LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Honestly, people need to step back for a minute under the veil of ignorance and consider how you would view this letter if you did not know the presidential administration it came from. If it was from Trump and the issue-du-jour was BLM protests at school boards to change the history curriculum? Everyone would be FREAKING THE F OUT about "fascism."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And, Garland attributed his rationale for writing the memo to this letter.

Exactly.

Since two of you apparently believe this, can you provide a citation which demonstrates Garland providing that rationale? His memo does not mention the letter.

Jeff wading in way above your pay grade. These are LOCAL issues - hyper local. Generally there is no FEDERAL jurisdiction for a verbal threat. It's a state or local issue. The FEDS weighing in on this suggests that they see an area for federal jurisdiction. Maybe there are more statutes that could apply, but to my knowledge, "domestic terrorism" would be the main route for Federal jurisdiction.

I'm a die-hard Democrat, but the letter from Garland is disturbing. School boards (as evidenced by other conversations on DCUM) are the essence of local democracy, some of the places we get closest to actual direct democracy in the US. When the Feds get involved in this kind of hyper-local democracy at the same time that very political issues are being argued on that stage (CRT, gender issues, pandemic response) that absolutely, without a doubt, raises questions about chilling free speech.

LOL. Exactly what is your pay grade? What a comical way to tell me that I am not allowed to express an opinion while at the same time complaining about chilling free speech. What about the pay grades of those disrupting school board meetings?

I doubt that you have actually read Garland's memo. The memo confirms that spirited policy debate is protected under the constitution. In addition, the primary thrust of the memo is to initiate coordination with local law enforcement. Sadly, in some cases, local law enforcement fails to take threats to elected leaders seriously (see the post just above yours that says the Loudoun County Sheriff will no longer provide security at school board meetings).

Finally, have you considered the chilling effect to free speech created by threats and intimidation?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Oh come on Jeff. Any of us who have been in DC for a hot minute know that the NBSA letter influenced the Garland memo including the "creative" extension of the Patriot Act.

It is interesting to see the goal posts move in this discussion. The first argument was that Garland called parents "terrorists". When I pointed out that this was not true, the argument "evolved" to "The NSBA letter was Garland's rationale for his memo". When I disputed this, you again moved the goal posts to "the letter influenced Garland". That point doesn't even dispute my post which says that the letter caused the DOJ to survey public information sources for threats and intimidation against school board members. To that extent, the letter influenced Garland but that does not mean that it was the "rationale" of his memo. The rationale of his memo was the existence of a significant number of threats and physical intimidation. Are you really arguing that Garland should turn a blind eye to such threats to elected officials?

Also, the Garland memo says nothing about the Patriot Act. You are again confusing Fox News talking points with reality.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, people need to step back for a minute under the veil of ignorance and consider how you would view this letter if you did not know the presidential administration it came from. If it was from Trump and the issue-du-jour was BLM protests at school boards to change the history curriculum? Everyone would be FREAKING THE F OUT about "fascism."

You have posted three consecutive posts demonstrating your own ignorance so taking your own advice would be a good first step. Do you not realize that Trump went much further than simply asking the FBI to coordinate with local authorities? Trump empowered federal agents -- often deployed without visible identification -- to work at the local level against BLM protesters. I myself encountered men in military-style uniforms with no identification blocking city streets in DC. They would not say what organization they were with or what authority they had to close streets. There were federal officers in unmarked vehicles literally grabbing people off the street in Portland:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

Rather than immersing yourself in right-wing talking points, just take a moment to think seriously. All Garland did was acknowledge that there has been a spike in intimidation and threats of violence against people associated with running schools and ask the FBI to coordinate with local law enforcement to develop strategies to counter such threats.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And, Garland attributed his rationale for writing the memo to this letter.

Exactly.

Since two of you apparently believe this, can you provide a citation which demonstrates Garland providing that rationale? His memo does not mention the letter.

Jeff wading in way above your pay grade. These are LOCAL issues - hyper local. Generally there is no FEDERAL jurisdiction for a verbal threat. It's a state or local issue. The FEDS weighing in on this suggests that they see an area for federal jurisdiction. Maybe there are more statutes that could apply, but to my knowledge, "domestic terrorism" would be the main route for Federal jurisdiction.

I'm a die-hard Democrat, but the letter from Garland is disturbing. School boards (as evidenced by other conversations on DCUM) are the essence of local democracy, some of the places we get closest to actual direct democracy in the US. When the Feds get involved in this kind of hyper-local democracy at the same time that very political issues are being argued on that stage (CRT, gender issues, pandemic response) that absolutely, without a doubt, raises questions about chilling free speech.

LOL. Exactly what is your pay grade? What a comical way to tell me that I am not allowed to express an opinion while at the same time complaining about chilling free speech. What about the pay grades of those disrupting school board meetings?

I doubt that you have actually read Garland's memo. The memo confirms that spirited policy debate is protected under the constitution. In addition, the primary thrust of the memo is to initiate coordination with local law enforcement. Sadly, in some cases, local law enforcement fails to take threats to elected leaders seriously (see the post just above yours that says the Loudoun County Sheriff will no longer provide security at school board meetings).

Finally, have you considered the chilling effect to free speech created by threats and intimidation?

The fact that you're comparing the federal government intervention into hyper-local venues and private actors tells me all I need to know about what you understand about the First Amendment. You can express whatever opinion you want, but the fact is, the Attorney General weighing in on a matter of local jurisdiction like this so intimately tied to free speech like this carries a heavy implication that it is due to the content of the speech, not the threats.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, people need to step back for a minute under the veil of ignorance and consider how you would view this letter if you did not know the presidential administration it came from. If it was from Trump and the issue-du-jour was BLM protests at school boards to change the history curriculum? Everyone would be FREAKING THE F OUT about "fascism."

You have posted three consecutive posts demonstrating your own ignorance so taking your own advice would be a good first step. Do you not realize that Trump went much further than simply asking the FBI to coordinate with local authorities? Trump empowered federal agents -- often deployed without visible identification -- to work at the local level against BLM protesters. I myself encountered men in military-style uniforms with no identification blocking city streets in DC. They would not say what organization they were with or what authority they had to close streets. There were federal officers in unmarked vehicles literally grabbing people off the street in Portland:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

Rather than immersing yourself in right-wing talking points, just take a moment to think seriously. All Garland did was acknowledge that there has been a spike in intimidation and threats of violence against people associated with running schools and ask the FBI to coordinate with local law enforcement to develop strategies to counter such threats.

That's not "all he did." You have no understanding of how DC works and the significance and political meaning of a top-down letter like that from the Attorney General commenting on an issue of local governance. If the Trump AG did this people would (rightfully) have been apoplectic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you're comparing the federal government intervention into hyper-local venues and private actors tells me all I need to know about what you understand about the First Amendment. You can express whatever opinion you want, but the fact is, the Attorney General weighing in on a matter of local jurisdiction like this so intimately tied to free speech like this carries a heavy implication that it is due to the content of the speech, not the threats.

The fact that you consider threats of violence to be "free speech" tells me all I need to know about your views of the First Amendment.

Your argument is very familiar to anyone who has studied the civil rights struggle. Local law enforcement failed to protect those who struggled for civil rights and many died as a result. When the federal government stepped in, the same jurisdictional complaints that you are making were common.

You support those who use threats and intimidation against elected officials. Don't try hiding behind the First Amendment.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, people need to step back for a minute under the veil of ignorance and consider how you would view this letter if you did not know the presidential administration it came from. If it was from Trump and the issue-du-jour was BLM protests at school boards to change the history curriculum? Everyone would be FREAKING THE F OUT about "fascism."

You have posted three consecutive posts demonstrating your own ignorance so taking your own advice would be a good first step. Do you not realize that Trump went much further than simply asking the FBI to coordinate with local authorities? Trump empowered federal agents -- often deployed without visible identification -- to work at the local level against BLM protesters. I myself encountered men in military-style uniforms with no identification blocking city streets in DC. They would not say what organization they were with or what authority they had to close streets. There were federal officers in unmarked vehicles literally grabbing people off the street in Portland:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

Rather than immersing yourself in right-wing talking points, just take a moment to think seriously. All Garland did was acknowledge that there has been a spike in intimidation and threats of violence against people associated with running schools and ask the FBI to coordinate with local law enforcement to develop strategies to counter such threats.

That's not "all he did." You have no understanding of how DC works and the significance and political meaning of a top-down letter like that from the Attorney General commenting on an issue of local governance. If the Trump AG did this people would (rightfully) have been apoplectic.

It would be nice if you would elevate your argument to something more substantive than "you are stupid and don't understand anything and Trump blah, blah, blah".

For instance, please tell us what else he did with citations supporting your claims. As I mentioned above, Trump's AG did much worse.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you're comparing the federal government intervention into hyper-local venues and private actors tells me all I need to know about what you understand about the First Amendment. You can express whatever opinion you want, but the fact is, the Attorney General weighing in on a matter of local jurisdiction like this so intimately tied to free speech like this carries a heavy implication that it is due to the content of the speech, not the threats.

The fact that you consider threats of violence to be "free speech" tells me all I need to know about your views of the First Amendment.

Your argument is very familiar to anyone who has studied the civil rights struggle. Local law enforcement failed to protect those who struggled for civil rights and many died as a result. When the federal government stepped in, the same jurisdictional complaints that you are making were common.

You support those who use threats and intimidation against elected officials. Don't try hiding behind the First Amendment.

Except the current status is NOTHING LIKE civil rights in the 50s and 60s. Come on. Borrowing the mantel of civil rights here is just gross. Claiming that what's going on at school boards is equivalent to then and requires the FBI and US marshals is just delusional. The heavy implication is that the AG letter was spurred by content-based concerns. But yeah, let's see how you like it when Trump II sends FBI agents to school board meeting where BLM is protesting.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, people need to step back for a minute under the veil of ignorance and consider how you would view this letter if you did not know the presidential administration it came from. If it was from Trump and the issue-du-jour was BLM protests at school boards to change the history curriculum? Everyone would be FREAKING THE F OUT about "fascism."

You have posted three consecutive posts demonstrating your own ignorance so taking your own advice would be a good first step. Do you not realize that Trump went much further than simply asking the FBI to coordinate with local authorities? Trump empowered federal agents -- often deployed without visible identification -- to work at the local level against BLM protesters. I myself encountered men in military-style uniforms with no identification blocking city streets in DC. They would not say what organization they were with or what authority they had to close streets. There were federal officers in unmarked vehicles literally grabbing people off the street in Portland:

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

Rather than immersing yourself in right-wing talking points, just take a moment to think seriously. All Garland did was acknowledge that there has been a spike in intimidation and threats of violence against people associated with running schools and ask the FBI to coordinate with local law enforcement to develop strategies to counter such threats.

That's not "all he did." You have no understanding of how DC works and the significance and political meaning of a top-down letter like that from the Attorney General commenting on an issue of local governance. If the Trump AG did this people would (rightfully) have been apoplectic.

It would be nice if you would elevate your argument to something more substantive than "you are stupid and don't understand anything and Trump blah, blah, blah".

For instance, please tell us what else he did with citations supporting your claims. As I mentioned above, Trump's AG did much worse.

Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you're comparing the federal government intervention into hyper-local venues and private actors tells me all I need to know about what you understand about the First Amendment. You can express whatever opinion you want, but the fact is, the Attorney General weighing in on a matter of local jurisdiction like this so intimately tied to free speech like this carries a heavy implication that it is due to the content of the speech, not the threats.

The fact that you consider threats of violence to be "free speech" tells me all I need to know about your views of the First Amendment.

Your argument is very familiar to anyone who has studied the civil rights struggle. Local law enforcement failed to protect those who struggled for civil rights and many died as a result. When the federal government stepped in, the same jurisdictional complaints that you are making were common.

You support those who use threats and intimidation against elected officials. Don't try hiding behind the First Amendment.

Except the current status is NOTHING LIKE civil rights in the 50s and 60s. Come on. Borrowing the mantel of civil rights here is just gross. Claiming that what's going on at school boards is equivalent to then and requires the FBI and US marshals is just delusional. The heavy implication is that the AG letter was spurred by content-based concerns. But yeah, let's see how you like it when Trump II sends FBI agents to school board meeting where BLM is protesting.

During the civil rights struggle, threats and violence were used to prevent progress towards racial equality. Today, threats and violence are used to prevent schools from teaching about racial inequity and to obstruct the introduction of policies aimed at equality for transgender students. Sounds like there is a bit in common to me.

As you know, because you are an expert in all things whether they are documented or not, Garland is not sending FBI agents to school board meetings. Trump, of course, did send federal agents all over the country to arrest people. Strangely, you are quite silent about that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

TLDR, you can't support anything you say but we should just believe it because you use big words.

The content of Garland's memo is that threats and intimidation of elected officials is not acceptable and the FBI will meet with local law enforcement to coordinate a response. Sadly, you are siding with those making the threats.

[Anonymous]

LoCo parents to all you limousine liberals:

"It takes a considerable lack of soul to look parents concerned for their children’s bodily safety in the eye, and shrug them off as some contrived electoral tactic."

And by bodily safety, we mean the rape of our daughters. But yes, it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

You won't like the source, but evidently WaPo is okay, so maybe we should just be able to quote sources without shooting the messenger.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/28/dear-nbc-if-anyone-created-virginia-outrage-it-was-radical-school-boards/?fbclid=IwAR0F5HYCRq7HyETwMykAdnGlJ6KTckevTFMcNg6FJ_Wbi6PTJ0qJOnMcwOY

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

TLDR, you can't support anything you say but we should just believe it because you use big words.

The content of Garland's memo is that threats and intimidation of elected officials is not acceptable and the FBI will meet with local law enforcement to coordinate a response. Sadly, you are siding with those making the threats.

All I have to say is, I hope you reflect on this when Youngkin wins on Tuesday. The day cannot come quickly enough for Democrats to grow up and realize they need to stop chasing social media trends and figure out what voters want and understand the blow-back of decayed 1st Amendment rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah no Jeff I'm not falling for your "where is it in the citation game." Because, as anyone who actually follows history, law and politics knows., there's a lot more to the situation than word-for-word citations. When I introduce other areas of extrinsic knowledge you just discount or debate them, or say "it's not in the citation so it's not relevant."

We're not arguing about the words in the Garland letter. We're arguing about the context.

TLDR, you can't support anything you say but we should just believe it because you use big words.

The content of Garland's memo is that threats and intimidation of elected officials is not acceptable and the FBI will meet with local law enforcement to coordinate a response. Sadly, you are siding with those making the threats.

All I have to say is, I hope you reflect on this when Youngkin wins on Tuesday. The day cannot come quickly enough for Democrats to grow up and realize they need to stop chasing social media trends and figure out what voters want and understand the blow-back of decayed 1st Amendment rights.

It shouldn't have been a close race. But the local SBs collectively made it one.