Whistleblower: The DOJ Has Begun Using Counterterrorism Tools To Track "Threats" By Parents Complaining About Schoolboards

Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo

It's time to clean house in America: remove the attorney general, lay siege to the universities, abolish the teachers unions, and overturn the school boards.

I call that "a good start."

Mitch McConnell will call it "unconscionable sedition which has no place in the Republican Party."

Here's the memo directing the Counterterrorism unit to create a "threat tag" for purposes of tracking the terrorist threat of parents:

Jim Jordan wrote a letter to Merrick Garland on behalf of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, noting that Merrick Garland's previous sworn testimony now seems, erm, "incomplete," given that he said that there was no thought whatsoever that this could ever happen.

So, Merrick Garland testified, under oath, that there was no intention to use any counterterrorism resources against parents.

They're doing just that.

He also claimed that there was no chance whatsoever they would use FBI resources to target speech.

Now, Garland would claim "We're not targeting speech, we're targeting threats.." The trouble with that claim is that all of the complaints forwarded by the National School Board Association were in fact just speech. The father who got dragged out of the school board made no threats; he was just complaining angrily, and the school board ordered him to leave, and sicced the cops on him when he did not respect their Authoritah.

So the whole genesis of this is school boards objecting to parents' speech, and being angry that parents are objecting to their political agendas, and recasting this as "threats." Which is now the default tactic of the left.

A US Attorney working for Garland prepared a memo instructing his staff that that repeated complaints delivered via phone to school board members could constitute "threats" and be prosecuted as terroristic crimes.

1, repeated annoying phone calls would not be threats, they would be, at most, "harassment," not threats, and 2, that is a state concern, not a federal concern, and 3, I'm pretty sure that government officials cannot shield themselves from the complaints of the people they allegedly serve by the harassment laws. You can't both "serve the public" and also say "the public which objects to my performance has no right to contact me to complain."

But Merrick Garland says, "We're not targeting speech, we're targeting threats."

Sure.

Do you even know the difference anymore?

Oh I know: Speech is what the left does when it burns down a shopping mall, threats are what the right makes when they use an fire extinguisher to put the fires out.

And what about that part about not deploying counterterrorism resources against parents?

Consider them deployed!

How long before Chief Ball-Fondler of the Deep State Andy McCarthy counsels us that this is all perfectly normal and that his Very Good Friend Merrick Garland has only the most pure of intentions?

posted by Ace at 05:20 PM

| Access Comments