╌>

An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologies for the Letter that Triggered the Controversial Federal Operation

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 years ago  •  32 comments

By:   JONATHAN TURLEY

An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologies for the Letter that Triggered the Controversial Federal Operation
In the 1946 move, “Terror by Night,” Sherlock Holmes assures Lady Margaret that, while he and Dr. Watson would be hanging around, “we’ll be as unobtrusive as possible.” Lady Margaret correctly responds “That would be a novelty from a policeman.” That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



We  recently discussed  the controversy following the letter of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asking the Justice Department to investigate parents causing disruptions or making threats at school board meetings. The letter included a reference to using the Patriot Act against possible domestic terrorism. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded a few days later with an order to the entire Department of Justice to monitor school board meetings around the country and coordinate a response with local officials. Now the NSBA has issued an  apology.   The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo. It has the feel of an educational version of the  Gulf of Tonkin incident . Should we reconsider our deployment in light of the false premise that triggered the escalation of hostilities?

The NSBA stated “On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter . . . there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

Notably, recent coverage indicates that the NSBA  coordinated the letter with the White House  before it was issued.  A significant number of people at the organization (and likely some in the Administration) saw early drafts of this letter. Not one appears to have objected to the reckless and extreme language directed toward parents, citing a handful of cases.

NSBA-Letter.jpg?w=845&ssl=1

For his part, Garland stated that none of these past disruptions would constitute domestic terrorism. However,  as I discussed earlier , he further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile.

This question was picked up in a  letter  to Garland from half of the eight members of the Commission on Civil Rights. They requested “specific examples” of “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” which Garland claimed as evidence for the need for federal intervention in parent protests at schools.

Now even the NSBA agrees that its letter was over-the-top and extreme.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 years ago

The AG is again being grilled today before the US Senate.

Sen. Dick Durbin just told AG Garland that the people engaging in threatening behavior in school board meetings "are the same people . . . some of whom we saw on January 6th."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 years ago

Thankfully, he was kept off the Supreme Court

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 years ago

Listening to him now, it's obvious how dishonest and ideologically corrupt he is.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.2  goose is back  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 years ago
it's obvious how dishonest

He's a "f"ing liar, he new about the Loudoun County rape incident because that is what caused the NSBA to send him the letter that he responded to in the first place. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  goose is back @1.1.2    3 years ago

According to Garland's testimony, we know more than he does.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 years ago

The famous "never let a good crisis go to waste; even if we have to make one up" from Durbin.

He didn't provide any proof of his allegation I take it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    3 years ago
He didn't provide any proof of his allegation I take it?

Nor did the AG and all his attorneys over at DOJ. They couldn't cite a single example.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 years ago
The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo.

I don't think he'll do either.  These actions are pretty much in line with some of the over-reaching we've seen come from this administration.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    3 years ago
These actions are pretty much in line with some of the over-reaching we've seen come from this administration.

Amen and a shitload of it

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    3 years ago
I don't think he'll do either.

No he can't. During his confirmation, he pledged to not be a political pawn of president Biden. To rescind the letter would be an obvious admission that he is such a pawn.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    3 years ago

His actions already make him a political pawn.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.1    3 years ago

He can now join the list of disgraced partisan DA's. That would be Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch  and now Merrick Garland:

  • Eric Holder was the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt of Congress when he stonewalled committee probes of the Fast and Furious investigation. Fast and Furious itself was a scandal, involving the government’s reckless abuse of investigative powers for the purpose of fabricating an anti-gun narrative. Instead, its “gun walking” resulted in the killing of a federal agent, among other violent crimes.
  • Attorney General Holder made misleading representations about both Fast and Furious and the investigation of Fox News journalist James Rosen.
  • The IRS’s intimidation and abuse of President Obama’s political opponents, and the cover-up thereof resulted in no charges and little apparent investigation.
  • There were politicized prosecutions against Dinesh D’Souza (an Obama critic whose minor campaign-finance infraction was treated as a major felony when more-serious violations are typically disposed of by administrative fine), and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (the anti-Muslim video producer scapegoated by the Obama administration for the Benghazi massacre).
  • Recall the misrepresentations by Justice Department lawyers to a federal court in the litigation over Obama’s lawless immigration non-enforcement programs (DACA and DAPA) — lies the judge found to be “intentional, serious and material.”
  • The Department of Justice reportedly refused to impanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury impaneled, and the reason they never had a grand jury impaneled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.” Further, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations.
  • Then there were the Justice Department’s outrageous misconduct and serial lies in a prosecution of New Orleans police, which a federal judge variously described as “bizarre,” “appalling,” and “grotesque” — conclusions upheld by the Fifth Circuit appeals court.
  • And, of course, the Clinton e-mails investigation, featuring: Justice Department collusion with Clinton-camp lawyers; inexplicable immunity deals; suspects who received immunity permitted to appear as lawyers for other suspects; no prosecutions despite significant evidence, several immunity grants, and patently misleading statements during FBI interviews; a furtive tarmac tête-à-tête between the attorney general and the main suspect’s husband (the former U.S. president who just happened to have launched the attorney general into public prominence, and who was positioned to influence whether the attorney general got to keep her job in an anticipated Hillary Clinton administration) just days before it was announced — surprise! — that there would be no indictment of Hillary Clinton; and startling public commentary by the FBI regarding an uncharged case that bore heavily on a presidential election.
  • Subsequent to that “chat” aboard Clinton’s jet in Arizona, it was learned that Attorney General Lynch was conducting official DOJ business via an alias name and email address: “Elizabeth Carlisle, ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov.” Why would an Attorney General use an alias and communicate via a secret email address other than to hide from the public certain actions taken if those actions were legal and above-board?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    3 years ago

I love how you forget Bill Barr. It's so "Vic". 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 years ago

Wiliam Barr may have been the finest AG in my lifetime.  Of course, what Obama did to the Department of Justice can't be defended.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    3 years ago

"Eric Holder was the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt of Congress..."

Well, Holder was/is such a contemptible person to begin with!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    3 years ago
Wiliam Barr may have been the finest AG in my lifetime. 

That in itself is serious delusion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.5    3 years ago

He told us what he was. He said he was Obama's wingman!  Holder resented this country even more than Obama did.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    3 years ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    3 years ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    3 years ago
Barr is a thug and was trumpturd's consigliere.  Not someone to look up to as a beacon of justice.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.9    3 years ago

If you say so, it's good enough for me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.10    3 years ago

Truth and reality do have a liberal bias.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 years ago

AG Garland just conceded that most of the examples cited in the Board letter "would not be covered by state or federal law and they would be protected by the First Amendment."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 years ago

"Thank God you are not on the Supreme Court. You should resign in disgrace, Judge."...Sen Tom Cotton

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 years ago

"Many people are under the impression the  National School Board Association , the entity that sent a missive to the  White House  declaring the actions of engaged and concerned parents should be considered domestic terrorists and hate crimers, has retracted their letter and apologized.

In reality, their reaction to the wave of outrage following their open letter smearing parents across the country was simply a distraction. Once a totalitarian genie-like is out of the bottle, it’s not going back in without a fight. 

The apology memo was sent the day after the Washington Free Beacon released internal emails revealing what appears to be the  NSBA  colluding with the Biden administration for weeks before delivering the letter to the  White House Viola Garcia , the president of the  NSBA , and Chip Slaven, the CEO, had been “in talks over the last several weeks with  White House  staff” which requested “additional information,” and had been “engaged with the  White House  and the Education Department for several weeks,” about the issue, the Free Beacon reported.

We now know the “domestic terrorism” letter resulted from conversations between the  NSBA  and the Biden administration. This means the  White House  knew of this letter and its smearing of American moms and dads and approved its delivery to the  Department of Justice , which acted within a week establishing a task force to save the nation from the newly minted Maniac Hate Criming Terrorist Parents. 

Still, a big question remains: Who precisely at the  White House  solicited the  NSBA  to provide this letter? The American people have a right to know who developed such a nefarious goal as politically weaponizing federal law enforcement against the local political and social activities of American parents".. ...Tammy Bruce




Great question Tammy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    3 years ago

Merrick Garland said, repeatedly , at this Congressional hearing that no parent would come under investigation for exercising their first amendment rights at school board meetings, and that investigation was reserved for threats of violence to school board members. 

End of story. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 years ago
Merrick Garland said, repeatedly , at this Congressional hearing that no parent would come under investigation for exercising their first amendment rights at school board meetings, and that investigation was reserved for threats of violence to school board members. 

He can say what he wants...they scared the shit out of parents.

This was a left wing project that went to the White House. They got a leftist school board organization to send a letter (now withdrawn with apology), the AG acted supposedly on that letter within 5 days. No matter how hard Senate Democrats try to pretend otherwise, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s improper assault on parents’ free-speech rights is undeniable.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 years ago

There are videos of parents threatening school board members.

No one who wasnt threatening violence had any need to worry about getting investigated. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 years ago
here are videos of parents threatening school board members.

Not that the Constitution or Federal law seem to concern Merrick Garland, but even if that were true, the feds have no jurisdiction over local crime.  

Garland's job is supposed to be to protect the First Amendment, not to threaten protected speech. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 years ago
There are videos of parents threatening school board members.

They were not cited by Garland or the DOJ lawyers. 


No one who wasnt threatening violence had any need to worry about getting investigated. 

They have a lot to fear. It is an intrusion by the federal government, which is under the control of the radical left. We saw what Justice means to them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    3 years ago
Garland's job is supposed to be to protect the First Amendment, not to threaten protected speech. 

Everyone is getting it, even & especially those suburban moms who voted for Biden.

Republicans have been dealt a winning hand with this.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
6.1.5  zuksam  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    3 years ago
There are videos of parents threatening school board members. No one who wasnt threatening violence had any need to worry about getting investigated. 

Anyone who threatens another person can be arrested and prosecuted but it's a job for local law enforcement it doesn't require a federal investigation. They were just trying to intimidate law abiding parents.

 
 

Who is online

evilone
Snuffy
Vic Eldred


57 visitors