I hosted a fundraiser for the political opponent of someone I've just named Target, and I'm on national media almost nightly talking about this investigation. It that's problematic.
Speaker 10: And she's not been the best at making some decisions from a, optic standpoint. Even the judge, you know, there was a case here in which she was investigating the lieutenant governor down here, which, they said that she could no longer prosecute because she had a fundraiser for during the election cycle for the gentleman running against, Bert Jones' lieutenant governor down here.
Speaker 0: And while Willis pursues a political agenda, she's failing at her most important job, fighting crime. Violent crimes, homicides, burglaries, car theft, and shoplifting have skyrocketed in Atlanta under Willis' watch.
Speaker 2: Fannie Willis has diverted way too many resources in the Fulton County DA's office to go after Trump, Trump's top aids, Trump's lawyers, Trump supporters. And at the same time, she's let crime get out of control in Fulton County, Georgia and Atlanta, Georgia, and that includes murders, carjackings, and many other violent crimes.
Speaker 0: Up next, the George Soros backed Manhattan DA, Albin Bragg. Trump hater and ultra liberal Soros invested $1,000,000 in Bragg's campaign, and it paid big dividends as Bragg has let criminals go free while pursuing a purely political prosecution against president Donald Trump.
Speaker 21: These are people who are only being supported with, you know, $40,000,000 in the case of Alvin Bragg, a $1,000,000 from George Soros only because of a promise that if you're in this position, you will pursue political prosecution of our opponents, those on the right.
Speaker 22: Huge political donations from George Soros and his family members that have supported Alvin Bragg and his ability to get into the office of district attorney here in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg in New York City, who's a Trump prosecutor, is himself, changing dramatically the office of prosecution in New York City. He's not prosecuting. He's derelict in his duty to carry out his functions for the everyday law and order on the streets of New York City. Yet he wants to make a big deal out of prosecuting Trump because he believes that'll bring him national attention.
Speaker 0: Trump was in the New York real estate game for decades. Now suddenly, Bragg finds something suspicious. It's politics, plain and simple.
Speaker 12: Well, speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I'm extraordinarily distressed by this document. I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be.
Speaker 8: If I had to characterize it, it's disappointment. I think everyone was hoping we would see more.
Speaker 9: I had hoped that there would be more, in the indictment.
Speaker 17: Here's where we're gonna run into legal problems because the indictment does not say what that second crime is, which is completely inexplicable to know.
Speaker 9: Look at this, Mitt Romney, he hates Donald Trump, but he released this statement quote, the prosecutors overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public's faith in our justice system. Former congressman Justin Amash, who enthusiastically voted to impeach Donald Trump. He tweeted out quote, I am stunned that any prosecutor would move forward with this. It's even flimsier than we were led to believe. 34 stacked counts bootstrapped to an unstated crime to manufacture felony charges.
Speaker 2: Alvin Bragg has diverted so many resources in the Manhattan DA's office to get Trump that they have let crime get out of hands, out of control in New York City. And Alvin Bragg is the George Soros funded Manhattan DA, and he has brought a bogus criminal indictment against president Trump for the noncrime of a businessman settling a nuisance claim. And Alvin Bragg has somehow turned that into multiple felony charges under some convoluted campaign finance theory.
Speaker 0: Bragg's record as a prosecutor is terrifying. 7 NYPD officers were shot in the 1st weeks of Bragg's term. 100 of police officers and district attorneys have resigned.
Speaker 23: DA Bragg is sending a clear message that it's okay to assault police officers. It's becoming fair game for law enforcement upon law enforcement from people.
Speaker 0: Rape, robberies, and felonies were up dramatically. Bragg has allowed a small group of 10 repeat offenders to go on a criminal rampage. The 10 offenders have a combined total of 500 arrests. It got so bad, the NYPD commissioner blasted Bragg's soft on crime policies.
Speaker 24: We've seen a number of reports where there have been repeat offenders, quite frankly. The New York Times had this report out yesterday. It had to do with shoplifters. And, basically, a number of those folks who had been caught shoplifting did it again and committed the crimes over and over.
Speaker 0: New York is a far less safe city, thanks to Bragg. Politics, not law and order, come first with Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 25: I would suggest that mister Bragg might wanna do the job he was hired by the people of New York to do, which is to protect
Speaker 2: New York.
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg, in spending so much time and energy and making such a priority out of getting Trump rather than prosecuting street crime, rather than prosecuting, gun violations, rather than prosecuting retail theft. He's destroying the quality of life in New York City. That's George Soros' agenda. Get Trump. Get these progressive prosecutors to ignore their responsibilities, and turn the prosecutorial system and the system of criminal justice on its head.
Speaker 0: This mother lost her son to violence in New York City. She blames Bragg's misplaced priorities for her son's death.
Speaker 26: I think it is, absolutely politically motivated, especially when Alvin Bragg is not prosecuting everyday crime that's happening here in New York City, where he is dropping murder and gang assault indictments against 2 of the people involved in my son's murder. If he would actually do his job and prosecute crime instead of wasting more of our tax dollars and more of the public's time going after Trump, maybe, just maybe, things could start to turn around.
Speaker 0: Last, but certainly not least, Leticia Tish James. This far left New York attorney general, also funded by Soros, made it clear from the start. This isn't about justice. It's about a political vendetta against Donald Trump.
Speaker 27: I'm running for attorney general because I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president. We must do our job to ensure that the man currently occupying the oval office is held accountable to any and everything he has done.
Speaker 0: As attorney general, James said she looked forward to going into the office of attorney general every day, suing president Trump, and then going home. In other words, Trump was already guilty as charged.
Speaker 1: Leticia James, before she was the attorney general, campaigned on a platform of, if you elect me, I will prosecute Donald Trump. That is unprecedented, and it's abhorrent. Prosecutors are supposed to have reasonableness. They're supposed to be objective. They're supposed to follow the evidence.
They're not supposed to go into an election advocating the prosecution of a particular individual as part of the reason that that person should be elected. It is the most political prosecution of its stature that you could possibly imagine.
Speaker 0: Former US attorney, senior FBI official, and chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chuck Rosenberg, wrote that Tish James comments during her campaign demonstrate a prejudgment of the facts and a political to the issues she must now manage apolitically and dispassionately. She ought to fully and deeply appreciate that injudicious comments undermine her office and her cases legally and factually. The heart of Jane's suit is her claim that Trump inflated the values of his properties to get bank loans. But the banks conduct independent appraisals of these properties, had no objections to the Trump appraisals, and were paid back every nickel of the loans. Incredibly, the case claimed Mar a Lago, one of the most coveted properties in the world, was worth only 18,000,000.
What parking lots go for in West Palm Beach?
Speaker 28: Well, here's the wildest one that's going on right now. You know the Mar a Lago controversy of the the price pricing or the,
Speaker 9: The inflated value of the house. Yeah.
Speaker 28: The Mar a Lago Yeah. The the judge ruled that it was worth 18,000,000. It's 20 acres in, like, the most expensive real estate in that area. Like, a house down the street from it, much smaller, just sold for $50,000,000. Wow.
Even if Forbes said it's worth somewhere between I think see what Forbes said. I think they said it was worth between $307,100,000,000. And, they were saying that it's worth 18,000,000.
Speaker 1: The idea that Donald Trump could be fined $250,000,000 and be forever barred in New York on the basis of a financial statement that nobody ever complained about is absurd just to state the proposition. It's not a revenge game. It's not a revenge organization. It's not an organization that's supposed to hand out retribution. The justice system is supposed to seek just results, fair results, reasonable outcomes given the conduct at issue.
And when you have conduct at issue that nobody's ever complained of, that was sought after by these banks and still sought after, you're really talking about an absurd prosecution, an absurd request for
Speaker 0: relief. Judge Enguerrand's ruling that Trump must pay $354,900,000 for supposedly duping these sophisticated banks is unheard of. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School stated that the court admitted that not a single dollar was lost by the banks from these dealings. Indeed, witnesses testified that they wanted to do more business with Trump who was described as a whale client with high yield business opportunities.
Speaker 9: In this case, what I'm trying to figure out, and I'm not pro or con or I don't care about the politics, who lost money? Nobody. The bank got paid back the construction finance loan and a new building was built. And if if you're gonna sue this case and win, you gotta sue every real estate developer everywhere. This is all they do.
This is what they do all day long every day. So I don't think this thing will ever survive appeal regardless of what the fine is. This doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 0: When James is not promoting a political agenda, she's failing at fighting crime. Murder, assault, and carjackings have all seen significant increases in New York during her tenure.
Speaker 29: Every single day after we witness video after video coming out of the big apple depicting horrendous acts of violent crime, all under the watch of mayor Adams and the Trump obsessed attorney general Letitia James.
Speaker 0: Clearly, politics and get Trump are James' priorities, not fighting crime.
Speaker 15: This is a complete political hit job. It's been what Leticia James' entire mission has been a political mission to take down Donald Trump. It's not about helping senior citizens across New York who've been scammed. It's not about dealing with New York's horrible crime crisis, which is facing New Yorkers across the state. She represents the entire state of New York, not just New York City.
There's millions of people that need help from our attorney general to enforce the laws, but she is particularly obsessed with with trying to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: Four prosecutors following a purely political agenda. Justice should be blind, but these 4 are blindly ambitious Trump haters doing a disservice to America.
Speaker 1: Justice is supposed to be blind because you're supposed to take an objective look at the facts, and you're supposed to take a fair and reasonable application of the laws and apply them in the manner in which it was intended to be applied. That is not happening with Donald Trump. It's It's not happening in a lot of his prosecutions.
Speaker 2: What Jack Smith, what Fannie Willis, what Alvin Bragg, what Tish James, what they're doing with these Democrat judges, this is highly inappropriate. It's what they're doing. This is Democrats' election interference. It's law fair. It is highly destructive to our country.
Speaker 1: It is, clearly a targeted prosecution aimed to get Trump. That's what's going on. Get Trump. And that's not the way our system works, and that's not what our people expect of our elected officials and particularly our officials who are in
Speaker 2: after these democrats brought these unprecedented indictments against a former president and the leading presidential candidate, and this is not gonna go well for our country. Because that means when Republicans are in office, they're gonna bring indictments against Democrats. And when Democrats are in office, they're gonna bring indictments against Republicans. And that is how our country fails.
Speaker 0: Real justice, honest justice, blind justice. Our constitution demands it. These 4 prosecutors are shredding it. America deserves better.
@theamgreatness - American Greatness
On Sunday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that Congress could pursue an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland for abuse of power. https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/26/speaker-kevin-mccarthy-hints-at-impeaching-attorney-general-merrick-garland/
Speaker Kevin McCarthy Hints at Impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland › American Greatness
On Sunday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested that Congress could pursue an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland for…
amgreatness.com