<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawmakers confronted Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke over her department\u2019s allegedly discriminatory practices during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday morning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Leading the charge was Chip Roy, R-TX, a former U.S. attorney who stated in his opening that in that role \u201cmy job was to equally enforce the law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJustice is blind and we must follow the facts wherever they take us,\u201d Roy said. \u201cLike all components of the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division is expected to do the same: equally enforce the law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnfortunately, under the Biden administration this has not always been the case,\u201d Roy stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Civil Rights Division has fixed its sight for example on those charged with protecting us \u2013 police departments \u2013 often harassing these departments to the point where they cannot do their jobs. There have been a series of investigations \u2026 eleven times over the last two years we\u2019ve seen a significant disparity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Roy said that these investigations represented just a \u201cfew examples of how the [Department of Justice (DOJ)] Civil Rights Division have targeted those who protect our communities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the midst of rising crime, plummeting police recruiting<\/a>, open borders, mountains of Fentanyl, the DOJ is prioritizing investigations with small- to mid-sized police departments,\u201d the congressman said. He stated that Clarke\u2019s division was \u201cusing the law to advantage or disadvantage certain states and individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roy also challenged Clarke\u2019s and the rest of the Biden administration\u2019s interpretation of the controversial Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. He noted that this law \u201cprotects abortion clinics, pregnancy resource centers, and houses of worship alike.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us fight Joe Biden\u2019s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation<\/a>!<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHowever,\u201d he continued, \u201cthe division of prosecution under the FACE Act shows a significant bias toward prosecuting FACE Act violations involving abortion clinics.\u201d In making this point, Roy specifically referenced the case of pro-life activist Mark Houck<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lawmaker also stated that the leak of the Supreme Court\u2019s draft Dobbs <\/em>decision \u201cgave rise to widespread demonstrations and attacks on pro-life facilities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn fact following the leak, more than a hundred pro-life facilities were vandalized or damaged including by arson,\u201d he said. \u201cTwo hundred eighteen Catholic churches have been attacked\u201d since the Dobbs<\/em> leak, Roy added, citing CatholicVote\u2019s violence tracker<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the face of this increase, you would expect the civil rights division to step up and protect the civil rights of these Americans.\u201d But they did not, he explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2022, the Department brought 26 prosecutions under the FACE Act. All of them involved alleged incidents at abortion clinics. In [20]23, the Department has identified for the committee one prosecution of four individuals in Florida who spray painted threats on pregnancy resource centers in the state. This marked the first time in American history that the FACE Act was used against pro-abortion protesters.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Roy also noted that there have been \u201cliterally pages of examples of anti-Semetic acts in the wake of\u201d the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere has been basically silence,\u201d he observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is true that the division must return to the nonpartisan work of protecting [the rights] of all Americans, not just those that it favors,\u201d Roy said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In September, Roy introduced a bill that would repeal the FACE Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cProtecting civil rights is essential to the Department of Justice,\u201d the assistant attorney general stated in her opening address.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Roy quickly challenged her premise. He referred to a op-ed<\/a> Clarke wrote for Newsweek <\/em>in June 2020, during the height of the widespread riots following the death of George Floyd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roy read Clarke\u2019s words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and contributed to mass incarceration, while investing more in programs and policies that address critical community needs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Roy continued:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since that time in the Summer of 2020, there have been significant drops in recruiting police nationwide, significant evidence of morale dropping for our police officers in communities across the country. Do you stand behind that statement in the op-ed\u2026 advocating for \u201cdefunding of policing operations?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n She replied: \u201cThe Justice Department fully supports funding and supporting our law enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut my question was different from that,\u201d Roy fired back. \u201cYou penned [the op-ed], and you are the head of the Civil Rights Division.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI have not advocated for defunding law enforcement at the Justice Department,\u201d Clarke replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roy still did not believe that the assistant attorney general sufficiently answered his question. \u201cYou wrote that statement,\u201d he said. \u201cDo you stand behind that statement or do you now repudiate that statement?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI have not advocated for defunding law enforcement,\u201d Clarke said, despite her previous words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roy then confronted Clarke over the Biden administration\u2019s alleged double standard concerning FACE Act prosecutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCan you tell us how many FACE Act cases have been filed since it was enacted in 1994?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration official hesitated to directly answer the question. \u201cThe [FACE Act] is an important law,\u201d she said. \u201cWe apply it even-handedly,\u201d Clarke went on to claim, before acknowledging that she does not \u201chave statistics on the number of cases.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The congressman continued:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then my question is how many cases have been filed in defense of abortion providers or in defense of pro-abortion activists versus how many FACE Act cases have been filed in defense of pro-life Americans or churches that have been attacked?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Clarke answered that she believes in \u201coutreach\u201d so that \u201cthe public understands the FACE Act applies to both pro-choice and pro-life groups.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe numbers I have are that out of 130 uses of the FACE Act since 1994,\u201d Roy noted. \u201c126 were \u2026 in defense of abortion providers, and four have been for pro-life Americans and-or churches.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke again claimed that her division is \u201ccommitted to full and even-handed enforcement of this important federal law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA, also challenged Clarke over her apparent refusal to admit there is disparity in the enforcement of the FACE Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe concern of many of us here involves the unequal application of the laws based on the political or ethnic identity of those involved,\u201d he said. \u201c[Roy] gave many examples involving everything from acts of violence against pro-life clinics to anti-Semetic hate crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe law is only respected if applied evenly, so what can you tell us to address these concerns?\u201d asked McClintock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke again stated that she believes the Biden administration\u2019s DOJ is \u201ccommitted to even-handed enforcement of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat you say and what you do seem to be very different things,\u201d the California lawmaker pointed out. \u201cFor example, how many prosecutions has your division initiated against violence and vandalism by [pro-abortion] groups such as Jane\u2019s Revenge?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n McClintock again referred to the 126-4 spread revealed by Roy. \u201cAre these numbers correct? And if they are, how do you explain them?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, Clarke refused to give the committee specific statistical evidence to back up her claim. She instead replied with the anecdote of the DOJ prosecuting one group of pro-abortion vandals in Florida<\/a> earlier this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later on in the hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-OH, asked Clarke a simple question: \u201cDo politics drive the decisions at the Justice Department today?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPolitics have no place in the work of the Civil Rights Division,\u201d Clarke answered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.lifenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/joebiden31.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Clarke Responds<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
The FACE Act Double Standard<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Is the Biden DOJ Political?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n