'Collusion' Against Trump - Merrick Garland Meltdown In Congress

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and it looks like Attorney

General Merrick Garland just got caught. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment

share and subscribe. Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue

to grow. Merrick Garland sat before the House today and he was grilled on possible collusion

efforts between himself and the office of Letitia James, himself and Fannie Willis, himself and Alvin

Bragg or his office and these people. And as a very simple way to prove it, Matt Gaetz pointed

out what that way was and he asked Merrick Garland if he would do it. And Merrick Garland dutifully

avoided the question, danced around it, gave political answers but wouldn't say yes, I will

prove to you there was no collusion because I'll show you the communications. He wouldn't do it

Why? Why won't you do it Mr. Garland if you haven't weaponized the Department of Justice

if you haven't weaponized the law against your political opponents, if we're not seeing

Republican after Republican, connected or not connected to Trump, get nailed by your

Department of Justice? There's a new story, it appears almost daily. So why is that if there's

no collusion? Why is it if you're above board and haven't weaponized the law in the Department of

Justice? I want you to watch Matt Gaetz take him down and watch how Merrick Garland dances around

actually doing his job and then give me your opinions in the comments. Between the department

and Alvin Bragg's office and Fannie Willis's office and Letitia James's office. The offices

you're referring to are independent offices of state. I get that, I get that. The question is

whether or not you will provide all of your documents and correspondence, that's the question

I don't need a history lesson. Well, I'm going to say again, we do not control those offices

they make their own decisions. The question is whether you communicate with them, not whether you control them. Do you communicate with them and will you provide those communications? If you make

a request, we'll refer it to our office of legislative affairs. But see, here's the thing

you come in here and you lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated

lawfare against Trump. And then when we say fine, just give us the documents, give us the

correspondence, and then if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident. But when you say

well, we'll take your request and then we'll sort of work it through the DOJ's accommodation

process, then you're actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned

about. Now, you were a judge, once nominated the highest court in our country. When you were a

judge, I'm just curious, did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates

No. No. And you didn't because that would create the potential appearance of impropriety. I didn't

because there's a federal rule barring federal judges from making contributions. Right. But

under that same theory of attacks on the judicial process, shouldn't someone be owed

like a jury of their peers and a judge that's non-biased rather than getting a judge from

your political opponent's donor file? I'm well aware that you're not asking a hypothetical

You're asking me to comment on a jury verdict in another jurisdiction which has to be respected

I won't comment on it. That case is still ongoing. Mr. Attorney General, I hadn't asked you about

the verdict yet. We were getting there. I was talking about the judge. And so let me ask you

this question about your time as a judge. Was