Garland about to speak

Investigating threats against school officials is not silencing parents that dissent. It is investigating THREATS against officials and seeing if there is some pattern in those threats.

"apply the threat tag to assessments and investigations of threats specifically targeted against..."

Who should we believe? The person they are claiming made the statement that denies it along with everyone else in the meeting and in the chain of command or the 2 people that are RW ''whistleblowers" that can't blow a whistle?

You are presenting a cherry picked half-truth.

This started when the National School Board Association sent a letter to the White House whining about parents who made vocal objections to shit they were doing. Unfortunately the NSBA took the letter down so I can't present it.

https://nsba.org/404

The White House then told the DOJ to look into this. The DOJ was using the Patriot Act law to label any parent or parent group "domestic terrorists" who objected to Progressive Leftist school board actions. This in turn became public, started a shit storm of pushback, and Garland had to drop the whole mess, lie to congress about even being involved, and the Democrats hoped the whole clusterfuck disappeared.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/wh-ai...-letter-before-garland-sicced-fbi-on-parents/

Of course, Garland tried to minimize the damage as recited here:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/poli...ncerned with “illegal” threats and harassment.

The NSBA was at the core of this: (from CNN source)

They pointed to a message Friday issued by the National School Boards Association, in which the organization apologized for the language that it used in a September entreaty to President Joe Biden seeking a federal response to the threats. In its September letter, which has been cited repeatedly by Republicans, the organization said that the protests and threats against school board members “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

This isn't even a federal issue, it is a local one, so Garland using the DOJ and FBI was acting illegally in any case.

The October 4 memo is unusual for saying not much beyond the obvious: that it’s illegal to make threats of violence. It orders prosecutors and federal law enforcement to have meetings and consider strategies to deal with the issue.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland at the White House on June 23, 2021 in Washington, DC. Bannon contempt vote puts Attorney General Merrick Garland in center of legal and political storm.
The obliquely written language is the kind that Justice Department officials sometimes use to call attention to an issue, without promising any specific legal action. Threats against school administrators and teachers normally are investigated by state and local authorities, not the FBI.


So, it's the White House first, then the DOJ that are entirely at fault for acting on a politically motivated memo from a very Left leaning private organization, the NSBA. I have zero doubt Joke did it because the NSBA is peripherally related to teacher's unions and those are very big Democrat donors. Things went south from there. Using the federal government to pursue political goals against any group or anyone is heinous. It's the stuff of autocrats and despots.
 
Look at you lying about the documents and what they said...


What we are now seeing is a pattern of threats and violence occurring across state lines and via
online platforms, which is why we need the federal government’s assistance.

These 2 instances are from the letter -
In Arizona a board was forced to leave their board room due to security issues.
An individual filmed themselves with zip tie handcuffs on the way to a school site to arrest the principal for enforcing a quarantine policy instituted by state and county.

These are not acts of simple dissent. These are physical threats.


Clearly you didn't read the nsba letter you claimed to read.
The letter states...
"If a board meeting remains civil ..criticizing board/district decisions, threatening to recall or vote them out, that is fair game.."
 
Look at you lying about the documents and what they said...




These 2 instances are from the letter -
In Arizona a board was forced to leave their board room due to security issues.
An individual filmed themselves with zip tie handcuffs on the way to a school site to arrest the principal for enforcing a quarantine policy instituted by state and county.

These are not acts of simple dissent. These are physical threats.


Clearly you didn't read the nsba letter you claimed to read.
The letter states...
"If a board meeting remains civil ..criticizing board/district decisions, threatening to recall or vote them out, that is fair game.."



If actions are coordinated across state lines then it is a federal issue.
 
I use my common sense, but it is not up to me or you- it is up to the court.

I believe in the Judicial system, I believe in the Constitution, and I believe in the institutions of our government.

I don't cry when I don't get my way, and I don't accuse the system of being rigged just because I don't get my way.

Everything to me is not about political party, OR ANY ONE MAN. It is a choice between what's right and wrong for me, my family, and the Vocal and Voting Moral Majority of us here in America.

It is not illegal to whine about losing an election.
 
Is it illegal to organize an attack on the Capitol and seek to murder the VP and all Democrats in the building?

He didn't organize anything lol.

He never attempted to murder anyone, he never told anyone to.

He told them to be peaceful.

You guys are completely writing your own narrative at this point but that doesn't hold up in court.
 
He didn't organize anything lol.

He never attempted to murder anyone, he never told anyone to.

He told them to be peaceful.

You guys are completely writing your own narrative at this point but that doesn't hold up in court.
Nyet, comrade Tink, but the more you lie, but more you prove you are not trustworthy.
 
Nyet, comrade Tink, but the more you lie, but more you prove you are not trustworthy.

You don't find it odd that Biden's DOJ waited until now to start filing charges?

Right when election time is nearing?

They've had all this information for years.

Use some common sense here.

They have already charged and sentenced the people involved in Jan 6 but apparently couldn't file against Trump until now?

C'mon
 
You don't find it odd that Biden's DOJ waited until now to start filing charges?

Right when election time is nearing?

They've had all this information for years.

Use some common sense here.

They have already charged and sentenced the people involved in Jan 6 but apparently couldn't file against Trump until now?

C'mon

I don't believe liars.
 
Typical response from someone who can no longer debate with facts.

lol
Nyet, comrade Tink.

There are three types of Trumpers on JPP; traitors, hostile foreign agents and the mentally ill.

You don't strike me as mentally ill and, after our conversation the past few weeks, I doubt you're an American.
 

Biden Summary:
-Police State censorship: Check ✔️
-Weaponization of DOJ: Check ✔️
-Weaponization of FBI: Check ✔️
-Bribes from foreigners: Check ✔️
-Disregards Constitution: Check ✔️
-Arrests political opponents: Check✔️
-Colludes with Communists: Check✔️
-Violates civil liberties: Check ✔️

--------------------------------------

Its a revolution folks...wake up....your ignorance is embarrassing.
 
Trumper Summary:
-Spreads hate against all non-Trumpers: Check ✔️
-Advocates that Trump can do no wrong: Check ✔️
-Supports Putin: Check ✔️
-Claims the United States is in decline: Check ✔️
-Refuses to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic: Check ✔️
-Spreads White Nationalist ideology: Check✔️
-Claims Commies and Nazis are both the same thing and all Left: Check✔️
-Violates civil liberties: Check ✔️
 
The indictment is in the CNN link dumbass.

And yes I did read it and my points stand until you can refute them which you apparently can't.

What is the first count in the indictment?

What are the facts alleged in that first count?

Is it fraud to get someone to falsely sign a document?
 
Back
Top