Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 103 of 103

Thread: Attorney General directs FBI to go after angry parents as "domestic terrorists"

  1. #91
    I would be terrified to be on a school board. Imagine the anguish of never really being at peace because of those pesky parents that want what they think is best for their children. The nerve of those parents. There should be a law against that. Imagine being a school board public servant for those low wages and sacrificing your life and career to the betterment of society and having to deal with those pesky parents.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    I would be terrified to be on a school board. Imagine the anguish of never really being at peace because of those pesky parents that want what they think is best for their children. The nerve of those parents. There should be a law against that. Imagine being a school board public servant for those low wages and sacrificing your life and career to the betterment of society and having to deal with those pesky parents.
    I think the real problem is letting parents attend school board meetings. The meetings should be board members only. There's really no reason for the school board members to ever meet with any parents.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I think the real problem is letting parents attend school board meetings. The meetings should be board members only. There's really no reason for the school board members to ever meet with any parents.
    No. School board members or teachers need to meet with parents when the parents need to be criticized because their children are not behaving to institutional standards, causing disruptions, tardy, chewing gum in class, or over performing academically.

  5. #94
    Jen Psaki Says White House Encourages ‘Peaceful’ Protests Outside Justices’ Homes

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ustices-homes/

    JOEL B. POLLAK 10 May 2022

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the Biden administration encourages “peaceful” protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that such protests aim to intimidate the judiciary and appear to be illegal.

    As Breitbart News reported Saturday, mobs of pro-abortion protesters gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court justices after the leak of a draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that would reverse Roe v. Wade (1973). Though the protests have been peaceful, they are virtually unprecedented as a way to pressure the highest court — both directly and personally.


    Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 1507, makes protests outside the private residence of a federal judge a federal crime:

    Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    On Friday, Psaki was asked about impending protests but declined to condemn or criticize them. On Monday, she issued a tweet denouncing violence, but did not specifically mention the protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.


    On Tuesday, during her daily White House briefing, Psaki was asked whether the president felt that “the demonstrations outside of, say, Justice Alito’s home — are those attempts to interfere or intimidate?” The reporter noted that the Department of Justice had responded quickly and harshly to protests outside the homes of school board members in recent months.

    Psaki evaded the question, accusing critics of hypocrisy (emphasis added):

    I think I said yesterday, but I’m happy to repeat, because I think it’s important for everybody to hear, that the president long-standing view has been that violence, threats, and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. And we believe, of course, in peaceful protest. What I do find is interesting, and I think many people have noted, is that there are voices on the right who have called out this protests that are happening while remaining silent for years on protests that have happened outside the homes of school board members, the Michigan Secretary of State, or including threats made to women seeking reproductive health care [sic], or even an insurrection [sic] against our capitol. So I know that there’s an outrage right now, I guess, about protests that have been peaceful to date, and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes, and that’s the president’s position, but the silence is pretty deafening about all of the other intimidation that we’ve seen to a number of people.

    Psaki appeared to conflate protests outside a place of business (an abortion clinic) with protests at private residences, and protests at the private residences of individual government officials with protests aiming to sway to a Supreme Court case.

    When the reporter alluded to the federal law against protests outside judges’ homes, given the pending case, Psaki was evasive again: “Well, but I think that intimidation and protest, intimidation outside of the homes of school board members, the Michigan secretary of state, you know, intimidation and threats, against people seeking legal reproductive health care [sic] and against our capitol and American democracy, also warrant some outrage, and we haven’t really seen that.”

    Notably, Psaki did not deny that protesting outside a private residence constitutes an attempt to “intimidate” the justices.
    “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee

  6. #95
    https://twitter.com/greg_price11/sta...95733650358283

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    https://twitter.com/greg_price11/sta...95733650358283
    5 people were killed, woah, were all 5 of them named Ashli Babbitt ?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    5 people were killed, woah, were all 5 of them named Ashli Babbitt ?
    Who cares about mundanes like Ashli Babbitt?

    "Hundreds of Capitol Hill police officers" were "attacked and bludgeoned"!!!

    (Also, the weight of all those insurrectionists could have caused D.C. to tip over and capsize into the Potomac river.)

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Ex-FBI agents detail 'politicization' of agency ahead of bombshell GOP hearing
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ll-gop-hearing
    [archive link: https://archive.is/lJgTA]
    Gabe Kaminsky (08 February 2023)

    [...]

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has already fired off subpoenas to the Biden administration this Congress over the FBI. He is demanding that FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona hand over documents related to the alleged targeting of parents at local school board meetings.
    //

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    //
    House Judiciary subpoenas Christopher Wray and Merrick Garland for targeting parents
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-director-wray
    [archive link: https://archive.is/5IhXL]
    Ryan King (03 February 2023)

    The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the Biden administration, demanding FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona produce documents about the alleged targeting of parents at school board meetings.

    Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) is demanding Garland, Wray, and Cardona turn over communications pertaining to the Justice Department's alleged "misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources" by 9 a.m. on March 1, according to the subpoenas dated Thursday and reviewed by the Washington Examiner.

    "Since October 2021, Judiciary Committee Republicans have sent over one hundred letters to Biden administration officials requesting answers about how the administration used federal counterterrorism resources against American parents," the committee said in a press release.

    At issue is an alleged Oct. 4, 2021, memo sent by Garland tasking the FBI to collaborate with U.S. attorneys and other local law enforcement to investigate potential threats from parents at school board meetings. At the time, large groups of parents across the country were protesting the instruction of so-called critical race theory and COVID-19 suppression measures.

    "In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence," the memo read.

    Garland's memo came on the heels of a National School Boards Association letter to him that outlined a slew of disruptive behavior that was not necessarily violent and called for the government to deploy aggressive measures such as the Patriot Act to curtail the disturbances. Later, the NSBA withdrew the letter and apologized for its provocative language.

    During a hearing weeks after the release of the memo in the fall of 2021, Jordan grilled Garland about the memo and ascertained that the retracted NSBA letter that likened parents to domestic terrorists was the impetus for his memo.

    https://twitter.com/townhallcom/stat...11401096269824

    Jordan long decried what he calls the politicization of the DOJ and FBI. He has also teased that his committee has been collaborating with whistleblowers from the bureau who have raised concerns about potential wrongdoing at the upper levels of the FBI.

    The FBI appeared to reject Jordan's characterization of events but stressed it is working to comply with his demands.

    "As Director Wray and other FBI officials have stated clearly on numerous occasions before Congress and elsewhere, the FBI has never been in the business of investigating speech or policing speech at school board meetings or anywhere else, and we never will be. Our focus is and always will be on protecting people from violence and threats of violence," the FBI said in a statement to the Washington Examiner.

    "Attempts to further any political narrative will not change those facts. The FBI recognizes the importance of congressional oversight and remains fully committed to cooperating with Congress’s oversight requests consistent with its constitutional and statutory responsibilities. The FBI is actively working to respond to congressional requests for information," the bureau added.

    Jordan has long signaled plans to turn up the heat on the DOJ and is using his newfound congressional powers to embark on a handful of investigations, including into President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents [see this thread - OB].
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 02-09-2023 at 03:36 PM.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    House Judiciary subpoenas Christopher Wray and Merrick Garland for targeting parents
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-director-wray
    [archive link: https://archive.is/5IhXL]
    Ryan King (03 February 2023)

    [...]
    RELATED THREAD: "New Church Committee" news & updates

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    A “MANUFACTURED” ISSUE AND “MISAPPLIED” PRIORITIES: SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS SHOW NO LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ANTI-PARENT MEMO
    Interim Staff Report of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
    March 21, 2023

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of the Biden Administration’s
    use of federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources against parents voicing concerns
    about controversial curricula and education-related policies at local school board meetings. This
    oversight began in October 2021 following the issuance of a memorandum from Attorney
    General Merrick Garland directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and all U.S. Attorney’s
    Offices—among other Department components—to examine and address threats posed by
    parents at school board meetings.

    Although the Biden Administration declined to cooperate with this oversight in the 117th
    Congress, whistleblower disclosures and a report commissioned by the National School Boards
    Association (NSBA) shed some light on how the Biden Administration colluded with the NSBA
    to create a justification to use federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources against
    parents. There were gaps in the information available to the Committee then, primarily because
    the Biden administration did not participate in the NSBA’s third-party report. On February 3,
    2023, Chairman Jordan subpoenaed the Justice Department, FBI, and Education Department for
    documents necessary to advance the Committee’s oversight and inform potential legislative
    reforms.

    From the initial set of material produced in response to the subpoenas, it is apparent that
    the Biden Administration misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for
    political purposes. The Justice Department’s own documents demonstrate that there was no
    compelling nationwide law-enforcement justification for the Attorney General’s directive or the
    Department components’ execution thereof.

    1 After surveying local law enforcement, U.S.
    Attorney’s offices around the country reported back to Main Justice that there was no legitimate
    law-enforcement basis for the Attorney General’s directive to use federal law-enforcement and
    counterterrorism resources to investigate school board-related threats. For example:

    • One U.S. Attorney reported that “this issue was very poorly received” by his local law
    enforcement community and “described by some as a manufactured issue.”2 He
    continued: “No one I spoke with in law enforcement seemed to think that there is a
    serious national threat directed at school boards, which gave the impression that our
    priorities are misapplied.”3

    • Another U.S. Attorney’s Office reported that the local FBI field office in the area “did
    not see any imminent threats to school boards or their members . . . , nor did they
    ascertain any worrisome trends in that regard.”4

    • Local law-enforcement officials noted that local officials should properly respond to
    school board threats. In Montana, several law-enforcement offices rightly advised the
    Justice Department that “local law enforcement authorities are best suited to address
    criminal threats against school board administrators.”5

    • Most threats reported back to Main Justice had little connection to school board matters.
    For example, the Southern District of Alabama reported that although one of the school
    board member’s houses was shot at, the incident was the “unfortunate consequence of
    gun violence in the city” and not related to school board decisions or policies.6

    The documents received pursuant to the Committee’s subpoena show the absence of a
    legitimate nationwide basis for the Attorney General’s directive to insert federal law enforcement
    into local school board matters. The documents also shed light onto how the Administration
    worked with education special interests to generate the predicate for the Attorney General’s
    directive. It appears, from these documents and the information received previously, that the
    Administration’s actions were a political offensive meant to quell swelling discord over
    controversial education curricula and unpopular school board decisions. The Attorney General’s
    directive came just weeks before a pivotal gubernatorial election in Virginia, in which education
    policies were hotly debated and a local school board’s actions were under intense scrutiny.

    7 The inference from the initial tranche of subpoenaed documents is that the Justice Department’s
    actions were a reaction to these political circumstances rather than a legitimate law-enforcement
    response to any serious, nationwide threat.

    In response to the Committee’s subpoena, the FBI acknowledged for the first time that it
    opened 25 “Guardian assessments” of school board threats, and that six of these investigations
    were run by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

    8 These admissions supplement whistleblower
    disclosures about the FBI’s actions, including disclosures the FBI investigated a mom because
    she belonged to a “right-wing mom’s group” and “is a gun owner” and a dad because “he rails
    against the government.” According to the FBI, none of the school board-related investigations
    have resulted in federal arrests or charges, highlighting the political motives behind the Attorney
    General’s actions. The Administration’s goal seems to have been silencing the critics of its
    radical education policies and neutralizing an issue that was threatening Democrat Party
    prospects in the close gubernatorial race in Virginia.

    This weaponization of law-enforcement powers against American parents exercising their
    First Amendment rights is dangerous. The Justice Department subjected moms and dads to the
    opening of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file that includes
    their political views, and the application of a “threat tag” to their names as a direct result of their
    exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and advocate for their children. The
    Committee has called on Attorney General Garland to rescind his memorandum, which he has refused to do.
    From the documents and information received pursuant to the subpoena, it is crystal clear that Attorney General Garland should rescind his unwise and unsupported directive to insert federal law enforcement into local school board matters.

    The House Committee on the Judiciary, through and with its Select Subcommittee on the
    Weaponization of the Federal Government, is charged with investigating “violations of the civil
    liberties of citizens of the United States.”9 This interim staff report fulfills the ongoing obligation
    to identify and report on instances of the weaponization of the federal government—here, the
    misuse of federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources against parents exercising
    their First Amendment rights at school board meetings. While the documents produced to date
    help to better understand what transpired, they do not tell the whole story. The Committee and
    the Select Subcommittee will continue to pursue the relevant facts to inform legislative reforms
    to protect American civil liberties.
    https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/ev...rim-report.pdf
    //

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Full hearing. This is insane.

    Free Speech: The Biden Administration’s Chilling of Parents’ Fundamental Rights
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cw-yk7NcM8
    //

  15. #103

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Trump: "Chris Christie would make a great Attorney General"
    By presence in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-05-2016, 02:28 AM
  2. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-21-2013, 01:28 PM
  3. Ca State Attorney General: "Thousands of urban terrorists"
    By jcarcinogen in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-22-2009, 02:05 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 04:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •