More voters have a “negative impression of Attorney General Merrick Garland than view him favorably,” according to a new poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports following his memo targeting anti-CRT parents.
The report claims that 39 percent of those polled view Garland unfavorably, including “29% who have a very unfavorable impression” of the attorney general.
Only 30 percent of respondents hold a positive view of Garland, and of those, only 14 percent have a strongly positive view of him.
Garland’s popularity is languishing amid accusations that he concocted a plot with the White House to target parents showing up to protest critical race theory and mask mandates at school board meetings across the country, as well as conflict of interests involving his wife and son-in-law.
His son-in-law reportedly has damning financial ties to critical race theory-based curriculums.
Alexander ‘Xan’ Tanner, who married Garland’s daughter Rebecca in 2018, is the co-founder and president of Panorama Education, a major player in the teacher training and curriculum industry. Panorama pushes race-focused surveys and conducts training on systemic oppression, white supremacy, unconscious bias, and intersectionality — all under the rubric of “Social-Emotional Learning,” the Washington Examiner reported.
And Garland’s son-in-law isn’t the only member of his family that presents a potential conflict of interest. The attorney general’s wife works for a non-profit organization that is allegedly “attempting to prevent any election audits of the 2020 Presidential Election,” according to the Gateway Pundit.
Last week, the top Justice Department official was grilled by Reps. Jim Jordan and Chip Roy during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
The attorney general—who was considered a “moderate” by Barack Obama back when he nominated Garland to the Supreme Court—was forced to answer for the Department of Justice’s memo to the FBI directing them to monitor anti-CRT parents who speak out at school board meetings.
The GOP House members asked Garland tough questions about his memo to the FBI and the threat to free speech that its enforcement would entail.
Garland responded, saying that “I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children.”
He further declared, “I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals.”
Unfortunately for Garland, these stories aren’t going away anytime soon, and neither are his low approval ratings.