Internal emails were uncovered recently that cast a new, negative light on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s record in targeting parents over school board controversies. The communications show that various Justice officials raised alarms over the effort pushed by Democratic allies and the National Association for School Boards. Career officials condemned the Biden Administration proposal by objecting that “If they do this, they might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”
As parents organized against COVID and woke policies being implemented by school boards, Democratic allies and the National Association for School Boards called upon the Biden Administration to crack down. Garland agreed and implemented a plan detailed in an October 2021 memo to treat these parents as engaged in potential “domestic terrorism.”
There was public outrage, but Garland defended the action, declaring “The obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American people against violence and threats of violence and that particularly includes public officials.”
As the outcry grew, the Biden Administration was forced into a retreat and an apology:
“On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter. There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter. We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on a communication of this significance. We apologize also for the strain and stress this situation has caused you and your organizations.”
We now know that rank-and-file officials opposed the effort, but decided to go forward anyway. The Justice Department in October 2021 issued a memo to coordinate a response to what it described as an “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools” by parents.
Newly released emails raised all the objections later made by critics after the policy’s release. One deputy assistant attorney general wrote that:
“I don’t think it’s possible to state how strongly I object to this. It will completely and totally nuke our election threats efforts, and will damage the reputation of the Public Integrity Section into the bargain. It’s like they’ve affirmatively trying to make this thing not work and look political.”
When officials said that the Biden Administration was about to create an “Anti-MAGA Task Force,” officials responded, “Exactly! Stupid, stupid, stupid.”
Another principal deputy assistant attorney general wrote,
“We will not do this. There is no conceivable connection to [public integrity] (indeed, I’m not seeing a federal interest of any kind.). And if they’re going to make the AG’s memo to the field about this and election threats, I’m going to strongly recommend that they not send it.”
The Public Integrity section chief agreed, saying the memo could turn the Justice Department and the FBI into the “threat police” and that it contained “no limiting principle at all.”
The question is how such an ill-considered, excessive memo could be issued in light of such internal opposition. The answer focuses new attention on the record of Garland, who seemed at times to be a virtual pedestrian in decisions at his own department.
In 2022, I wrote a column titled “The Incredible Shrinking Merrick Garland” to express my disappointment in his developing record as someone who supported his nomination. Citing the school memo and other decisions, I wrote that Garland appeared increasingly “immaterial” to the running of the department:
“Garland sometimes looks more like a pedestrian than a driver on decisions in his own department. Top positions were given to figures denounced as far-left advocates on issues from defunding the police to racial justice. For the moderate Garland, these did not seem like natural choices.”
As Special Counsel Jack Smith took a hatchet to preexisting DOJ policies and the First Amendment in his crusade against Donald Trump, Garland seemed little more than a figurehead in refusing to exercise any moderating or supervisory influence. Likewise, as his department pursued a “shock and awe campaign” against citizens who joined the January 6th protests, Garland remained passive.
By 2023, I was writing columns that Garland had become an “utter failure” as Attorney General. He had become the kind face of a department weaponizing charges and targeting opponents. While the same charges have been leveled at the current Administration, that does not alter the troubling legacy of Merrick Garland.
The school board memo reflects how political rather than legal or institutional priorities prevailed under Garland. The merits of these controversies can be left to history. However, what is most striking is the absence of any discernible control or direction from Garland. Unlike his predecessor, Bill Barr, who was famously “hands-on” in his leadership style, Garland delegated authority to powerful subordinates, who carried out these measures with little apparent restraint.
As discussed in my 2022 column, Garland seemed to morph with the character Scott Stuart in the cult classic, “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” in which Stuart delivers a strikingly profound line: “The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet — like the closing of a gigantic circle.”
That may be the final epitaph of Merrick Garland’s record as United States Attorney General.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
you seem to think,l then, that the current dude, the Acting AG< is a fab dude–a guy that concocted the slush fund and gave Trump and his boys blanket immunity–will you have the nerve to actually write about it–or you're too chicken to do it.
Trump Reveals U.S. Running Low On Oil
President Trump said Wednesday that oil reserves could have run out in four weeks if the Strait of Hormuz were not opened.
“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said in France while at the Group of Seven summit, discussing the recent memorandum of understanding with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”
It’s not entirely clear whether Trump was referring to U.S. or global oil inventories. The White House declined to elaborate, referring The Hill back to Trump’s original remarks.
Data released this week indicates the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has hit its lowest level since 1983: about 340 million barrels
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5928618-iran-deal-oil-reserves-g7/
…………………………………..
Here we have it: Trump started this war without checking our oil reserves. How bright was that??
biden used our oil reserves for what?
I guess he should have checked the dip-stick.
If one follows the principle that actions speak louder than words we have to conclude that rather than Garland being incompetent, what happen is exactly what Garland wanted to have happen, he just wasn’t saying so.
The USA has had enemies in war that were communists and fascists.
I’ve never heard Garland ever promote communism, but Trump 100% promotes fascism.
Trump himself said he wanted to be a dictator (fascism). Garland has never publicly supported either.
Trump swore an oath of office to support a constitutional rule of law that protects individual liberties (including your gun and property rights). Trump has been disloyal to upholding his oath of office and views as rights as optional-when-convenient.
The next president may not support gun rights or property rights, he or she can ignore your rights using Trump’s lawlessness.
Every Attorney General makes a promise to their GOD to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution as part of their oath of office. It would be near impossible to name one AG that was loyal to their oath of office.
Garland is closer to that loyalty oath than any Republican AG in the 21st Century.
The irony is that Republicans also claim to follow Judeo-Christian values, but are highly disloyal to their supreme loyalty oath promised with one hand on the Bible.
If Trump and Republicans bear false witness to their GOD (oath of office), why would any honest person of faith support these disloyal Americans?
This is a very effective post. We’re all gonna vote for the communists now. Great job, comrade!
The utter failure of Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland began his tenure as attorney general with the stated intention of restoring faith in the Justice Department and the rule of law. By that standard, Garland has been a failure.
In fact, if anything, the crisis of faith surrounding his department has only deepened on his watch, and he bears some of the blame.
Polls show that half the country distrusts the FBI. A recent poll by Harvard CAPS-Harris found that 70 percent are either very or somewhat concerned about election interference by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. An additional 71 percent agreed that changes post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further interference and that “wide-ranging” reform was still required. Another poll showed 64 percent view the FBI as “politically compromised.”
The response to this indictment shows the gravitational pull of public perceptions of the Justice Department. That perception of bias is well earned. Various officials were removed from the Department by career officials for their express bias and misconduct during the Russia-collusion investigation. That investigation was recently found by Special Counsel John Durham to have been launched with the backing of the Clinton campaign and without the minimal evidence ordinarily required by the department. – The Hill
It seems his oath and loyalty was with the Clinton’s not the USA. He lied when he swore his oath.
Don’t blame Merrick Garland.
He was just doing his part to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America into communism as a co-conspirator in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.
From the links provided by “Lin”
Statement from Andrew Block, America First Legal Senior Counsel:
“The Biden Administration wanted Americans to believe that the October 4 Memo was a run-of-the-mill law enforcement response to concerns raised by teachers and threatened school board administrators. But America First Legal has said all along that this was a political operation. Today, we have conclusively proven that this was not a routine law enforcement response, but rather a political agenda rammed through under the guise of an organic response. When asked for an authority on which to base targeting parents, senior and long-serving Justice Department officials told the Biden Administration there was no authority and this was First Amendment protected activity, but Garland’s weaponized Justice Department proceeded anyway.”
Statement from Ian Prior, America First Legal Senior Advisor:
“The Garland Memo is one of the most scandalous attempts to deprive Americans of their rights in the history of our republic. When the great awakening of parents occurred in 2021, the Biden Administration was desperate to put a stop to it before it could impact the Virginia gubernatorial election. Instead, anyone with half a brain could see the unfathomable scandal unfolding, the course of history in Virginia was altered, and parents refused to surrender their rights; rights which are now being so forcefully defended and jealously guarded by the Trump Administration and vindicated by the United States Supreme Court.”
This is a very effective post. We’re all gonna vote for the communists now. Great job, comrade!
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
ICE Routinely Ignores Federal Rulings
Although federal judges have concluded more than 13,000 times in recent months that ICE has illegally detained people without the chance for release, those rulings often only tell half the story.
That’s because even when ICE detainees succeed in federal court, their subsequent bond hearings, where their freedom or continued detention is on the line, are run by Trump administration-controlled immigration judges. And those so-called IJs are under increasing pressure from the administration to deny bond in the vast majority of cases.
Consequently, federal judges are dissecting immigration court hearings for constitutional infirmities, finding that IJs applied unconstitutional standards, ignored evidence that undercut their conclusions, failed to consider alternatives to detention or made illogical leaps to justify detention without explanation.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/17/trump-administration-immigration-court-00965963
……………………………………..
This administration has no respect at all for the rule of law. Merrick Garland is scarcely worth a second thought in today’s climate.
Trump Insists On Unqualified Intel Director Unless SAVE Is Passed
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he was delaying federal prosecutor Jay Clayton’s nomination to lead the U.S. intelligence community in a bid to force Congress to act on a voter ID bill that currently lacks enough support for passage.
A key Republican senator, Tom Cotton, had vowed to push forward with a hearing anyway, but Trump eventually directed Clayton to not appear for his confirmation proceedings, forcing Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to announce that the hearing was postponed.
The delay forced by Trump has injected even more uncertainty over the long-term leadership of the 18-agency intelligence community and dashed hopes for a swift renewal of a crucial surveillance program that expired in Congress last week due to bipartisan anger over Trump’s pick of Bill Pulte, a top U.S. housing official, as acting director of national intelligence.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-jay-clayton-congress-voting-bill-bc75e8a07ea29788b602625cf1c54b47
……………………………………..
When Trump first appointed Bill Pulte to replace Tulsi Gabbard as National Intelligence Director, even Republican senators reacted with total negativity. Pulte has no qualifications whatsoever in the field of Intelligence. Pulte has never obtained a security clearance.
So Trump seemingly backed off from Pulte and nominated Jay Clayton for National Intelligence. Clayton, a U.S. Attorney, is seen by the Senate as being a more serious choice than Pulte. The Senate was prepared to start confirmation hearings today and Clayton was expected to get a warm reception.
But this morning Trump ordered Clayton to stand-down because Bill Pulte is going to serve instead as ‘Acting’ Director Of National Intelligence. Apparently Trump is furious that his SAVE voting act has gone nowhere in the Senate. So Trump is going to punish the Senate by giving the country an unqualified Intelligence Director.
Er, ‘what about Merrick Garland’..? How is ‘he’ relevant?
This is a very effective post. We’re all gonna vote for the communists now. Great job, comrade!
This is a very effective post. We’re all gonna vote for the communists now. Great job, comrade!
Trump’s a stooge for Putin. And that’s why he wants a totally unqualified Intelligence Director.
This is a very effective post. We’re all gonna vote for the communists now. Great job, comrade!
The Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man
By the Rolling Stones, 1965
Yeah, I’m sharp, I’m really, really sharp
I sure do earn my pay, sitting on the beach every day
Yeah, I’m real, real sharp, yes, I am
I got a cravat and a seersucker suit, yes, I have
Here comes the bus, uh oh
I thought I had a dime, where’s my dime?
I know, I know I got a dime here somewhere
Oh, I’m so sharp
Trump’s a stooge for Putin.
Oh yes, Trump’s such a “stooge for Putin,” I guess that’s why Trump has been systematically dismantling Putin’s global network of allies, one by one, including Maduro, Castro, and the Ayatollah (Putin also lost Assad). Trump’s such a “stooge for Putin” that Putin’s powers have shrunk dramatically and he has few friends left and he’s losing power every day. Pfffft. Moron.
Old Man, the United States has few friends left.
Apparently “few” now means “many.”
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/united-states-allies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
Anyways, what does that have to do with anything? It’s still moronic to say Trump is Putin’s stooge.
The US doesn’t need friends that bleed us dry of billions. Those friends need the US.
They have proven to not be real friends.
Just moochers for the American dollar.
Biden was a stooge for Jill. A Potato with Dementia.
OPINION piece, nice try.
I am not at all a fan of RINO Mitch McConnell, but I do praise him highly for one action: preventing that despicable @$$h@t Garland from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
A few thoughts. First, of course Senator McConnell is an actual Republican and not just a Republican in name only. Second, based on Garland’s record and opinions on the Court of Appeals, I think he would have been a good Supreme Court justice. The job of a Justice and an AG are quite different and perhaps the AG position was not a good fit for Garland’s skills. Third, based on the Garland precedent of no hearings, no committee vote, and no floor vote, Senate Democrats if they are in the majority may give similar treatment to a Trump nominee.
CC – whatever Garland’s temperament as a judge, his character has been forever blemished through his corruption and weaponization of the law as AG. His character is what it is, and on that basis I believe he would have been a politically motivated justice and, as such, not a good one.
Second, McConnell invoked the Biden rule, it was not McConnell’s invention. It was instituted by Joe Biden in 1992. The Biden rule is that, if a vacancy occurs during a presidential election year, the Senate should delay the nomination until after the election. The idea is that the American people should have a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice and that the vacancy should not be filled by a lame-duck president.
So . . . you may be right about a Dem-controlled senate’s actions toward a Trump nomination in 2028. If so, they’d be invoking the Biden rule just as McConnell did.
Garland was the only Supreme Court nominee treated like so it established the precedent.
You forget Robert Bork. Long before Garland
Democrats controlled Congress at the time, and the Senate ended up voting against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 58-42, the biggest margin of any failed Supreme Court nominee in history. Bork’s confirmation fight, and its result, even spawned a new verb. In the years that followed, politicians on both left and right would adopt the practice of “borking” judicial nominees—vigorously questioning their legal philosophy and political views in an effort to derail their confirmation.
Some of our ‘regular’ critics of this blog site often criticize other commenters for their ‘lack of comprehension and context.’
I respectfully attach a few links for everyone’s benefit, in order to flesh out the components of the controversy that may have been overlooked.,’
(1) Please note the pushback from DOJ attorneys and assistant AG counsel to the AG’s office, an excerpt from one which I hereby attach:
“I read the letter from the NSBA [Nat’l School Board Assn], and looked at the links for a handful of the footnotes, and it appears to me that the vast, vast majority of the behavior cited cannot be reached by federal law. I only saw three stories that sounded like a possible ‘true threat’ and one of those (the Norfolk story) did not appear to be related to masks, etc. Almost all of the language being used is protected by the First Amendment; the main issue seems to be disruption and obstruction of school board meetings, which could be reached by local trespassing laws or disturbance of the peace laws, but nothing remotely federal. So it seems that we are ramping up a lot of federal power for what is currently non-federal conduct.”
https://aflegal.org/press-release/major-victory-america-first-legal-uncovers-documents-conclusively-proving-the-infamous-garland-memo-was-politically-orchestrated-and-coordinated-with-the-biden-white-house/
(2) Near the bottom of the second link is a list of appendices from which you can read all the back and forth internal memos between the AG Garland’s office and those to whom the ‘infamous’ memo were directed, including “feedback.”
https://aflegal.org/press-release/america-first-legal-and-parents-defending-education-release-report-with-new-details-on-three-year-anniversary-of-the-infamous-ag-garland-october-4th-memo-targeting-american-parents-and-exposing-the-bi/
Thanks Lin!
-Uncle Henry
“While the same charges have been leveled at the current Administration” baseless accusations leveled at the current administration by actual criminals.
Garland was Obama’s pick for SOTUS. YUK!
Estovir, you’ve been writing variations of this comment over and over. Enough!
^ The idiot who thinks everyone else is named Estovir ^
BAN THAT IDIOT TROLL FOR LIFE!
As horrible as that would have been, I think Biden crawled a little lower under the rock by nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson. At least Garland has a brain, although it might be better to have the 100% dolt Brown Jackson sitting on the SCOTUS. I wouldn’t allow either to babysit my kids for 5 minutes.
Indubitably, the American Founders intended for feeble-minded affirmative action projects that don’t have the sense God gave lettuce to be ensconced on the Supreme Court.
Installed like so many others, because they know who really calls the shots.
The plan began with making room for Garland. Then the deal struck on the tarmac put Loretta Lynch on deck for making things disappear. A year or two after that, one of the 9 would step down to open up a seat for, wait for it… Barry Sotero.
Except, there was no possible way she could ever lose with a 99% chance of winning.
Your statement was something more than supporting his nomination:
“Merrick Garland is a person with unimpeachable ethics and integrity.” (8/16/22) Res Ipsa Loquitur
Opinions are like azzholes, some stink worse than others. Whatever he started out as, he ended as a partisan hack that accommodated treason by the Potato head and the Kenyan Kauffer.
“OR TO THE PEOPLE”
American education should be private. Americans possess the liberty and freedom to educate their children according to their own values and preferences. Public education represents government control over a function that individuals and families are fully capable of managing for themselves.
Arguably, the most prestigious university in the world, Harvard University, is a private institution. Proponents of private education contend that no compelling case has been made that public schools are inherently superior to private schools, nor that the interests of public education systems and teachers’ unions should take precedence over the rights and freedoms of individuals.
From this perspective, a rational interpretation of the Constitution would recognize that government-operated schools limit individual choice and interfere with the freedom of citizens to pursue happiness through the creation and operation of private educational institutions in a free market.
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government “to the States respectively, or to the people.” In matters of education, advocates of this view consider the phrase “or to the people” especially significant. They maintain that individuals and families—not government—should be responsible for managing their lives, raising their children, and obtaining the education they deem appropriate.
__________________________________________________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Estovir, sounds like you’re advocating the abolition of public schools for reasons that only make sense to MAGA rabble.
Sounds like the Constitution guarantees individual rights and freedoms, not governmental power, and mandates no education and, in fact, leaves it “OR TO THE PEOPLE.”
But whatever you do, don’t ask the Supreme Court because those clowns don’t have a clue what the Constitution is.
The first public schools in the Massachusettes Bay Colony were conceived as “great levelers” and institutions of egalitarianism. You do understand, some parents out of selfishness, gambling, addiction or desperation will consume the family resources instead of educating their children. They will repeat a generational cycle of poverty and wasted potential without missing a heartbeat. How fair is that to the child?
At least understand why our ancestors built public schools as THE major institution of child education.
We could introduce many missing elements of private innovation and competition into the public schools system — there is no need to trash the entire system — especially when there’s nothing there to replace it that treats every child as deserving. For example, each child could receive an educational voucher, only to be spent on educational programs that open themselves up to 3rd party objective learning results metrics.
You could strip public school districts of control over curriculum, and have ed companies compete for student signups, and thus for classroom space. The sweet spot is nuanced, it’s near the middle zone spanned by the dichotomization trap:
A) continue a failing public school bureaucracy (and teachers unions) not accountable for learning results
B) eliminate public schools without getting payback from the huge taxpayer investment in physical campuses
Neither A or B are good choices. But some hybrid of private curricula and taxpayer-owned campuses could be workable. It’s a question of taxpayers taking back control over curriculum content / learning priorities.
So, your position is that Americans are free, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, to be ordered how to educate their children by communists, and they are communists, comrade. Thank you very much for your assimilation of the American thesis, comrade. To —— with the American Theorists and Founders, oh, and tell Karl we all said hello and thank you very much.
If you’re half right, you’re half wrong; if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong. You are all wrong. One may opine in the collectivist vein irrationally and infinitely, or one may support the concept of maximal freedom of the American Founders.
“How fair is that to the child?”
So your solution is to compel responsible parents to pay for the sins of the irresponsible parents. Your solution is the “warmth of collectivism.”
Entry from Merrick Garland’s dictionary:
Domestic Terrorists: Concerned moms at school board meetings; individuals who express pro-life views; Catholics who celebrate the Latin mass.
I cannot even hazard a guess as to the train of thought that leads the FBI from Latin Mass to domestic terrorism. WTF was that βυllshιτ?
–“The obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American people against violence and threats of violence and that particularly includes public officials.”–
Law enforcement does not protect “against” violence, for to do so would require prescient abilities that exist only in science fiction. The best LE can do is act to prevent it. This may seem like splitting hairs, but when the concept is extended to protecting against threats, tasking LE to protect against threatening speech as yet unspoken, the Gulag’s the limit. With his own words, Garland’s exposed his Orwellian bona fides for all to see.
Merrick Garland is a traitor, pure and simple.
Hear, hear!
I don’t think I would call Garland “moderate” under any circumstances.
Thankfully he never became a member of the Supreme Court!
Mitch McConnell’s greatest achievement of his life, and greatest gift to America.
Hear, Hear! The Country dodged a bullet thanks to Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
The memo directed federal law enforcement to collaborate with local officials to address a severe spike in “harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school board members and educators.
The idea was to offer help to local law enforcement about threats of violence and harassment of school board members and staff. MAGA was getting kicked out of school board meetings when they became unruly and disruptive. Because of that some became violent or issued threats. The problem became so wide spread that the DOJ was asked to help local law enforcement keep tabs on these threats and charge those who broke the law where appropriate.
Here are a few incidents that prompted the to ask the DOJ to help,
Orange County, North Carolina (September 2021): Proud Boys members repeatedly attended Orange County School Board meetings to protest mask mandates and equity programs. Their presence grew so disruptive that law enforcement was forced to implement metal detectors and deploy sheriff’s deputies. Board members noted that school resource officers confiscated weapons, including a knife and a spear, from attendees. Furthermore, a public speaker explicitly told the board that someone should “tie rocks around our necks and we should throw ourselves in a river.
“Nashua, New Hampshire (Summer 2021): Members of the Proud Boys began appearing at school board meetings in June to agitate the crowd against COVID-19 protocols. This opened the door for even more extreme groups, such as the neo-Nazi faction NSC-131, who showed up in full regalia weeks later. The board had to permanently request police details for protection.
Sarasota County, Florida (September/October 2021): In response to the county’s school mask mandate, Proud Boys members targeted school board Chair Shirley Brown. Protesters, including individuals wearing Proud Boys apparel, staged a raucous demonstration directly in front of her private home utilizing bullhorns and sirens.
Vancouver, Washington (September 2021): Proud Boys and allied anti-mask protesters staged a demonstration on public school grounds. The resulting safety threat and attempted intrusion forced multiple area schools into emergency lockdowns.
New Hanover County, North Carolina (November 2021): Directly following Garland’s memo, five Proud Boys clad in tactical gear and matching insignia stood watch inside the board room. While they did not speak during public comment, their physical positioning was used to visibly anchor and cheer on anti-mask agitators.
These were the same people who were arrested for violence and assaulting police officers on Jan 6.
You’re stupid
Brilliant comment. How many hours on you sit & spin toy did it take you to come up with that gem?
X is not stupid! You are! X is the smarts person here! Just look how he corrects Turley on the law and the Constitution all the time! He knows everything about construction, rent, being a landlord, immigration laws, gun laws, election laws even algae! He is the smarts person he knows! Just ask him!
Plus george knows everything about aircraft. Just ask him.
Careful, your IQ of 25 is about to blossom!
Anon, we’re supposed to believe these ‘parents’ we’re nice, concerned Christians. Don’t tell us they were really MAGA rabble. Estovir doesn’t want to hear that.
They were MAGA agitators! X said so! He is the smarts person here! Look at all the cases where those Proud guys were threatening and harassing school boards with their tactel gear and scary black rifles and they were in the room and all those MAGA agitators were cheering scaring those poor school board people to death! We need more people like X to tell people like me with blue hair, one side shaved, septum nose ring, what to think!
Yeah, they were MAGA agitators. Pure and simple.
NO.. Just parents trying to protect their children from Folks like you
Every word of this made up.
X would never make stuff up! He is way too smart for that! He does not need to provide links to sources for the likes of you! He didnt use AI to write that up! We know it is all true! X said so!
X: Clive Johnston was using a megaphone.
Me: No, he wasn’t. I just looked it up.
X: Okay, he wasn’t, but I was right when I said he was.
Oh my, give me air. Derangement syndrome on display
“We now know that rank-and-file officials opposed the effort”
Does this mean:
A) We now know that _all_ rank-and-file officials opposed the effort
B) We now know that _some_ rank-and-file officials opposed the effort
C) We now know that _a minority of_ rank-and-file officials opposed the effort
D) We now know that _a minuscule number of_ rank-and-file officials opposed the effort
E)We now know that _imagined_ rank-and-file officials opposed the effort
When a law professor is unwilling to be specific with an accusation, it’s because there is insubstantial evidence to present to support the case.
The same with the out of context quoting of “domestic terrorism”. Stripped from the context it could say:
A) This is a concern, but is not domestic terrorism
B) There have been a few death threats against school board officials, which is adjacent to domestic terrorism
C) There have been many death threats against school board officials by people coming from outside school districts making death threats in an effort to sow the seeds of domestic terrorism
Cherry picking from the record is making any argument weaker.
Fortunately for Turley and his patrons, a large number of responders are functionally illiterate and won’t notice the way the argument is made of gauze and gossamer.
Functionally illiterate ^^^^
The professor actually quotes the objectors. Read the article again.
So, two or three people objected? What exactly were they objecting to? Let me be the first to say that roughly 70% of the US population objects to what Trump has done in Iran. Two or three is essentially nothing.
Turley removes context and he does that for a reason, to mislead his illiterate audience.
What exactly were they objecting to?
It’s all in the quotes. Just read them.
objects to what Trump has done in Iran
Irrelevant. There will always be disagreements over policy. But Garland is a licensed attorney and knows the proper use of the law. He held a position of public trust not to use the law in a corrupt way as a political weapon. People objected to the corruption of the legal process.
It’s the oldest dodge in the English language book — the (inherently and intentionally) ambiguous “unmodified plural”.
With Democrats, it is usually something like: “women think this” or “women think that”. The rather transparent purpose of using these ambiguities is to facilitate “bailing-out” later….
Another equally old dodge is to fixate on minor aspects of the writer’s word choices as a way of distracting from the subject matter of the article, which, apparently, you and anon find embarassing.
If the subject matter is unsupported it’s, like, just your opinion, man. (The Big Lebowski)
You’re still refusing to engage on substance, falling back on irrelevant side-issues.
Anonymous at 1:03
Does this mean:
A) you copycatted others’ style of presenting an issue as a humorous quiz with multiple choices;
B) because you are incapable of coming up with your own idea;
C) and must be inspired by other commenters that you admire
D) that you yourself “cherry-picked” by not reading or even considering the negative feedback sent to the AG from its own department deputy and assistant AGs?
E) that you are not very smart and only pick up on what others say
F) it’s known as confirmation bias and tunnel-vision of the average to below-average IQ levels
“When a law professor is unwilling to be specific with an accusation . . .”
Here we have the Left’s standard sophistical trick to deceive and smear: Play games with words.
First, your use of “accusation” commits the very sin you smear JT with: There is no clear referent for what you mean by “accusation.” Let’s assume that by “accusation” you’re referring to JT’s statement: “We now know that rank-and-file officials opposed the effort”
Your intentional muddling notwithstanding, that statement is perfectly clear and specific. JT cites some of the particular individuals (along with particular quotes) the statement refers to: e.g., *a* “deputy assistant attorney general,” *a* “Public Integrity section chief.”
“It’s the oldest dodge in the English language book — the (inherently and intentionally) ambiguous “unmodified plural”.”
You need to learn basic grammar. What you mean to (falsely) accuse JT of is using an indefinite plural pronoun. The only problem is this: JT’s statement “We now know that rank-and-file officials opposed the effort” uses a *definite* plural pronoun (“rank-and file officials”). That plural pronoun refers to *specific* individuals at DOJ — which he cites and I noted, above.
“. . . out of context quoting of “domestic terrorism”. Stripped from the context it could say:”
You’re right. Stripped of its context, “domestic terrorism” could mean anything or nothing. But it’s you who stripped it of context (to smear JT). That context is provided by the DOJ docs, which you consciously evaded.