Documents: White House, DOJ Communicated Over Memo Targeting Parents at School Board Meetings
“We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion.”
America First Legal shared documents with Fox News showing communication between the Biden White House and the DOJ over the memo that demonized protesting parents at school board meetings.
Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memo weaponized the FBI against these parents after the National School Boards Association begged former President Joe Biden’s administration to intervene.
The NSBA described the protests as “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
The memo came out on October 4, 2021.
Unfortunately, the report does not share the documents, so I could not review them myself:
The document dump included an email from an aide to the deputy attorney general that the DOJ was searching for a “federal hook” to use to address a letter by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) raising alarm about parents who were expressing outrage at school board meetings across the country.
“We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But WH has been in touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion,” deputy attorney general aide Kevin Chambers wrote to a colleague on Oct. 1.
I cannot remember if Biden or the White House ever denied having knowledge of the memo before its release.
The DOJ said: “Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools, today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. These sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Yeah, OK,. so what is Blondie gonna do about it?
What do you want her to do?
The big question is whether any of this constitutes an actual crime rather than something we just don’t like. Without an actual crime you’re not going to see indictments or perp walks. If anyone can identify a part of the U.S. Code that’s been violated, please identify it.
Otherwise, what is the AG supposed to do?
there were school boards that shut down free speech and/or investigate parents etc etc
lets start with the and at the least
the people should rise up with pitch forks and dismantle the leftist hold over the tax money and children
Seems like a conspiracy to deprive US citizens of their constitutional right to speak freely. So, a conspiracy to commit 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law, punishable by 10-years in prison.
Here’s the best part, many of these parents who were on the receiving end of federal inquiries were NOT located in the District of Columbia. IOW, these might be in districts where the jury pool is far less favorable to Democrats. Could they actually be convicted? Perhaps not. But, as they demonstrated by their behavior against Trump, it’s the process that’s punishment enough.
My reading of that section suggests that it would apply only if someone were deprived of their rights by reason of their being an alien or their color or race.
I suppose you might be able to make a case for violation of §241, Conspiracy against rights.
Not true. This has been used to get a “second bite” at cops whose states or cities let them off he hook for abusing citizens’ rights.
That’s not a qualification clause. That’s an additional clause:
“…subjects ANY PERSON in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, OR to different pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien…”
The statute applies to any US citizen. But, they’re expanding the scope of the statute by including aliens and any behavior that could be rooted in race, etc. As Henry points out, they use this against police with frequency.
The angle here being that this wasn’t done for legitimate law enforcement purposes, it was done to fulfill political goals. This is one of the reasons why a POTUS shouldn’t interfere with his AG/DOJ. It can give the appearance of a political purpose to the DOJ’s work. Although, DOJ can be motivated by a political purpose so long as the concurrent LE purpose rests on sound interpretation of the law and precedent. I believe Garland’s attack on these citizens crossed neither threshold.
Prove it. There were protests at school board meetings and school boards complained.
they made a yuggge mistake fn with good americans
now that the truth finders as opposed to the lying leftist clowns, are in charge
nail them
this is justice b/c its based on facts!!!
People still want Epstein. I know some on this board have pivoted away but be transparent. It’s not a national security risk or anything.
“ It’s not a national security risk or anything.”
No, it’s not. It’s worse. National security implies a threat to Americans by foreign actors. This threat came from these Americans’ own government.
Are your wires crossed here? I know I’m off topic but Epstein is relevant to transparency and very salient to the larger issue of public trust here.
“It’s not a national security risk or anything.”
How do you know? Trump has seen the files. I trust him. You clearly don’t.
You trust the guy who campaigned on imprisoning Hillary, then “changed his mind?”
OK, hope that works out for you.
‘Trust me Bro’ isn’t gonna cut it. The Trump administration is perfectly capable of multitasking. If the WH wants to end the heartburn and put the conspiracy theories to bed then release the info. All of it minus the names and facial images of minors. Everything else put it into the public domain. Fill the information void…especially since that’s what they assured the public was gonna happen. No excuses.
I’m going to assume you aren’t this stupid and are just in your feels.
Trumps admin would have grounds to seal and would announce it if it were a risk. That isn’t even hard.
Walking this back just a bit on Gibbie. I’m assuming he also got the wires crossed. For the record, I’m talking about Epstein which is tangential to the larger issue of transparency and government trust.
I don’t see how Epstein wouldn’t be a security risk. How many times did he meet with the CIA? How did he get his money and why did people throw it at him for no apparent reason? Who, exactly, visited pedo island and if Maxwell is in jail for assisting in the trafficking of underaged girls for prostitution then why are none of the men using the minors in jail?
Didn’t Garland deny before Congress that he was a member of the club of liars and deceivers?
A liar lied about lying?
That would mean he was telling the truth and we did dodge a giant bullet with him not getting on SCOTUS. The damage Kamala could have done to the US is dwarfed by what Garland could have done during decades sitting on SCOTUS
As opposed to more decades of Jumanji?
He’d have just been one of the liberal Justices
He’s done far more last damage to the Rule of Law all by himself instead of just 1 of 9
And to think he almost got on the Supreme Court! Even with him as AG we dodged a bullet there.
.
…and walked straight into an LSD water balloon.
It appears under dramacrat administrations the true domestic terrorists was not some (mostly) mythical white right wing MAGA supremist insurrections but our own government.
“…the National School Boards Association begged former President Joe Biden’s administration to intervene.”
Biden was president at the time. Wouldn’t it be proper to write “the National School Boards Association begged President Joe Biden’s administration to intervene.”
He was not the “former president” when the begging occurred.
Garland is a trembly voiced dirtbag.